Neil / Mark / religious content
stanlep at extremezone.com
Fri Apr 12 20:50:25 EDT 2002
Thanks for the warning. I went no further and deleted all threads to
Ron Gatrelle wrote:
> I changed the subject line as I think that is proper when threads go
> outside of the original topic. Here we are way outside of it. Neil
> introduced a religious point (creation) and it is continued here. So if
> not interested - delete now. Also, don't complain if you go ahead and read
> it. We will just have to agree to disagree. Neil will likely want to post
> one more on this ( for any clarification of his personal views) and then
> that should be it. We can state our positions but we should not argue (to
> convince - or denigrate) on this one. I state my view - and it is mine
> Neil, I have a couple of questions. Not trying to stirr anything up.
> Just some expansion of your thoughts. When you said
> " _However_ the evidence from this list shows that there is often a
> lamentable lack of logical and scientific thinking amongst certain
> collectors. "
> Is the reason you referred only to collectors (vs. say lepsters) simply
> because you were talking to one, or does this reflect a view that
> "collectors" in general don't utilize "scientific thinking" while other
> lepsters (in general) do? I think you meant the former, but it would be
> easy for (paranoid ;-) collectors who read that and perceive that this
> indicates an overall prejudice on your part. So please expand the thought
> for clarification.
> You also said:
> "You [Mark] believe in an obvious, hoax; a phony scam that seeks to
> deprive the world of proper scientific thinking. The so called "creation
> science". It has been _proven_ beyond the slightest glimmer of doubt to to
> be utterly false.
> " The bible _cannot_ be litterally true as you assert. It is full of things
> that are plainly incorrect. This doesn't invalidate its morality but it
> _cannot_ be litterally true."
> "Mark. to be utterly frank. You may like to call yourself scientific but
> until you drop your belief in this phony, crooked, tribal anti-science no
> proper scientist will regard your beliefs as founded in science."
> In saying this I get the impression you don't think that anyone who agrees
> with the Divine Creation of the Universe and/or the literalness of
> Scripture can be a proper scientist. Is that correct? If so, then you
> realize you call to question people like Dr. Don Lafontaine who is the Lep.
> Soc. president, a Canadian National Collection researcher, systematist,
> born-again, Pentecostal, Christian, and lay minister. His theology and
> mine are virtually the same, by the way. We are both tongue talkin,
> evangelical, fundamentalists. I don't see that our "religion" or belief in
> the God of the world's Jews, Moslems, and Christians as The Creator has
> anything to do with our "science" in dealing with Lepidoptera.
> If this is not what you meant to say please clarify. In emails we do not
> always get across what we really mean or think. I would hate for you to be
> misunderstood by those subscribed here who belong to the God-of-Abraham
> faiths and as such are thus "creationists," and by virtue of that one
> thing, think that you are saying they are all incapable of being "proper"
> Ron Gatrelle
> PS. If that is your opinion, I will disagree, but allow you to have it
> (not argue the point). I just want to make sure that if that is how
> broadly you view this issue (or not) that you are correctly understood by
> all. Now, the reason I have no problem with you holding that position is
> that if there is no creation, just pure natural evolution, then you would
> be totally correct. This whole tread is way off leps as it is, but I will
> add that if there is no creation then there is no God (in the
> Jewish/Moslem/Christian tradition) for that is the central element that
> makes Him such in those faiths. Thus, in Christianity, anyone who does not
> believe in God as creator can not truly be Christian. They are just
> religiously pseudochristians. Millions of people are very good and moral
> persons without being involved in a formal religion - so why belong to a
> Christ Faith (God was incarnate) where there was/is no such thing? (No
> answer wanted or needed.)
> PPS I do understand that Neil is not agaist these "religions" or the
> people in them - just creationism and a Divine Creator as fact.
> For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
More information about the Leps-l