rjv@ihdev.UUCP (ron vaughn) (05/31/85)
/* i tried sending this once, but it didn't seem to make it.
sorry if a duplicate
*/
will the wonders of the net ever cease??? here it is, a late sunday
evening on a holiday weekend. in between semesters, and no crushing
deadlines at work. ahhhhh, time to relax and do nothing......
and what better way to do nothing than to put on a good CD, pour a
fresh glass of tea, and go adventure hunting in the net. no, no,
not the normal groups i read all the time. i love to go into a completely
new group and spend 2-3 hours reading everything on the machine in the
group. it's really fun, you see patterns of arguments, patterns of
topics and on and on. you get two or three months of exchange crammed
into two or three hours. try it sometime with a group you're not
familiar with.
so, what the hell is this guy rambling about, you're probably asking
yourself? (if you haven't skipped out already!) i'll be honest, i've
been on the net for a few years, and i have my set of groups i read. i
never even gave origins a thought. (get ready to laugh) i thought
origins was a place where people....well, figured out THEIR origins,
"i'm half spanish, my last name is carlos, does anyone know of the family
tree in northern mexico..." or something like that. pretty silly, huh?
so it's a wonderful rainy night, the CD is at the good part of the CD
(eagles, "lyin' eyes"), and the sun tea is just right. why not
check out net.origins, see what these people do for kicks??
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU PEOPLE DOING???
it took me about three articles to finally say "oh my god, you have GOT to be
kidding!" stop the CD. pour bourbon in the tea. hold the lightning.
these.....adults are sitting here trying to convince each other about
their beliefs of the origin of the earth, which leads to creationism
vs good ol' science, evolution vs adam&eve etc. etc.
it's almost like i opened a door to a room and saw a bunch of people
(many i know, e.g. arndt and i are ol' flaming buddies -- we hate each other
in a nice sort of way) engaging in a pie throwing contest. grown people
with a pie in each hand standing on opposite sides of the room. each
pie launched comes with a yell:
- read GENESIS!!! you'll fry in hell you atheist commie!
- oh yea?!? darwin disproved you before you were born!!
- my butt! some scientist in england showed that making life isn't
tough, it's *real* tough, so god did it. therefore you're wrong.
- you're full of it. a scientist in arizona found a bone that disproved
everything the scientist in england did, so YOUR wrong.
/* n.b. neither of the last two pie tossers know shit from shinola about
what either (unnamed) scientist did, they're both computer jocks with
a passion for arguing and pop science - rjv
*/
- you don't believe in MY god, so you are wrong. you call yourself
a christian?
- being a christian doesn't mean you become brain dead, now does it??
- here, look at these 459 obscure quotes and references that prove
i'm right.
- what about my 692 obscure quotes that prove I'M right, huh? huh???
- so what. we asked a scientist to tell us EXACTLY how every step
of evolution works from the first living cell to modern man,
and he COULDN'T. he said "I CAN NOT". ha. ha-ha!!! see,
see, you can't prove anything.
- you call that evidence? why should my son go to a geology class
in high school and study 2 million year old rocks from
8:30-9:20, then from 9:30-10:20 learn the earth is 6000 years
old?? huh? does that make sense?? can you pull your head out
and see your are wrong? it goes against everything in the
book. are we supposed to throw everything else away and
bow down to this unproven pile of... of... speculation??
- well listen here, bucko, maybe if we did throw everything away and
started over we'd be better off!
- sure, sure get off the topic. look, we're using computers, right?
and some computers are round to make the wire connections
shorter, because of speed of light limitations on electrons
traveling, right? 186,000mps and all??
- what the hell does that have to do with you being wrong about
that popycock called evolution??
- well, if you accept the speed of light, then that coupled with the
fact we now receive light from stars XXXXX million light years
away means they've been around at LEAST!!! XXXXX million years.
argue your way out of that one, christianoid.
/* all pie throwing stops. hmmmmmm this is a tough one. rjv */
- sure, the STARS were there, the source of the light, but the earth,
the sink of the light, is only 6000 years old. ah ha!!!
