Mark Egger wrote:

snip

> is rather a fairly typical example of creationist drivel, employing a
> combination of distorted half-truths, quotations out of context, and
> extremely twisted reasoning in an attemt to support a position that is

> scientifically and logically untenable.

Why is it, that when the creationist suggest a different view, it is
responded to with infamatory remarks?

> if
> the universe is not ancient, God sure went to a lot of effort to make
it
> appear that way!

God does not know the meaning of effort, in the sense of Him exercising
His
will. It required NO effort to create the whole universe and make it
appear as old as he wanted it to be.

> By the way, THANK YOU to Tom Cotner for his post summarizing Padian's
> lecture

This is what I mean--it is perfectly all right for a evolutionist to
post
information on tweeters about evolution, but it appears that the
creationist is
supposed to keep quiet.

Based on the very negative responses I have recieved just for suggesting
some books to read, (which is no different then Tom Cotners post) makes
me wonder what would happen if I would have went into any of the details
of creation.

>Finally, I would suggest to creationist Tweets that we stick to the
TOPIC
>of our group,

Oh I see--the suggestion is directed only to creationist Tweets.

>maybe the one thing we have in common and on which we can agree -- that
birding
is a worthwhile past-time!

Right on! We have not met a birder we have not liked. Every one has been
friendly and helpful in our quest to see MORE LIFERS? :-)

In closing, let me suggest that any more replies be directed to me
privately--I am tough and can take it--I was in the Marine Corps. :-)

Good birding to both sides of the issue.

Jerry Converse
Grand Coulee, WA