From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Robert Bales Is Back!
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Aug 21 1992
Date: 15 Sep 92  10:51:50

Tag: Robert Bales
 
Hi. Welcome back. Again. And again. And again.
 
In article <6903@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM
(Robert W Bales) wrote
 
RWB> "Once again, I have taken far longer to complete a response
RWB> than I *ever* thought it would. I wish it hadn't taken so
RWB> long. However, I'm continuing the discussion even after
RWB> the long interval for several reasons: The issues are
RWB> important."
 
You still have yet to reply to queries made almost two years
ago. I would STILL like to see the much quested for, but never
discovered, Theory of Creationism. I would still like to hear
what the evidence for Creationism is, how Creationism explains
observations better than Evolution, how Creationism is falsified,
and how Creationism would be taught if the Creationists had their
way and "Creation Science" were taught in public schools. What
predictions has Creation Theory made ipso facto that were later
varified as valid? And future predictions?
 
Last time I asked, you were kind enough to reply with "I'll get
back to you." You have no obligation to reply to anyone, of
course, but I am still waiting.
 
Robert, you appear to be a nice guy. How about making a few of us
folks, who are ignorant on Creationism, warm and happy by actually
addressing these few meager questions? Or will you just dissapear
again?
 
I will consider "Creation Science" as a possibility, if only a
Creationist could TELL ME WHAT IT IS. Like maybe DEFINE IT. You
have said that Creationists "stand by" the theory---- just what
is this theory they/you stand by? My observation is that Creationism
is a verdict frantically looking for evidence, and not finding it.
 
(A note: answering any of these questions with "Well, evolution
cannot explain this, so Creationism is obviously correct," i.e.
following the ICR party-line propaganda, will not suffice.)
 
Some reasons why Creationists, and particularly "Creation Scientists,"
refuse to define Creation Theory, is because:
 
  1) they don't have a theory. Still they demand it be taught in
  public schools with "equal time." This is like teaching someone
  how to ride a bicycle without the bicycle being invented yet.
 
  2) if they somehow DID come up with a theory, they know that it
  cannot stand up to rational inquiry, so they keep silent. Better
  to assert loud and long that they have a "scientific" theory and
  then not reveal it, than to reveal their "theory" and have it
  demonstrated wrong.
 
  3) creationism is a religious (i.e. occult) belief, based in part
  upon faith and ignorance. It is also based upon arrogance, where
  the True Believer desperately needs to feel special in their Gods'
  eyes and their cult's pecking order, and less like the animal
  she/he, like every other human being, in fact is.
 
RWB> "In the past, despite similar lapses, I think the discussions
RWB> have proceeded well. I believe I include enough background to
RWB> make each article understanable, to a large degree, to those
RWB> who don't remember or didn't see the previous material."
 
But those articles invariably lack content; it's all fluff, with
no hard evidence, and a great deal of unsupported assertions. I
guess I could ask the AS/400 here (where this newsgroup is stored)
to pull up some of your articles and show you what I mean, but what
will it get me? You'll just dissapear again.
Newsgroups: talk.origins