/* all the creationist pie throwers stop to pat themselves on the backs,
forgetting about all the pies in their hands, and ruining each others
suits - rjv
*/
- but all of this was done in 6 days! read GENESIS!!!!!
- what if... god... made it appear as if they were XXXXX million years
away? yes. yes!, that's it, god made the stars appear
that way.
- so god built everything, planted a wonderful curiosity about life
and the universe in man, and then planted a billion booby
traps to fool us if we looked around, like false star
distances, and he buried those fossils. sure, sure, sounds
great, you idiot. like he gave us an incredible sex drive
and then tells us not to have sex until we're married????
ok, ok, enough. does any of this look familiar? seen yourself in there
anywhere??? i am NOT going to sit here and say which side i feel is
right or wrong. i simply can't believe you people actually argue over
this. ok, here's a question, has ONE person, ONE, every said. "geee,
i used to believe in XXXXXX, but your arguments have now made me
believe in YYYYYY"??? ONE?? anybody?? i mean, outside of a lot of tossed
pies, has this groups accomplished anything?? are creationist now more
sympathetic towards the others?? vice-versa? are we ever going to
see a headline:
"NETTERS FIGHT IT OUT, XXXX GROUP WINS, ISSUE NOW SETTLED"
one main theme i see in this group is a creationist comes out with his
"proof", and the evolutionist tear it to shreds. evolutionists come
up with their "proof" and the creationist deny it or call it inconclusive.
the creationist proofs are easy to tear up, they almost always lead
to a logical contradiction, and they normally go against all the other
"hard" sciences (see high school class example above).
the evolutionist proofs are easy to sluff off, they haven't fully absolutely
proven that evolution is IT, with no doubts, no fuzzy spots in the picture.
and they probably never will, but this is common in science....
so altogether this is like net.flame for lightweights, the topic is too
damn easy: from either side, the other side is easy prey. i could
tear up any creationist theory, and punch holes in the evolution theory.
so could anyone else who wast the time to type it in....
one intersting thing i noticed, creationist often put down evolution theory
evidence as inconclusive, not 'absolute proof', yet 80% of THEIR proof
in creationism has nothing to do with "proof" or evidence, but belief.
so, what does this all lead to?
ron vaughn's advice for evolutionist:
let's face it, you can show them every bone ever dug up, the won't believe
you. show them a zillion books on geology, rock formations, take them
out and show them a goddamn rock formation, point at it and say "THIS IS
A 400,000 YEAR OLD ROCK, OK??" and they won't believe you. "god made that
rock that way." and pooof, your evidence, as real and concrete as the
rock in your hand, is not submitted for speculation. you can't prove
evolution/big-bang etc. if they won't even accept simple jr. high geology
facts. just accept that fact these people are out there, but not to many
of them. joe schmoe doesn't understand or even care about evolution vs
creationism. you average 'thinking' joe schmoe does understand, and
accepts evolution as part of science, which he also accepts. the mentally
awake part of the world is on your side. your right.
ron vaughn's advice for creationist:
let's face it, you can read the bible to them every day, teach them
about christianity until you think they truly believe, but if you
show them the scriptures and they dispute it, what can you do?
you say "god created the earth, look, look right here.." and they
say "no, no, you can't take that literally" and poooof! your beliefs
mean NOTHING to them. if you don't have cold hard evidence, your
ideas are not even submitted for speculation. and it can't be
wishy-washy evidence, remember most scientist are NOT on your side.
you can't prove creationism or existence of jesus or.... anything if
the person doesn't first believe in the bible, god etc. you have to
start there first. you're treating the symptoms, not the problem.
scientific evidence for the creationism camp is far less than that
for the evolution camp. if you make christians out of them first,
THEN (and most likely ONLY then) you can show them you are right.
ron vaughn's advice to both groups:
i'm kind of ashamed of both sides of the house. you creationist are NOT
going to convince a bunch of technical, educated people (most netters are) of
your beliefs. a person is a christian or not, and you are not going to convert
someone to christianity through e-mail. the rest of your are lightweight
flamers -- picking on creationist is too easy. most of you who argue with
creationist are here just for the sport of it, but your fishing for 3 pound
bass with a 20 pound line. christians love to be martyrs, and you guys
are here to pound nails in their little individual crosses. sucker.
this group accomplishes the same thing as net.abortion: nothing.
everyone talks/yells, nobody listens. everyone is set in their ideas, and
everyone is trying to change the next guys ideas. do you people realize
this and just keep on fighting??
