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