Jump to content


Photo

Bias


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
71 replies to this topic

#21 Minnemooseus

Minnemooseus

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Duluth, Minnesota
  • Age: 56
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Duluth, Minnesota

Posted 25 July 2012 - 08:57 PM

People that think they are always "right' are very scary. Evos, Darwin, Hitler, Marx, and Stalin come to mind. Scary!


Do you think that statement is "right"? The "Evos,..." sentence sure looks like an ad hominem attack to me.

Would any of the young Earth creationists here concede that young Earthism might be wrong?

First post here. We shall see if there is a second. Maybe I'll do a "Welcome Section" topic.

Moose
  • Mike Summers likes this

#22 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 25 July 2012 - 11:06 PM

Do you think that statement is "right"? The "Evos,..." sentence sure looks like an ad hominem attack to me.

Would any of the young Earth creationists here concede that young Earthism might be wrong?

First post here. We shall see if there is a second. Maybe I'll do a "Welcome Section" topic.

Moose

Welcome to the forum :)

I'll let Mike address your issues

I'm a creationist, though I am unsure of the age. The presence of Polonium radioisotopes in granite show that granite was formed instantly, however that doesn't say when this occurred ;) (However it isn't a foregone conclusion due to the issues with radioisotope dating

#23 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 26 July 2012 - 02:47 PM

There is good reasons to doubt those "long ages", but one needs to jump over ones bias to have a serious look at this.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#24 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,110 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 26 July 2012 - 03:49 PM

Do you think that statement is "right"? The "Evos,..." sentence sure looks like an ad hominem attack to me.

Would any of the young Earth creationists here concede that young Earthism might be wrong?

First post here. We shall see if there is a second. Maybe I'll do a "Welcome Section" topic.

Moose


Of course you may choose to see it as an ad hominem attack, But it was not meant that way. In my opinion people's views do not make them any less valid or human than the rest of the 7 billion peoople on the planet..

Take Dawkins an admitted atheist, is he ad homien for infering that creationists are dilludional?.I respect his opinion though I personally blieve he is dilludional himself. He is also very creative something we all have in common. lol He created the idea there is no God but seems to believe there may be life in outer space that seems to me a contradiction.

By the way A hearty cheerful and affectionate welcome to the forum bro!. Remember the motto here is "Civil discourse on the question or origins."

What I am afraid of is some evo scientist may decide that I am not fit and then what?Posted Image

#25 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 27 July 2012 - 12:47 AM

...He created the idea there is no God but seems to believe there may be life in outer space that seems to me a contradiction. ...

You mean like in this video?

It seems many Evolutionists know there is actually a couple of fundamental problems with their story.

#26 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 27 July 2012 - 03:10 AM

You mean like in this video?

It seems many Evolutionists know there is actually a couple of fundamental problems with their story.


This merely shuffles the problem back a step, (the same with the universe generator hypothesis), he totally assumes that the other life MUST have evolved, though he has no evidence for such.... (Despite that he claims that we shouldn't believe in anything unless we have evidence of it)

#27 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 27 July 2012 - 09:19 AM

This merely shuffles the problem back a step, (the same with the universe generator hypothesis), he totally assumes that the other life MUST have evolved, though he has no evidence for such.... (Despite that he claims that we shouldn't believe in anything unless we have evidence of it)


Do you guys know who 'Minnemooseus' is? He was (perhaps still is) a moderator for the notorious Evc forum...an atheist dominated forum that treats creationists like trash. I posted there myself a few years ago and was harrassed continually by the admins and moderators for 'not answering' those that challenged my information. I was the only creationist posting at the time against about 12-15 evolutionists and as hard as I tried i could not keep up. That board is filled with mockers, blasphemers, and cheap critics who know how to intimidate, insult, and cause one to spend wasted time on trivial things.

One of my last posts there concerned the lunar recession argument that the moon could not possibly be 4.5 billion yrs old. I was hounded and mocked repeatedly by board members and mod's alike....that is, until I made it be known that the original physics for the lunar recession formula was developed by George Darwin, the son of Charles Darwin himself. Yet despite the fact that I pointed this out the blind men of Evc stubbornly clinged to the notion that the formula was developed by creationist Don Deyoung of Grace College in Indiana.

