Why I am creationist

The imaginary "quotations" from Keith and Wald are simply creationist lies: neither of them said any such thing. The quotation from Ruse is accurate but out of context --- he is arguing against attaching any religious significance to evolution, which he believes to be entirely compatible with Christianity. Oh, and he's a self-described agnostic, not an atheist.Here's a little tip for you as you wend your way through life. When you see a creationist website claiming that a "prominent Evolutionist" has affirmed a halfwitted creationist dogma, then that website is wrong, because this is not what evolutionists, prominent or otherwise, actually do.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, do tell us your views, then we won't have to guess.For example, do you believe that the Bible is inerrant? In what way? Are you denying that historically religious folk have compelled orthodoxy by the inquisition and the stake?

The fact that several different creationists have published the same libel ("with notes" even) does not add weight to it. Creationists always copy each other's junk without independently verifying it. Uh, hello, does "burden of proof" mean anything to you? It's up to you to find these imaginary words anywhere in the works of Keith and of Wald.Or you could apply your common sense. Evolutionists do not recite creationist dogma. They just don't. It is a "wild accusation", not to mention a slur on their intelligence, to suggest that two of them did recite creationist dogma. It is not in the least bit "wild" to point out that they didn't. Right, of course you want to exclude anyone who's bothered to check the facts on this issue, i.e. evolutionists.Instead you take the word of creationists, none of whom even claim to have read the original documents which they nonetheless claim to be quoting. And yet somehow I'm right and you're wrong. How did that happen?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

As usual, you are wrong. However, in this case I made the fatal mistake of assuming that what you were saying made sense, which is usually the best first interpretation of any text. If you were actually condemning as "laughable" the literal meaning of his words, i.e. that you can't send the Inquisition after him, then I would point out that you really can't send the Inquisition after him, what with you not being advanced in the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, and what with the Office of the Holy Inquisition having been disbanded for several centuries. You tell me, it's your non sequitur. I didn't ask you to take my word for anything. And yet for some reason it almost always seems to be religious fanatics who gabble out this sort of nonsense about evolution. Coincidence? If this was true, then the first people who'd spot this supposed masquerade would be scientists, don't you think? So I think I'll let scientists tell me what is and isn't science. I mean, what would you know about science? Be honest.But these people ... I think they'd know. Now, either you're better at telling what is and isn't science than they are ... or, and I strongly urge you to consider this possibility ... you're not.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I see. So they didn't go away, they just rebranded themselvesI wonder if there was ever a moment of confusion where they called themselves "cinquisition proponentists".

May I take it that your latest temper tantrum was intended as a reply to message #183 rather than #184? Only it makes even less sense as a reply to message #184. (Of course, I am here once more assuming that your statements are intended to make sense. Stop me if I'm wrong.) But that is not true, is it?I should perhaps explain to you that your words don't alter reality. Well, I guess when you've got nothing else, personal abuse will have to do. It may not be a valid argument, but I guess it makes you feel better. I can see why you'd like to have the very title of the forum be a flat lie. But you see, as dissent is in fact allowed (as you know perfectly well), and as the rantings of creationists do not in fact echo the statements of evolutionists, Percy is unlikely to accept your suggestion that he should involve himself in such a shameless untruth.