Hello Kim...

KF> What's the reason for your own reference to Laurie
KF> Appleton as a child molester? Are you absolutely positive
KF> in this claim, or are you doing the exact same thing you
KF> are complaining against, as well as making yourself
KF> nothing more than a slanderer, a hypocrite, and a bag of
KF> wind?

Hmmm... you sound exactly like Laurie there, did you know that? It is my opinion that teaching Creationism to children is the equivalent of child abuse... of emotional child molestation. It teaches children that lying is OK and ultimately that adults in a position of power can't be trusted to tell the truth. That warps a child just as much as sexual interference. If you like I can expand on how it does that.

>JM> This is the EVOLUTION echo. People come here to read
>JM> about and discuss evolution. They don't come here to
>JM> read thinly-disguised religious claptrap. Appleton
>JM> doesn't discuss evolution, he pushes "antievolutionism",
>JM> a religion that plays on the weak.

KF> Nor do we come here to read what appears to be
KF> outrageous and possibly damaging slander.

Then skip over any messages to or from Appleton. As for "outrageous and possibly damaging slander", what do you say to Appleton for falsely reporting science, for changing the meaning of what scientists actually say and for bearing false witness against individuals and society? This is his modus operandi and his behaviour is much more outrageous than any comment I could make about Appleton himself.

KF> Whether or not this Laurie Appleton has a justifiable
KF> argument, and whether or not he (?) has the ability to
KF> put forth his arguments in as fair a manner as you would
KF> like, he is still contributing to the flow of this forum,
KF> from what I have seen so far.

No, he isn't. What Laurie attempts to do is disrupt the flow of the echo, not contribute to it. I welcome the comments of any other Creationist if they care to post after Appleton. However, they should know that Creationism has literally NO scientific evidence to support it and that Creationist authors deliberately mislead those who seek understanding from them.

Without people like Appleton in here other Creationists probably wouldn't see how intellectually bankrupt Creationism really is, which is why it is allowed in a science echo. Since technically speaking Creationism "is bad science when it tries to be science, but mostly it isn't science at all" (Eldredge, TMB) those discussions should go to a religion echo where they'd be on topic. Instead, we get Laurie in here, although he's much more fun in HolySmoke where he can be put in his place with style.

KF> Laurie Appleton being here for yourself and others to
KF> prove wrong, you would have little to do but twiddle
KF> your thumbs (or whatever appendage it is you favour).

I have repeatedly attempted to engage Laurie on evolutionary subjects and he continues to either duck the issues or just repeat more falsehoods in hopes that someone will think he has some sort of point. If you have followed recent discussions here you know that I have been involved in and occasionally started conversations with Laurie and others that include the discovery of Protoarcheopteryx and other transitional forms, specific fossils and where and how they are found (I live in a fossil-rich area), DNA and genetic relationships, the GenBank and what it means to genetic research, an excellent discussion of atmospheric layers and how it shows the Creationists arguments about atmospheric helium "proving" a young Earth is specious and probably a dozen more topics that ARE relevant to the subject of evolution. That's hardly "twiddling appendages".

Compare that to Laurie bearing false witness against scientists like Eldredge, Asimov and Patterson, to his telling proven falsehoods about court cases and insisting that there are judicial and educational conspiracies to suppress Creationism at every turn, to his rejection of modern science in favour of Darwin and Pasteur and to his rabid support of known and already-exposed and debunked bad science.

There is a great deal to discuss about evolution so that people will have a decent grasp of how it works. I have been challenging Creationists for many years and Laurie is a special case as far as Creationists go because he doesn't appear to be rational. No matter how many times he has been corrected with restored context, with exposing his false witness and his outright lying about science over the last few years I have been engaging him he comes back with the same debunked garbage. There is very little point in correcting him anymore, so when he abuses science now he gets the abuse back.

That being said (if anyone has bothered to read this far into this message) other Creationists should not suffer the same kind of abuse if they are willing to discuss evolution and Creationism rationally. Many of us will be happy to show where Creationists are in error in their thinking. Over the years many of them have come here to post "100 reasons why evolution is wrong" or something like that only to find that their lists are nothing but bad science and false witness. We will be happy to review this again if you have such a list, and I assure you that at least my replies will be civil and educational.

John