For instance, quote: "DeYoung's equation uses k as a constant. But if we can all agree (even Calypsis) that it wasn't always constant, then DeYoung's conclusion of 1.4 Billion years is wrong." Post # 219 of "The Moons, their origin, age, and recession" in their 'Big Bang and Cosmology' section. This was never corrected nor did they apologize for their error. It was Darwins' formula that made a 1.3 billion yr limit on the age of the moon and not DeYoung nor any other creationist. I haven't forgotten this. It taught me a lesson in atheist mentality about documentation. They don't care about documentation that differs with their prejudices...no matter who it comes from.


Maybe 'Minnemooseus' got bored with 'preaching to the chior' on Evc after having seen his board brow-beat all those creationists off & so he decided to come have some fun on Evolution Fairytale.Posted Image

#28 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 27 July 2012 - 09:34 AM

Do you guys know who 'Minnemooseus' is? He was (perhaps still is) a moderator for the notorious Evc forum...an atheist dominated forum that treats creationists like trash. I posted there myself a few years ago and was harrassed continually by the admins and moderators for 'not answering' those that challenged my information. I was the only creationist posting at the time against about 12-15 evolutionists and as hard as I tried i could not keep up. That board is filled with mockers, blasphemers, and cheap critics who know how to intimidate, insult, and cause one to spend wasted time on trivial things.

One of my last posts there concerned the lunar recession argument that the moon could not possibly be 4.5 billion yrs old. I was hounded and mocked repeatedly by board members and mod's alike....that is, until I made it be known that the original physics for the lunar recession formula was developed by George Darwin, the son of Charles Darwin himself. Yet despite the fact that I pointed this out the blind men of Evc stubbornly clinged to the notion that the formula was developed by creationist Don Deyoung of Grace College in Indiana.

For instance, quote: "DeYoung's equation uses k as a constant. But if we can all agree (even Calypsis) that it wasn't always constant, then DeYoung's conclusion of 1.4 Billion years is wrong." Post # 219 of "The Moons, their origin, age, and recession" in their 'Big Bang and Cosmology' section. This was never corrected nor did they apologize for their error. It was Darwins' formula that made a 1.3 billion yr limit on the age of the moon and not DeYoung nor any other creationist. I haven't forgotten this. It taught me a lesson in atheist mentality about documentation. They don't care about documentation that differs with their prejudices...no matter who it comes from.


Maybe 'Minnemooseus' got bored with 'preaching to the chior' on Evc after having seen his board brow-beat all those creationists off & so he decided to come have some fun on Evolution Fairytale.Posted Image


If that is so then it would be interesting. I'm not advocating payback, just that it would be interesting to see what happens when the pack mentality is gone.

Its a shame the mods themselves were hounding you, as well as demanding replies to every single comment, (I totally understand that some comments are not worth the time, like slanderous accusation... of which it seems many evolutionists feel is a valid debate "tactic"). Its actions such as these that pretty much demonstrate the mods inability to do his / her job properly, a moderator must have a clear head and not be swayed by bias, (such as this thread talks about).

I'll be sure to keep away from that forum, actually I believe that I did sign up however it wouldn't let me log on ever so I gave up on it.... Perhaps they only want to deal with one creationist at a time... two must be a handful ;)

#29 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 27 July 2012 - 10:02 AM

If that is so then it would be interesting. I'm not advocating payback, just that it would be interesting to see what happens when the pack mentality is gone.


We saw that in 'geode'. Remember him? He was the geologist from Sri Lanka who continually insisted that he was far more qualified than any of us as it concerned the 'evidence for evolution' even though we continually showed him he wasn't...with very solid documentation. The interesting thing is that I also encountered geode on imdb several years ago on a board that had virtually no rules. He was a wild man there who, along with his atheist/agnostic/theistic comrades continally insulted me and a handful of other creationists in the most vile manner. So years later, after seeing the way he behaved himself on this board where he could not freely express his rage, insults, and free wheeling attitude it was almost as if he had undergone a personality change. Birds of a feather flock together, but birds alone get their feathers plucked.

Best wishes.

P.S. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the Lord that stopped you from going aboard Evc. It's a bad place for creationists.

#30 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 27 July 2012 - 11:30 AM

We saw that in 'geode'. Remember him? He was the geologist from Sri Lanka who continually insisted that he was far more qualified than any of us as it concerned the 'evidence for evolution' even though we continually showed him he wasn't...with very solid documentation. The interesting thing is that I also encountered geode on imdb several years ago on a board that had virtually no rules. He was a wild man there who, along with his atheist/agnostic/theistic comrades continally insulted me and a handful of other creationists in the most vile manner. So years later, after seeing the way he behaved himself on this board where he could not freely express his rage, insults, and free wheeling attitude it was almost as if he had undergone a personality change. Birds of a feather flock together, but birds alone get their feathers plucked.

Best wishes.

P.S. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the Lord that stopped you from going aboard Evc. It's a bad place for creationists.


Thanks :) Perhaps, it wouldn't have been the first time I've had some form of intervention


Here is one, and I think its God's sense of humour. This occured back when I was younger and a regular church attending Christian. At a youth camp I told my youth group supervisor that I think God helps me out sometimes because sometimes I get some really lucky breaks, even with minor arbitrary things. He said I was being silly and the group of us then proceeded to play the card game "cheat".

Cheat is played where the deck is split among all the players and one starts by putting down all their aces, the next person all their 2's the next threes, etc in a circle. If you don't have the card you need, you can place any card however if someone calls you out as "cheating" or "cheat" and you are cheating then you pick up the cards already placed, if you are not cheating then the accuser picks up the cards.

Now we played 2 games and I won both games, but the crazy thing was that I didn't need to cheat once.. I had every single correct card that I needed to put down... Halfway I realised this and counted ahead and was pissing myself laughing :D It was funny since this was straight after my chat with my youth group leader.

Anyway, just a story to that God works in mysterious ways ;)


Yes I do remember Geode however I tend to keep myself to the Biology side of things, since I admit I am a layman in Geology ;)

#31 Minnemooseus

Minnemooseus

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Duluth, Minnesota
  • Age: 56
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Duluth, Minnesota

Posted 27 July 2012 - 05:42 PM

If I was trying to hide my evcforum.net connection, I wouldn't have used the same name. I would have come out on my own, but initially I wanted a lower profile.

I would love to discuss the nature of creationism vs. evolution forums, but I don't know if management desires such.

Some evcforum.net links if anyone wants to explore the Calypsis4 / Minnemooseus / Adminnemooseus story there:

The Minnemooseus topic index:
http://www.evcforum....ol=tml&mbrid=88

The Adminnemooseus topic index:
http://www.evcforum....l=tml&mbrid=473

The Calypsis4 topic index:
http://www.evcforum....=tml&mbrid=8534

There was one topic where the above 3 ID's were all most active. The " The Flood, fossils, & the geologic evidence" topic (http://www.evcforum....ol=msg&m=528878), started by Calypsis4.

Just the Calypsis4 messages of that topic (57 messages):
http://www.evcforum....&mbrid=8534&p=1 (page 1 of several pages)

Just the Minnemooseus messages of that topic (11 messages):
http://www.evcforum....on&mbrid=88&p=1

Just the Adminnemooseus messages of that topic (5 messages):
http://www.evcforum....n&mbrid=473&p=1

Cheers,

Moose

#32 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 27 July 2012 - 05:53 PM

If I was trying to hide my evcforum.net connection, I wouldn't have used the same name. I would have come out on my own, but initially I wanted a lower profile.

I would love to discuss the nature of creationism vs. evolution forums, but I don't know if management desires such.

Some evcforum.net links if anyone wants to explore the Calypsis4 / Minnemooseus / Adminnemooseus story there:

The Minnemooseus topic index:
http://www.evcforum....ol=tml&mbrid=88

The Adminnemooseus topic index:
http://www.evcforum....l=tml&mbrid=473

The Calypsis4 topic index:
http://www.evcforum....=tml&mbrid=8534

There was one topic where the above 3 ID's were all most active. The " The Flood, fossils, & the geologic evidence" topic (http://www.evcforum....ol=msg&m=528878), started by Calypsis4.

Just the Calypsis4 messages of that topic (57 messages):
http://www.evcforum....&mbrid=8534&p=1 (page 1 of several pages)

Just the Minnemooseus messages of that topic (11 messages):
http://www.evcforum....on&mbrid=88&p=1

Just the Adminnemooseus messages of that topic (5 messages):
http://www.evcforum....n&mbrid=473&p=1

Cheers,

Moose


Well, I guess that provoked a response. Whatsamatta, Moosy, did you get lonely at Evc?

#33 Minnemooseus

Minnemooseus

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Duluth, Minnesota
  • Age: 56
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Duluth, Minnesota

Posted 27 July 2012 - 06:47 PM

Whatsamatta, Moosy, did you get lonely at Evc?


Just out looking for a fresh supply of... enlightenment.

#34 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 27 July 2012 - 07:14 PM

Just out looking for a fresh supply of... enlightenment.


Right. But how can a bunch of Bible-thumping fundamentalist creationists help you with that...unless that is you are looking for
Jesus?

"Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." John 8:12

#35 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 28 July 2012 - 05:42 AM

We saw that in 'geode'. Remember him?....He was a wild man there who, along with his atheist/agnostic/theistic comrades continally insulted me and a handful of other creationists in the most vile manner. So years later, after seeing the way he behaved himself on this board where he could not freely express his rage, insults, and free wheeling attitude it was almost as if he had undergone a personality change. Birds of a feather flock together, but birds alone get their feathers plucked.
...

I am surprised to hear that. On this forum Geode was acting quite civilized, just that I am not sure what point he was trying to make sometimes. But anyway, isn't it funny how those insisting on objectivity and rationality do expose themselves as quite the opposite once they get a chance to do so.

Interesting point the Dawkins claims only to believe something when there is proof for it (which is the reason given by many atheists for their position).

There is something like the social construction of reality and that's what people do.

#36 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 28 July 2012 - 10:32 AM

Interesting point the Dawkins claims only to believe something when there is proof for it (which is the reason given by many atheists for their position).


Especially interesting when you ask for proof that God does not exist. What you get as a response is purely agnostic musings.

#37 Minnemooseus

Minnemooseus

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Duluth, Minnesota
  • Age: 56
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Duluth, Minnesota

Posted 28 July 2012 - 05:03 PM

Of course you may choose to see it as an ad hominem attack, But it was not meant that way. In my opinion people's views do not make them any less valid or human than the rest of the 7 billion peoople on the planet..


Management didn't seem to take that sort of atitude towards a "Ringo" sentence...

The desire to discover new things is characteristic of humans (exept creationists Posted Image ).


Source = http://evolutionfair...895

...which got him suspended (see following message). He didn't even try to tar creationists by lumping them with "Hitler, Marx, and Stalin".

Now I certaily recognize doing forum moderation can be quite a trick. But the creationist side does need to beware of their own biases.

Moose

ps: I wonder why Firefox spell check doesn't work here?

#38 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 28 July 2012 - 07:15 PM

Management didn't seem to take that sort of atitude towards a "Ringo" sentence...



Source = http://evolutionfair...895

...which got him suspended (see following message). He didn't even try to tar creationists by lumping them with "Hitler, Marx, and Stalin".

Now I certaily recognize doing forum moderation can be quite a trick. But the creationist side does need to beware of their own biases.

Moose

ps: I wonder why Firefox spell check doesn't work here?


Go back and reread Mike Summer's statement. Where is the Ad Hominem attack? Let me remind you that an ad hom is a statement that attacks a person's character rather than responding to their argument. He was not responding to an argument, rather saying evolutionists think they are always right, grouping them with Stalin, Hitler, and Marx, which he calls scary. I would call this stereotyping, not ad hominem.

The warning in Ringo's post was an explanation for the suspension, not a description of what was going on in that post in particular. So what was the difference between this and Ringo's post? Context. In that particular post Ringo was trolling, dodging the question posed to him and posting a stereotype of Creationists as an attempt to evoke an emotional response rather than further the discussion that I was having with him. Mike Summers shows no such intent to troll, but to discuss his point "people who think that they are always "right" are very scary. This can easily lead into a discussion that creationists can be just as scary, thus quite easily expanding the examples he provided to point out quite embarrassingly that his statement has larger implications than he originally intended.

