Dan,
What atheists and genuine christians demand is a smidgen of honesty.

I have found no creationist book that wasn't utter rubbish, insulting not just to the audience but to the writer for writing it.

Like you, their *best* attempt is selective quoting.

Many such have been published by organisations of which Wieland was an employee.

Are you seriously suggesting they might be other than an abuse of the analytical limitations of children and the non-technical?

Wieland's works have been well dissected by Plimer, Jones and others, I have seen no indication that they have improved.

Are your own standards as low?

Rusty

ol/rustry/quote<<..demand/a smidgen of honesty.>>
i would say...you wouldnt/know..it
if you fell...over it

take your next...lol..authoritive...lol...re-direction
in lue of facts

<<I have/found...[lol]..<<no creationist-book...that wasn't..utter rubbish,>>>and as you..have read-them all..lol..
this statement..[in lue of facts]...
is a ploy..at re-directing

<<insulting..not/just to the audience..
but to the writer..for writing it>>...

its not even spin..but bold...deciete
name..the few..you may know-of
or name..those in your referance..libery

thing is we/can only..take your/word
and your clear..lack of detail...from your previous-posts
we know..its just face-saving..one..yet-again..professing.deceptivly

then-you..hop-on..to your hobby-horse..[again in lue..of fact]

<<Like you,..their..*best*-attempt..is selective quoting.>>
but not you...your such..a god..[in your own eyes]
you gave/up..learning..long-ago

a perfect/egsample..of the peer-age
who think they are better..than mere/mortals

its not...difi-cult
to catch-on to your real..adgenda

<<Are you seriously-suggesting..they might-be
other than an/abuse..of the analytical-limitations/of children
and the non-technical?>>yes i am

but as you do
lets have your evidence

oh..but there...is where you constitantly..fail to perform
cause other than a loyal-herd..of students
and breeding..a few bacteria
you-got/nothing

you may have read?...lol<<Plimer,Jones and others>>
but some-how i doudt..even that,...at best..they could only..SELECTIVLY..quote..the weak/points..they think to rebut

usually only be muddying the water
or giving micro-evolution..reeasoning..for macro-affect

we can agree..on the method
<<I have seen/no..indication..that they have improved>>
differing only in the person-ages.

its is sad..the best quote has to come from you
[cause its off topic]..but use it regardless

<<Are your own/standards..as low?>>

no ned to reply..cause i know you cant reply...with..facts
because you realise..any fact,..you give..applies only to micro-evolution..[within..its genus]..

and then ..not via your own research..
or even your own hand

your a sad/case...matey
as rusty..as your name..reveals

it is/a relief..that you wouldnt even qualify
as a student..in this day/age

the age...of professing..deception
soon comes to an end

pro-fessing-peers...bah
a dime-a dozen...[in hell]

yes..there is..a hell
and its/full..of them
professing..

flat-earth/type...wind/
science..by rote

Dear david f,

These are some interesting points you raise.

>>We would have quite a different society if …<<
I agree. I only meant to say that there is no way to determine (“in a laboratory”) WHAT KIND OF a different society would arise. Yes, we can only speculate, but also these speculations become more and more fantastic the further we move up in history from the event one changed, removed or substituted; and we are about 1700 years away from Constantine (or Theodosius if you like). Everybody is horrified “speculating” about what would have happened immediately after Hitler’s eventual victory in WWII; nobody is very much interested in speculating how the world would look 1700 years after he had won.

Perhaps this is something like replacing the behavior of the “history function” - that you know only up to the point where you fictitiously changed its behavior - by that of its tangent line at that point: the further away into the future the worse the approximation of the unknown actual behaviour by the extrapolated behaviour along the tangent line of your speculations.

>> Gould regards evolution as a matter of contingency.<<
The same Jacques Monod in his Chance and Necessity. I know Monod would not agree, but sometimes I wonder whether rather than pure contingency the interaction or complementarity of chance and necessity is an important aspect of our understanding of reality, perhaps not unlike the wave-particle duality. Or if one subscribes to the Copenhagen interpretation of micro and macro worlds, one could see the one where “chance” the other where “necessity” govern.

Hi George,

The thing with Constantine ans Theodosius is they were a means to a significant historical ends and were very powerful. Had they backed Sol Invicas and dropped Jesus, history would be different to the extent change was enforced on a populous. Before, Constantine, males where more reluctant to be Christians than women, because it curtailed social advancement. The popular account of Constantine being influenced on Christianity by his mother is unprovable, but consistent with the times. Leaders, especially in ancient times had enormous power of the masses.

Of course, alternative history scenarios are speculative; yet, any minor religion would have had a tough time against Theodosius' favourite. That I posit is a minor spectulation, no matter what direction it took Rome into against the Germanic tribes in the future.

Hello again George,

The posit of history splitting to multiple realities would present challenges to the Christian religion. If in another reality George is a sceptic and Oliver a practising Catholic, what would be the implications be for free will and the nature of the soul?

Hi David,

You suggest an interesting theme to your novel. Some months ago, I read a spectulation that had Alexander lived longer, he may have supplanted the autonomous nature of the Greek city-states with a more unified entity, having implications regarding the emergence Rome.

oliver/quote...<<..splitting to multiple-realities..would present challenges..to the Christian religion.>>>

not quite..oliver..it has had them since..way before science..stumbled onto the topic

people just fail to grasp
the egsacting..workings..of these alternate..dimentions

they are bleeding/obvious..more will be given
here we sort..the sheep from the goats
here we sort the tares,,from the wheat

then in the next realms..di-mentions
you get the sheep with the sheep
the goats in heaven

the tares..in hell
anmd the wheat..gets a treat

<<If in another/reality..George is a sceptic and Oliver a practising Catholic,>>>dream-on..mate

you dismiss the obvious..learning..we each got from our parents
making us the persons we are...if george/oliver..didnt have the SAME parents..they couldnt be george/oliver

this alternate reality/thing can get complicated
but our TRUE-nature..is unchangable

thus god has different rooms/realm/dimentions
for each-type

<<what would be the implications/be for free will>>
it needs to be free
it must be will

the only thing that CAN change is our way of thinking
not how we think...thats built-in...good seeks to do good
vile seks to do vile
the ignorant..will still be ignorant

<<and the nature/of the soul?>>.as i have revealed..many times

our soul=our physical..ego..self..
the me in we
the u...in us

it is nothing more than our aether/body..astral-body
it contains our living-spirit...in the next astral/realm

once we work through...this lifes uncertainties
we get a new body..of light..
[for those..loving to serve neighbour/others/good]

or an..even more/gross-body..of the beast
according to our loves/hates..fears biases
for those living/loving the vile

in the hell we selected,..by our works
[both..here..and in the astral-realm]

ok jesus uses..many-rooms..
in mine fathers house

science uses the words..
extra dimentions

but mate..see its same/same
love is all we need..[to do]

love god..by loving neighbour