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
so there you have it, my impression of what all of you originer's do.
maybe i'm full of shit. maybe not. i would never read this group
regularly -- like i said, it accomplishes nothing -- but i'll watch
it for a while in case there are replies. hope you don't mind an outsider
coming in and commenting on everything, but sometimes and outside view
can shed some new light on a situation. hope this helps some....
welp, the eagles are over.... tea is down to small ice cubes.... still
a good storm going on, however. fun evening, thanks for sharing it
with me, type to you later.
"for man is stupid, phenomenally stupid..."
-- fyodor dostoevsky
ron vaughn ...!ihnp4!ihdev!rjvward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (06/01/85)
> outside of a lot of tossed > pies, has this groups accomplished anything?? This is a USENET-wide question that we had all better hope that Dan Rather never asks. Except for the technical newsgroups, most newsgroups accomplish little except to provide some enjoyment to the users. In fact this newsgroup has become one of the few that I regularly participate in. By this participation, I have increased my understanding of science in general and gained a new enthusiasm for the biological sciences. By watching science be attacked by very intelligent people with a heavy commitment to its destruction I have gained a respect for its health a vigor. By examining the paucity of arguments against science I no longer have much fear that the fundamentalists will prevail in any rational society (tho I still fear for the fate of the USofA). For me, this newsgroup has accomplished a lot - but most of all, I have enjoyed it. > so altogether this is like net.flame for lightweights, the topic is too > damn easy: from either side, the other side is easy prey. i could > tear up any creationist theory, and punch holes in the evolution theory. > so could anyone else who wast the time to type it in.... This implies that net.flames is inhabited by heavy-weights. My very infrequent veiwing of net.flames have left me with the impression that it is crammed full of people who are akin to the lightest of the net.origins light-weights (like Arndt & Hua). While I don't think that anyone in net.origins really expects to convince anyone else, there is usually a courteous willingness to hear and respond to the other side. Ad Hominum attacks are usually avoided and flames are usually directed at general groups and positions, rather that individuals (tho I have been guilty as others in the exceptions to this rule). In general, the folks in this group are a whole lot nicer than the things that inhabit net.flames. And show a lot more intelligence. > i'm kind of ashamed of both sides of the house. you creationist are NOT > going to convince a bunch of technical, educated people (most netters are) of > your beliefs. a person is a christian or not, and you are not going to convert > someone to christianity through e-mail. the rest of your are lightweight > flamers -- picking on creationist is too easy. most of you who argue with > creationist are here just for the sport of it, but your fishing for 3 pound > bass with a 20 pound line. christians love to be martyrs, and you guys > are here to pound nails in their little individual crosses. sucker. This makes me very happy that this guy has discovered net.origins so late. I hope that he is true to himself, and now abandons it. Someone who thinks that heavy duty flaming is sport is someone we don't need. Someone who sees no value in a debate unless a person's mind is changed is someone we don't need. I fear that this posting will not be the last from this clown, and that his contributions will not be positive. (I also notice that he could not resist doing the very things he criticises the rest of us for doing - his suggestions are mere parroting of things that have been said many times here) > hope you don't mind an outsider > coming in and commenting on everything, but sometimes and outside view > can shed some new light on a situation. hope this helps some.... How can there be an outsider on USENET? Is this an exclusive club? You got a Unix login, you're a member. It will not help to post more articles like this. Net.origins has started to look too much like net.politics or net.religion already. We do not need it to turn into a net.flames. I would like to see more postings from this gentleman, but not if they are on the level of his first. 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
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (06/02/85)