Would it surprise you to know that Ringo is still allowed to post here? (as long as he follows the forum rules of course)

I am fully aware that everyone has bias. That is actually one of my big arguments against people suggesting that all science is objective.

If you would like to do things properly in the future, you should try using the report button for posts that you believe contain rule infractions. This time you chose to handle this situation poorly with intent to cause spectacle and challenge the wisdom of the forum moderators (me in particular) concerning past handling of infractions. You only showed your own ignorance about what happened with Ringo and earned yourself a:

WARNING: Complaining about forum moderation is against the forum rules and will not be tolerated.

#39 SomchaiA

SomchaiA

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bangkok, Thailand
  • Interests:Movies. music, science.
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 29 July 2012 - 02:31 AM

I was watching a debate between William Lane Craig and Peter Atkins and it seems to me that Atkins fully believes that he himself is not biased or has presuppositions of his own. Such s evident in his opening remarks, (which was merely a tirade of slanderous accusations, about being ignorant / lazy etc).

I pondered this and I realised that many evolutionists / atheists seem to think the same, in that they are completely unbiased with no prejudice of any kind. I am wondering on what basis can this belief be maintained, since its very basic understanding which comprehends that ALL people have their own personal bias and presuppositions. To have no bias is to claim one must be infallible which is impossible, this then leads to the incredulity of the claims that an evolutionist / atheist has no bias towards their own worldview.


(Yes I am sure not all evolutionists / atheists are like this, however it does seem to be the case with the more outspoken ones, Dawkins / Atkins etc.)





Atheist philosopher Michael Ruse stated: “People forget that it is possible to be intensely religious in the entire absence of theological belief". (Michael Ruse, Darwin and Design, p. 335)


We are all very biased in my opinion.

#40 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,110 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 29 July 2012 - 10:53 AM

Go back and reread Mike Summer's statement. Where is the Ad Hominem attack? Let me remind you that an ad hom is a statement that attacks a person's character rather than responding to their argument. He was not responding to an argument, rather saying evolutionists think they are always right, grouping them with Stalin, Hitler, and Marx, which he calls scary. I would call this stereotyping, not ad hominem.

The warning in Ringo's post was an explanation for the suspension, not a description of what was going on in that post in particular. So what was the difference between this and Ringo's post? Context. In that particular post Ringo was trolling, dodging the question posed to him and posting a stereotype of Creationists as an attempt to evoke an emotional response rather than further the discussion that I was having with him. Mike Summers shows no such intent to troll, but to discuss his point "people who think that they are always "right" are very scary. This can easily lead into a discussion that creationists can be just as scary, thus quite easily expanding the examples he provided to point out quite embarrassingly that his statement has larger implications than he originally intended.

Would it surprise you to know that Ringo is still allowed to post here? (as long as he follows the forum rules of course)

I am fully aware that everyone has bias. That is actually one of my big arguments against people suggesting that all science is objective.

If you would like to do things properly in the future, you should try using the report button for posts that you believe contain rule infractions. This time you chose to handle this situation poorly with intent to cause spectacle and challenge the wisdom of the forum moderators (me in particular) concerning past handling of infractions. You only showed your own ignorance about what happened with Ringo and earned yourself a:

WARNING: Complaining about forum moderation is against the forum rules and will not be tolerated.


Well stated. Yes, some creationists are kind of scarry to me also. Perhaps next time I can be less general. But your are totally correct. I was not condeming someone for a different opinion than mine--attacking their character..

Moose:

I list myself as one that believes in creation. I also believe that people that call themsels evolutionists are creative also. My point is; just as I created the idea that there is a God, some evolutionists equally created the idea that there is no God. I am just trying to help all of us see that we are equals..Our commonality is creativity.

I googled to see if there was a Creation Fairy tale Forum. Nothing came up. Tell you what,
if you create one, I will become a charter member just to help convince you that I mean you no harm, Friends?

All the best!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users