From Newsgroup: talk.origins

I did take mom to go see the movie today. I enjoyed it and thought they
did a good job of getting the point across. Like the books, it was
mainly just looking at the scientific evidence and the different interpretations, and how we've learned so much more in the last 100
years. I also like the fact that they concentrate on the exact same 3
things I do in deciding how to move forward interpreting scientific
evidence. The Origin of the Universe, the Fine Tuning problem, and the
Origin of Life. Everything else is just noise.
--
Science DoesnrCOt Support Darwin. Scientists Do

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On Tue, 12 May 2026 18:43:34 -0500, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:

I did take mom to go see the movie today. I enjoyed it and thought they
did a good job of getting the point across. Like the books, it was
mainly just looking at the scientific evidence and the different >interpretations, and how we've learned so much more in the last 100
years. I also like the fact that they concentrate on the exact same 3 >things I do in deciding how to move forward interpreting scientific >evidence.

Anyway, let's look at your story. According to you, we have:

The Origin of the Universe,

God did it.

the Fine Tuning problem,

God did it.

and the
Origin of Life.

God did it.

Everything else is just noise.

I thought you were a YEC. Anyway, your "story" of everything is also
God did it.

So how do your ideas inform you about anything other than you've
learned how to say "God did it"? Or along the same lines, how do you
"move forward" with your story, without just using those same three
words again and again?

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 5/12/2026 6:43 PM, sticks wrote:

I did take mom to go see the movie today.-a I enjoyed it and thought they did a good job of getting the point across.-a Like the books, it was
mainly just looking at the scientific evidence and the different interpretations, and how we've learned so much more in the last 100
years.-a I also like the fact that they concentrate on the exact same 3 things I do in deciding how to move forward interpreting scientific evidence.-a The Origin of the Universe, the Fine Tuning problem, and the Origin of Life. Everything else is just noise.

In the Book Meyers lied to the rubes by treating his god-of-the-gaps
denial as independent bits of obfuscation and denial. He did not
develop a coherent god hypothesis that would deal honestly with the gaps
that he put up. He was just fooling the rubes by telling them to look
at each gap as some interesting bit of denial of reality. God has to
fill each gap even though they do not have a clue as to how that was
done. Meyer lies to the rubes like you about his gap denial supporting
their religious beliefs in the Biblical god. The Big Bang is #1 of the
Top Six, Fine tuning is #2 of the Top Six, The origin of life is #3 of
the Top six. Meyer's own Cambrian explosion gap denial is #5 of the top
six and Behe's flagellum as a designed machine gap denial is #4 of the
top six the Scientific creationists gaps in the fossil record gap denial
is #6 of the Top Six. The Top Six do not support YEC Biblical
creationism. The designer that fills those gaps is not the Biblical
god. Most of the creationist support for the ID scam continues to come
from YEC that want to believe the lie about ID being a big tent that can
cover all creationist beliefs. The fact is that nature is not Biblical, science is just the study of nature, and any science whether you call it
ID science or creation science is never going to support Biblical
literalism. Even old earth literalists like Reason to Believe can't use
the Top Six to support their creation model.

It sounds like they do the same thing in the movie. You should be able
to understand how you are being lied to by just trying to form an honest
and coherant god hypothesis out of the Top Six. You end up with
something that isn't Biblical. MarkE and all the other IDiots could not
deal honestly with the Top Six and they quit supporting the ID scam or
decided to run from reality like MarkE. You seem to have decided to run
from reality. Why do you think that the movie did not make it very
clear that the top three gaps were not consistent with the Biblical
creation mythology?

You should deal with the thread "The reason that the Top Six killed the
ID scam on TO". It demonstrates why the Reason to Believe old earth creationists are no longer ID scam supporters. They try to deal with
the Big Bang, the fine tuning, and the actual origin of life on this
planet and end up with something that just doesn't make very much
Biblical sense, and they have to add things to the Bible and even
rewrite part to try to make their model consistent with reality.

It is obvious that YEC only use the Big Bang to lie to themselves about reality. The YEC scientific creationists used the Big Bang as something
that science could not explain, and the AIG has a planetarium show that features the Big Bang, but they only use the Big Bang as science denial.
They know that the Big Bang does not support YEC because it is one of
the science topics that the creationists have tried to remove from state science standards in multiple states, and they succeeded in doing that
along with removing biological evolution and understanding radio
isotopes from the chemistry classes in Kansas back in 1999. #1 of the
Top Six has been understood not to be Biblical by the literalists with a
clue for a very long time.

The ID perps continue to use the Big Bang because it still fools the creationist rubes that want to be lied to. It should not fool any
creationist rube that understand how the Big Bang fits into reality.

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 5/13/2026 11:38 AM, RonO wrote:

On 5/12/2026 6:43 PM, sticks wrote:

I did take mom to go see the movie today.-a I enjoyed it and thought
they did a good job of getting the point across.-a Like the books, it
was mainly just looking at the scientific evidence and the different
interpretations, and how we've learned so much more in the last 100
years.-a I also like the fact that they concentrate on the exact same 3
things I do in deciding how to move forward interpreting scientific
evidence.-a The Origin of the Universe, the Fine Tuning problem, and
the Origin of Life. Everything else is just noise.

In the Book Meyers lied to the rubes by treating his god-of-the-gaps
denial as independent bits of obfuscation and denial.-a He did not
develop a coherent god hypothesis that would deal honestly with the gaps that he put up.-a He was just fooling the rubes by telling them to look
at each gap as some interesting bit of denial of reality.-a God has to
fill each gap even though they do not have a clue as to how that was
done.-a Meyer lies to the rubes like you about his gap denial supporting their religious beliefs in the Biblical god.-a The Big Bang is #1 of the
Top Six, Fine tuning is #2 of the Top Six, The origin of life is #3 of
the Top six.-a Meyer's own Cambrian explosion gap denial is #5 of the top six and Behe's flagellum as a designed machine gap denial is #4 of the
top six the Scientific creationists gaps in the fossil record gap denial
is #6 of the Top Six.-a The Top Six do not support YEC Biblical creationism.-a The designer that fills those gaps is not the Biblical
god.-a Most of the creationist support for the ID scam continues to come from YEC that want to believe the lie about ID being a big tent that can cover all creationist beliefs.-a The fact is that nature is not Biblical, science is just the study of nature, and any science whether you call it
ID science or creation science is never going to support Biblical literalism.-a Even old earth literalists like Reason to Believe can't use the Top Six to support their creation model.

It sounds like they do the same thing in the movie.-a You should be able
to understand how you are being lied to by just trying to form an honest
and coherant god hypothesis out of the Top Six.-a You end up with
something that isn't Biblical.-a MarkE and all the other IDiots could not deal honestly with the Top Six and they quit supporting the ID scam or decided to run from reality like MarkE.-a You seem to have decided to run from reality.-a Why do you think that the movie did not make it very
clear that the top three gaps were not consistent with the Biblical
creation mythology?

You should deal with the thread "The reason that the Top Six killed the
ID scam on TO".-a It demonstrates why the Reason to Believe old earth creationists are no longer ID scam supporters.-a They try to deal with
the Big Bang, the fine tuning, and the actual origin of life on this
planet and end up with something that just doesn't make very much
Biblical sense, and they have to add things to the Bible and even
rewrite part to try to make their model consistent with reality.

It is obvious that YEC only use the Big Bang to lie to themselves about reality.-a The YEC scientific creationists used the Big Bang as something that science could not explain, and the AIG has a planetarium show that features the Big Bang, but they only use the Big Bang as science denial.
-aThey know that the Big Bang does not support YEC because it is one of
the science topics that the creationists have tried to remove from state science standards in multiple states, and they succeeded in doing that
along with removing biological evolution and understanding radio
isotopes from the chemistry classes in Kansas back in 1999.-a #1 of the
Top Six has been understood not to be Biblical by the literalists with a clue for a very long time.

The ID perps continue to use the Big Bang because it still fools the creationist rubes that want to be lied to.-a It should not fool any creationist rube that understand how the Big Bang fits into reality.

Ron Okimoto

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlkyZ5BBBGE

This is a video from a local news channel where Meyer was interviewed
about the movie The Story of Everything, and he describes what is in the
movie in a way that demonstrates that the title is a lie. He claims
that the movie treats the gap denial (Big Bang, Fine tuning, and the
origin of life) as independent bits of god-did-it gap filling without
telling the actual story of everything. How can you tell the story of everything about the top 3 gaps without demonstrating how they are all interconnected? The gaps are only supposed to be used to support the existence of some god. Meyer understands that the creation is not the
one described in the Bible, but he claims that the movie can still
support creationist scriptural beliefs. Like MarkE Meyer relies on
never filling the gaps so that he doesn't have to face the reality that
the god that did it isn't the one described in the Bible.

Just like the Book where Meyer lied to the rubes about some god
hypothesis when he never wanted to construct the god hypothesis that
explains the gaps that he used in the book. Each gap was treated as an independent bit of god-did-it denial, and no attempt was made to make a coherent god hypothesis out of the gap denial. In the interview Meyer indicates that the movie does the same thing. It is just lying to the
rubes that want to be lied to. How could anyone believe that the first
three of the Top Six can be used to support anyone's scriptural beliefs?

Sticks needs to do what the Reason to Believe creationists tried to do,
and demonstrate for himself that the Top Six ID perp god-of-the-gaps
junk can never support literal scriptural Biblical creationism. The anti-science, anti-evolution creationist faction that needs to be lied
to by the ID perps will never support any legitimate ID creation science produced to fill the Top Six gaps.

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 5/12/2026 6:43 PM, sticks wrote:

I did take mom to go see the movie today.-a I enjoyed it and thought they did a good job of getting the point across.-a Like the books, it was
mainly just looking at the scientific evidence and the different interpretations, and how we've learned so much more in the last 100
years.-a I also like the fact that they concentrate on the exact same 3 things I do in deciding how to move forward interpreting scientific evidence.-a The Origin of the Universe, the Fine Tuning problem, and the Origin of Life. Everything else is just noise.

Why did you enjoy the film? You can search the Web and YEC are warning against being "confused" about the issue if they go see the movie. They
do not want Christians to understand that the Big Bang means that the
creation has been evolving for billions of years. Part of the fine
tuning argument is that it took 8 billion years to create the element
that our solar system is made of in our star poor portion of the Galaxy
to insure that all the elements needed for life were present during the creation of the earth. The elements needed for life were created by
dying stars that lived out their life cycles or collided with each other.

I have not read the book, but Meyer claimed that he got around the anti-Biblical issues by treating the gaps as independent entities, and
he only discussed the gaps and not how they related to each other. I
asked google and google claims that Meyer does not give a Big Bang
creation time line in his book. He instead dealt with the science that
went into supporting the Big Bang, and not the particulars of the Big
Bang itself. Meyer just produced something to fool the rubes, and did
not deal with how the god that filled each individual gap was not the
Biblical god.

You claim that you are some type of YEC. How were you fooled by the Movie?

An honest representation of the Big Bang (#1 of the Top Six), fine
tuning (#2 of the Top Six) and the origin of life (#3 of the Top Six)
could never support YEC Biblical creationism. If you have looked into
the Reason to Believe's old earth Biblical creation model you should understand that they can't make them fit into their literal
interpretation without adding things to the Bible. They even have to
rewrite the 4th day scenario to try to make it consistent with the Big
Bang and fine tuning gaps. The YEC scientific creationists used to use
the same gap denial arguments (Big Bang, fine tuning, and origin of
life) but they only used them as denial arguments to fool the rubes,
just like the ID perps. They only present them as independent bits of
denial, and the rubes are supposed to forget about one before being lied
to about the next one. The YEC rubes are never supposed to understand
how the gaps fit into reality. The ID perps killed the ID scam on TO
because they presented the Top Six "in the order in which they must have occurred in this universe." MarkE continues to run from the Top Six
because that order is not Biblical.

MarkE understands that he needs to wallow in the denial and he can't
deal honestly with the fact that the god that fills his gaps is not the
god described in the Bible. Why would anyone enjoy wallowing in denial
of reality?

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 5/18/2026 1:56 PM, RonO wrote:

On 5/12/2026 6:43 PM, sticks wrote:

I did take mom to go see the movie today.-a I enjoyed it and thought
they did a good job of getting the point across.-a Like the books, it
was mainly just looking at the scientific evidence and the different
interpretations, and how we've learned so much more in the last 100
years.-a I also like the fact that they concentrate on the exact same 3
things I do in deciding how to move forward interpreting scientific
evidence.-a The Origin of the Universe, the Fine Tuning problem, and
the Origin of Life. Everything else is just noise.

Why did you enjoy the film?-a You can search the Web and YEC are warning against being "confused" about the issue if they go see the movie.-a They
do not want Christians to understand that the Big Bang means that the creation has been evolving for billions of years.-a Part of the fine
tuning argument is that it took 8 billion years to create the element
that our solar system is made of in our star poor portion of the Galaxy
to insure that all the elements needed for life were present during the creation of the earth.-a The elements needed for life were created by
dying stars that lived out their life cycles or collided with each other.

I have not read the book, but Meyer claimed that he got around the anti- Biblical issues by treating the gaps as independent entities, and he
only discussed the gaps and not how they related to each other.-a I asked google and google claims that Meyer does not give a Big Bang creation
time line in his book.-a He instead dealt with the science that went into supporting the Big Bang, and not the particulars of the Big Bang
itself.-a Meyer just produced something to fool the rubes, and did not
deal with how the god that filled each individual gap was not the
Biblical god.

You claim that you are some type of YEC.-a How were you fooled by the Movie?

An honest representation of the Big Bang (#1 of the Top Six), fine
tuning (#2 of the Top Six) and the origin of life (#3 of the Top Six)
could never support YEC Biblical creationism.-a If you have looked into
the Reason to Believe's old earth Biblical creation model you should understand that they can't make them fit into their literal
interpretation without adding things to the Bible.-a They even have to rewrite the 4th day scenario to try to make it consistent with the Big
Bang and fine tuning gaps.-a The YEC scientific creationists used to use
the same gap denial arguments (Big Bang, fine tuning, and origin of
life) but they only used them as denial arguments to fool the rubes,
just like the ID perps.-a They only present them as independent bits of denial, and the rubes are supposed to forget about one before being lied
to about the next one.-a The YEC rubes are never supposed to understand
how the gaps fit into reality.-a The ID perps killed the ID scam on TO because they presented the Top Six "in the order in which they must have occurred in this universe."-a MarkE continues to run from the Top Six because that order is not Biblical.

MarkE understands that he needs to wallow in the denial and he can't
deal honestly with the fact that the god that fills his gaps is not the
god described in the Bible.-a Why would anyone enjoy wallowing in denial
of reality?

Ron Okimoto

https://steveschramm.com/the-story-of-everything-helpful-or-hurtful-for-christians/

This is a link that I found that warns YEC Christians about the ID
perp's scam movie. As crazy as it may be there are YEC that understand
that an honest presentation is not what creationists want to deal with.
The author's solution is for creationists to wallow in the denial, and
that they should not try to deal with the context of the gaps. He
believes that if they can ignore reality that they can use the gaps as independent bits of god-did-it denial and benefit from it.

How tragically lame are YEC IDiots? This guys solution is the same one
that MarkE has decided on.

Nature is not Biblical. No science whether it is called creation
science or not is ever going to support literal Biblical creationism.

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2