Occasionally it helps to get an article like this one to remind ourselves what the discussion is really all about. Actually I agree with Ron Vaughn that no one's mind is likely to be changed in all of this, but that does not mean the discussion is pointless. I personally have found it very useful in that I now know a lot more about the Creationist point of view and arguments. Since I teach astronomy, and the question of Creationism sometimes comes up, I am now much better prepared to give an adequate response to my students than I was. However, I think Ron misses an essential point when he says: > ron vaughn's advice for creationist: > > let's face it, you can read the bible to them every day, teach them > about christianity until you think they truly believe, but if you > show them the scriptures and they dispute it, what can you do? > you say "god created the earth, look, look right here.." and they > say "no, no, you can't take that literally" and poooof! your beliefs > mean NOTHING to them. if you don't have cold hard evidence, your > ideas are not even submitted for speculation. and it can't be > wishy-washy evidence, remember most scientist are NOT on your side. > you can't prove creationism or existence of jesus or.... anything if > the person doesn't first believe in the bible, god etc. you have to > start there first. you're treating the symptoms, not the problem. > scientific evidence for the creationism camp is far less than that > for the evolution camp. if you make christians out of them first, > THEN (and most likely ONLY then) you can show them you are right. > It is true that there has been quite a bit of Bible-thumping here recently, but the main thrust of the Creationist argument since the formation of net.origins has been quite different: that Creationism is just as "scientific" and independent of the Bible as evolutionism is. Much of the effort of individuals such as Paul Dubois, Paul Dubuc, Ray Miller, and Ron Kukuk, for example, has been expended, however unsuccessfully, towards this end. For tactical reasons, I suspect, the Creationists have generally been reluctant to admit that their "science" is actually religion, no matter how obvious it may seem to those of us on the outside. If Creationists would only admit what Ron sees clearly, that Creationism is nothing but religion in disguise, I think we could all go home, since the real point of Creationism is to get it taught in the public schools, and, as the courts have made abundantly clear, religion cannot be taught there. I think that Ron exaggerates the amount of flaming on this group. We do have our share on both sides, of course, but I have found net.origins, on the whole, to be quite civilized. I have a lot of respect for my Creationist friends out there in netland. -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
dfi@ihuxo.UUCP (Dan Iuster) (06/03/85)
Ron Vaughn writes : ............ > > WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU PEOPLE DOING??? > > it took me about three articles to finally say "oh my god, you have GOT to be > kidding!" stop the CD. pour bourbon in the tea. hold the lightning. > these.....adults are sitting here trying to convince each other about > their beliefs of the origin of the earth, which leads to creationism > vs good ol' science, evolution vs adam&eve etc. etc. > ............. > > ron vaughn's advice to both groups: > > i'm kind of ashamed of both sides of the house. you creationist are NOT > going to convince a bunch of technical, educated people (most netters are) of > your beliefs. a person is a christian or not, and you are not going to convert > someone to christianity through e-mail. the rest of your are lightweight > flamers -- picking on creationist is too easy. most of you who argue with > creationist are here just for the sport of it, but your fishing for 3 pound > bass with a 20 pound line. christians love to be martyrs, and you guys > are here to pound nails in their little individual crosses. sucker. > > this group accomplishes the same thing as net.abortion: nothing. > everyone talks/yells, nobody listens. everyone is set in their ideas, and > everyone is trying to change the next guys ideas. do you people realize > this and just keep on fighting?? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And you know what ? It's refreshing to see that somebody got it all figured out about this group. I agree with him 150%, and I am also curious how many others out there think the same way. Send me an "I agree" or "I disagree" answer and let's find out how many of you believe that the discussion in this group is bordering boredom and the absurd. By the way, I quoted only one small part of the article, but you may want to read the whole thing, it's worth it. -- ~~~~~~~ / \ Dan F. Iuster / - o \ ihnp4!ihuxo!dfi ( ) | ( ) AT&T Bell Laboratories \ \_/ / ih 6n-427, x2994 \_______/ "Have a nice Day"
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (06/06/85)
