[net.religion] The Source of All Things

Duane Gish@cadovax.UUCP (Duane Gish) (03/28/85)

      I am amused by what you secular humanist evolutionists base your theories
on the origins of the human species on.  All you have is a bunch of bones, some
carbon and radiometric dating machines, mass spectrometers, and a flimsy book
titled "The Origin of Species".  These are nothing compared to the holy writ of
God found in the Book of Genesis.
      My theory of the origin of life on this planet is based on irrefutable
word of God himself.  One needs nothing else to base a scientific theory than
the Source of All Things.  I pray that Jesus will show you the way to the Truth
and Light before you meet the Father on the Day of Judgement.
     
-- 

		Duane Gish
		Institute for Creation Research
		San Diego, California

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (04/01/85)

> I am amused by what you secular humanist evolutionists base your theories on
> the origins of the human species on.  All you have is a bunch of bones, some
> carbon and radiometric dating machines, mass spectrometers, and a flimsy book
> titled "The Origin of Species".  These are nothing compared to the holy writ
> of God found in the Book of Genesis.  [DUANE GISH]

Uh, yeah, right.  Nothing.  I mean, YOU have the hard evidence regarding the
statements made in the book AND regarding the source of those statements, and
all the rest of the world has is the flimsy scientific method and rigid
standards for evidence that must be wrong because they exclude your evidence.
Is a smiley really necessary?

>       My theory of the origin of life on this planet is based on irrefutable
> word of God himself.  One needs nothing else to base a scientific theory than
> the Source of All Things.  I pray that Jesus will show you the way to the
> Truth and Light before you meet the Father on the Day of Judgement.

Irrefutable?  Watch me:  I refute it.  There's no basis for claiming it to
be "word of god" by any standards unless you already believe it to be so.
Pity us "godless" types don't have anyone to pray to in hopes that YOU might
be shown some common sense.  All we've got is the hope that some logic might
shine through to you.  At least Dave Brown comes clean:  he admits he believes
all this totally on "faith" (i.e., preconception), and couldn't care less
about "evidence".
-- 
"Does the body rule the mind or does the mind rule the body?  I dunno."
				Rich Rosen 	ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr

ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (04/01/85)

[]
Excellent!  Not quite as good as last year's kremvax, but excellent
nonetheless.

-- 

Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD
UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward
ARPA: hplabs!hao!ward@Berkeley
BELL: 303-497-1252
USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO  80307

garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (04/01/85)

>       I am amused by what you secular humanist evolutionists base
> your theories on the origins of the human species on.  All you have
> is a bunch of bones, some carbon and radiometric dating machines,
> mass spectrometers, and a flimsy book titled "The Origin of Species".
> These are nothing compared to the holy writ of God found in the Book
> of Genesis.
>       My theory of the origin of life on this planet is based on
> irrefutable word of God himself.  One needs nothing else to base
> a scientific theory than the Source of All Things.  I pray that
> Jesus will show you the way to the Truth and Light before you meet
> the Father on the Day of Judgement.
>      
> -- 
> 
> 		Duane Gish
> 		Institute for Creation Research
> 		San Diego, California

I think I ought to let it be known that I am going to mail
a copy of this article to Dr. Gish.  Maybe he will be amused...

Gary Samuelson
ittvax!bunker!garys

dross@rocky2.UUCP (David Ross) (04/02/85)

[ Replace this line with your message ]

Someone claiming to be the infamous :-) Duane Gish writes:

>      I am amused by what you secular humanist evolutionists base your theories
> on the origins of the human species on.  All you have is a bunch of bones, some
> carbon and radiometric dating machines, mass spectrometers, and a flimsy book
> titled "The Origin of Species".  These are nothing compared to the holy writ 
> of God found in the Book of Genesis.
>      My theory of the origin of life on this planet is based on irrefutable
> word of God himself.  One needs nothing else to base a scientific theory than
> the Source of All Things.  I pray that Jesus will show you the way to the Truth
> and Light before you meet the Father on the Day of Judgement.
     
> -- 

> 		Duane Gish
>		Institute for Creation Research
>		San Diego, California

	Now, in the seventeenth century, the Church thought that the "word
of G-d" said that the earth was fixed and at the center of the universe.
This was considered irrefutable, as Galileo found to his sorrow. I'm really 
curious as to why Mr. Gish and his fellow creationists believe that the case
for special creation is any stronger than for a geocentric universe, if the
*only* evidence is the Bible.

	The Bible's moral validity does *not* extend to science. This is not a
criticism of the Bible, only of those who try to stretch it past its limits.


	David Ross (New York University Medical Center)

	{allegra, seismo, ihnp4}!cmcl2!rocky2!dross

[]

jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (04/02/85)

Is the following April fools' day joke?  Do we have ICR and the famous Gish
contributing to net.origins?

>From ihnp4!cbosgd!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!Duane Gish Thu Mar 28 11:17:39 1985
>From: Duane Gish@cadovax.UUCP (Duane Gish)
>Newsgroups: net.origins,net.religion
>Subject: The Source of All Things
>Message-ID: <505@cadovax.UUCP>
>Date: 28 Mar 85 17:17:39 GMT
>Date-Received: 31 Mar 85 03:15:19 GMT
>Organization: Institute for Creation Research
>Lines: 17
>Xref: clyde net.origins:979 net.religion:5807
>
>      I am amused by what you secular humanist evolutionists base your theories
>on the origins of the human species on.  All you have is a bunch of bones, some
>carbon and radiometric dating machines, mass spectrometers, and a flimsy book
>titled "The Origin of Species".  These are nothing compared to the holy writ of
>God found in the Book of Genesis.
>      My theory of the origin of life on this planet is based on irrefutable
>word of God himself.  One needs nothing else to base a scientific theory than
>the Source of All Things.  I pray that Jesus will show you the way to the Truth
>and Light before you meet the Father on the Day of Judgement.
>     
>-- 
>
>		Duane Gish
>		Institute for Creation Research
>		San Diego, California
-- 

Yosi Hoshen, Bell Laboratories
Naperville, Illinois, (312)-979-7321, Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho

dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/02/85)

> []
> Excellent!  Not quite as good as last year's kremvax, but excellent
> nonetheless.

I got a flame in the mail once from vaticanvax!trinityvax ...
-- 
                                                                    |
Paul DuBois	{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--
                                                                    |
                                                                    |

sidney@faron.UUCP (Sidney Markowitz) (04/02/85)

In article <505@cadovax.UUCP> Duane Gish@cadovax.UUCP (Duane Gish) writes:


>  I am amused by what you secular humanist evolutionists base your theories on
>the origins of the human species on.  All you have is a bunch of bones, some
>carbon and radiometric dating machines, mass spectrometers, and a flimsy
>book titled "The Origin of Species".

...and atoms and molecules and photons and quarks and stars and galaxies and
telescopes and inteligence and books and journals and experiments and peer
review and debates and... But they don't count either, compared to:

>These are nothing compared to the holy writ of God found in the Book of
>Genesis.

But wait, there's more! As if that one book wasn't enough don't forget:
...Exodus and Deuteronomy and Revelations and the Vedas and the Buddha's
sutras and the book of Zoroaster and...

>  My theory of the origin of life on this planet is based on irrefutable word
>of God himself.  One needs nothing else to base a scientific theory than the
>Source of All Things.

>  I pray that Jesus will show you the way to the Truth
>and Light before you meet the Father on the Day of Judgement.

And may the Source be with you...



-- 
					Sidney Markowitz

ARPA:	sidney@mitre-bedford
UUCP:	...{allegra,decvax,genrad,ihnp4,philabs,security,utzoo}!linus!sidney

root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (04/03/85)

> > I am amused by what you secular humanist evolutionists base your theories on
> > the origins of the human species on.  All you have is a bunch of bones, some
> > carbon and radiometric dating machines, mass spectrometers.....
> 
> Uh, yeah, right.  Nothing.  I mean, YOU have the hard evidence regarding the
> statements made in the book AND regarding the source of those statements, and
> all the rest of the world has is the flimsy scientific method and rigid.....

Ease off, Rich.  This person is clearly trying to "Bait the Atheist."
The wording is almost comical... "all you have is concrete evidence whilst
we, the believers, have this here book that glows in the dark...."

When the neighbor's dog barks at me I just tell him to f__k off.
-- 


UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root	- Lord Frith
ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO

"And he made the stars, too, and the world is one of the stars"

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (04/04/85)

Here's a simple test.  The following two paragraphs are slightly rearranged
examples of articles found in Usenet newsgroups.  One of them is satirical.
The other one is not.  The object of the test is for YOU to determine which
of the two is the satirical one, and which is the actual sincere article.
You may begin:

PARAGRAPH 1:
	"All you evolutionists have is scientific data.  Those of us who
	 know God and speak to God have the real absolute truth that you
	 and your scientific method will never understand.  The knowledge
	 I have gotten directly from God tells me just how empty and wrong
	 your ridiculous theories really are.  If God didn't create us as
	 it said in the Bible, then why are we here?  What is our purpose
	 if not to serve the God who created us?  You have failed to show
	 why your empty dead and dry ideas hold even a candle to the truth
	 of God.  All the evidence you could possibly offer wouldn't sway
	 me one bit:  I have found real truth."

PARAGRAPH 2:
	"All you evolutionists have is scientific data.  Those of us who
	 know God and speak to God have the real absolute truth that you
	 and your scientific method will never understand.  The knowledge
	 I have gotten directly from God tells me just how empty and wrong
	 your ridiculous theories really are.  If God didn't create us as
	 it said in the Bible, then why are we here?  What is our purpose
	 if not to serve the God who created us?  You have failed to show
	 why your empty dead and dry ideas hold even a candle to the truth
	 of God.  All the evidence you could possibly offer wouldn't sway
	 me one bit:  I have found real truth."

The answer?  Paragraph 2 is the satirical one.  Isn't it obvious?  The
author of the second paragraph took every word of the first paragraph and
parroted it again, showing just how ridiculous it was.  Couldn't you tell
that the second author was being satirical?  I mean, the notions in the
first paragraph are so outrageous, that the second author could clearly show
how much so by simply mimicking and reiterating the words of the first author.

Confused?  OK, let's take the test again, with two new paragraphs:

PARAGRAPH 1:
	"All you evolutionists have is scientific data.  Those of us who
	 know God and speak to God have the real absolute truth that you
	 and your scientific method will never understand.  The knowledge
	 I have gotten directly from God tells me just how empty and wrong
	 your ridiculous theories really are.  If God didn't create us as
	 it said in the Bible, then why are we here?  What is our purpose
	 if not to serve the God who created us?  You have failed to show
	 why your empty dead and dry ideas hold even a candle to the truth
	 of God.  All the evidence you could possibly offer wouldn't sway
	 me one bit:  I have found real truth."

PARAGRAPH 2:
	"You heinous irreligious filth!  How dare you malign the name of God! 
	 You sinners who wouldn't know the word of God if it stepped
	 on you!  You're all going straight to hell, all you people who
	 don't know the right way from the wrong way, who do things out of
	 convenience instead of taking responsibility.  When God places
	 America in its rightful position in the world, civilization will
	 finally flourish in a truly Christian world ruled by God.  It
	 seems that no matter how correct my information may be, there
	 will always be some atheist anti-Christian there to question it
	 and try to knock it down.  Such people are limiting everyone's
	 freedom of choice with their suppression of my ideas."

The answer?  Why, Paragraph #1, of course.  Didn't you recognize it as being
exactly the same paragraph as Paragraph #2 from the previous example?  What's
that?  You thought Paragraph #2 (in this example) was the satirical one,
because it so obviously represented an exaggeration of ideals.  No, I'm
sorry, this was an actual article.  You mean, you thought that obviously
the most exaggerated and ridiculous article must be the satirical one?
On this net?  You thought that satire can be made by just exaggerating
and overemphasizing some ridiculous notions in parody format, in this
world where the most seemingly exaggerated and ridiculous ideas are the ones
genuinely held by actual people?  Excuse me, I'm in hysterics.  Sorry,
you fail HUMOROLOGY 406:  SATIRE (as taught by Doug Piranha).  Time to
go back and take HUMOROLOGY 101: ELEMENTARY THEORY OF HUMOROLOGY AND
THE COMEDIC SCIENCES.

The moral?  In a world where the most seemingly exaggerated and ridiculous
ideas ARE in fact the real ideas genuinely held by actual people, simple
reiteration of the same "ridiculous" stuff, or even exaggeration of it
beyond you're wildest dreams or nightmares, is quite likely not to be
interpreted as satire.  In fact, by the time you come up with your
supposedly satirical exaggeration, someone else may have already come up
with a sincere belief that far exceeds your exaggeration.  (On the other
hand, William Satire's (aka D. Hofstadter's) article on the English
language seemed a much clearer and much more effective example of real
satire (as posted in net.women, I think).  Now, Scott Deerwester, you know
why I had to put the satire warning label on my article on my religious
experience:  it wasn't clear that that's what it was from the text alone.
And if that's the case, that's why God invented smileys...   :-)

(P.S. HUMOROLOGY 101 may be offered later this month in net.jokes .  Stay
 tuned...)

(OK, I admit, I wasn't paying attention and I didn't even realize what
 the name of the person and his organization was as I was replying.  Do
 you honestly think I can post 50 articles a week and pay attention to
 picayune details like that? :-)
-- 
Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.
					Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr

tischler@ihlpg.UUCP (Mark D. Tischler) (04/06/85)

> 
> 
>       I am amused by what you secular humanist evolutionists base your theories
> on the origins of the human species on.  All you have is a bunch of bones, some
> carbon and radiometric dating machines, mass spectrometers, and a flimsy book
> titled "The Origin of Species".  These are nothing compared to the holy writ of
> God found in the Book of Genesis.
>       My theory of the origin of life on this planet is based on irrefutable
> word of God himself.  One needs nothing else to base a scientific theory than
> the Source of All Things.  I pray that Jesus will show you the way to the Truth
> and Light before you meet the Father on the Day of Judgement.
>      
> -- 
> 
> 		Duane Gish
> 		Institute for Creation Research
> 		San Diego, California

My first reaction to this article was:
   Oh, $%*&#(@&%, another one of these crackpots!!!!!
My second reaction came after reading the first paragraph:
   This is probably one of the best sarcastic articles I've seen in a long time.
My third reaction came at the end:
   Now, whom should I depise more, Don Black, Russell Spence, or this creep!!!
Help me, there are too many heavy decisions to be made.


P.S.  I suppose Duane Gish will tell me that Jesus could
      help me make the decision.


P.S.S.  I made a decision -- I think I'll hate them all equally for now.
-- 

			Mark Tischler
			(312) 393-7199 (home)
			(312) 979-5123 (work)
			ihnp4!ihlpg!tischler

ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (04/07/85)

[]
Since this is still obviously bothering folks very much, I think
I'll spoil the joke and spill the beans:


Hey guys.....APRIL FOOL!

garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (04/09/85)

> []
> Since this is still obviously bothering folks very much, I think
> I'll spoil the joke and spill the beans:
> 
> 
> Hey guys.....APRIL FOOL!

Oh, I recognized it as an April Fool joke -- but I didn't think
it was very funny.  And I *did* mail a copy of the article to
Dr. Gish.  I haven't heard from him yet, so I still don't know if
he will find it amusing.  And, yes, it still bothers me.

Strange -- I don't find forgery and misrepresentation funny.

Still, if Dr. Gish thinks it funny, then I won't have any
grounds for complaint.

Gary Samuelson