> ron vaughn's advice for creationist: > > let's face it, you can read the bible to them every day, teach them > about christianity until you think they truly believe, but if you > show them the scriptures and they dispute it, what can you do? > you say "god created the earth, look, look right here.." and they > say "no, no, you can't take that literally" and poooof! your beliefs > mean NOTHING to them. if you don't have cold hard evidence, your > ideas are not even submitted for speculation. > you can't prove creationism or existence of jesus or.... anything if > the person doesn't first believe in the bible, god etc. you have to > start there first. you're treating the symptoms, not the problem. > scientific evidence for the creationism camp is far less than that > for the evolution camp. if you make christians out of them first, > THEN (and most likely ONLY then) you can show them you are right. > Actually not even then! I am a Christian, and I am most certainly *not* a Creationists, and I consider the style of biblical interpretation necessary to arrive at the Creationists position to be questionable, to say the least. If you want more on this subject, ask me in net.religion.christian or some such group. (Basically I feel that the Bible is not a science text and should not be read as if it were one, which is what the Creationists do) -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
jp@lanl.ARPA (06/06/85)
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU PEOPLE DOING??? I agree. I started following this group for my son who was doing a paper for English on evolution vs. creationism. I keep thinking I should remove it from my .newsrc file but I occasionally amuse myself by dabbling in the postings. I must admit that the stuff posted by Kukuk is pretty dull. Too bad he can't stand behind it with some discussion. SO, please try to be creative in your subject headings so I can more easily guess what might be interesting to read. And, I also notice that I have a tendency to skip over articles more than 40 or 50 lines long. (I'm supposed to be working.) Jim Potter jp@lanl.arpa
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (06/07/85)
> ron vaughn's advice to both groups: >> >> i'm kind of ashamed of both sides of the house. you creationist are NOT >> going to convince a bunch of technical, educated people (most netters are) of >> your beliefs.... Do you mean 'most netters who aren't creationists'? If there are some creationists who are technical and educated, then why can't technical and educated people be convinced? >> the rest of your are lightweight >> flamers -- picking on creationist is too easy. most of you who argue with >> creationist are here just for the sport of it, but your fishing for 3 pound >> bass with a 20 pound line. christians love to be martyrs, and you guys >> are here to pound nails in their little individual crosses. sucker. And what would you call a creationist who ignores evolutionary teaching? I'd guess being ignorant depends on which side you're on. Am I right? >> this group accomplishes the same thing as net.abortion: nothing. >> everyone talks/yells, nobody listens. everyone is set in their ideas, and >> everyone is trying to change the next guys ideas. do you people realize >> this and just keep on fighting?? >And you know what ? It's refreshing to see that somebody got it all >figured out about this group. I agree with him 150%, and I am also >curious how many others out there think the same way. Send me an "I >agree" or "I disagree" answer and let's find out how many of you believe >that the discussion in this group is bordering boredom and the >absurd. By the way, I quoted only one small part of the article, >but you may want to read the whole thing, it's worth it. >Dan F. Iuster It's amazing how people know these things. Those who say that the discussion in a newsgroup accomplishes nothing and that nobody is listening ought to speak only for themselves. Of course they may be proving themselves wrong when they do: "What was it again that you weren't listening to?" :-). Why do you use your impressions of the ones who are talking to judge if anyone is listening or whether the discussion is having any effect? If the group does nothing for you, speak for yourself: unsubscribe. Do you want a company of people to agree with you so you feel better? What's the point in polling a newsgroup to ask whether the people reading that news group think it's a waste of time? Do you feel put out that some people think it's worth their time when you don't? Anyone who's reading it must have *some* reason for doing so. If they have your opinion of the merits of the discussion and haven't unsubscribed, then they have a problem. I guess ignoring controversy is one way of handling it. Let each one be the judge of whether or not it is the best for them. In all fairness, I think the self-appointed judges of the worthiness of certain newsgroups should post a list of the newsgroups they read here so we have a chance to pass judgment on whether or not they are wasting their time. Any net.tv.soaps readers out there? :-) -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd