Posted on November 17 at 5:56 p.m.Suggest removal

"ousooner1997-- Idiot."
qft.

On

Posted on March 11 at 5:55 p.m.Suggest removal

Creationist writes a letter where he does nothing but whine a presenter didnt present what *HE* wanted presented. Creationist subsequently misrepresents himself and overstates his expertise. Whines about 'civility' while supporting professional Creationists who equate scientists with 'Nazis'.

Evilutionist that has devoted her life to curing HIV/AIDS *and* cancer is bawwwed out for calling a Creationist a Creationist, which he proudly claims on his website. AD HOM! UNCIVIL!

AAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

On

Posted on March 11 at 9:21 a.m.Suggest removal

Reasons to Believe is a Creationist/Christian apologist organization.

It has always been a Creationist/Christian apologist organization.

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/ro...

For anyone to even *suggest* otherwise is HYSTERICAL.

On

Posted on March 10 at 10:11 p.m.Suggest removal

DUDE.

You write apologetics for REASONS TO BELIEVE. Reasons to Believe supports radical, literal interpretation of the Bible, ie CREATIONISM:
"We believe the Bible (the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) is the Word of God, written. As a "God-breathed" revelation, it is thus verbally inspired and completely without error (historically, scientifically, morally, and spiritually) in its original writings."

This is information you proudly tout on your OU WEBSITE.

How stupid do you think people are???

Or are you just jerking RtB around for money/attention? The plot thickens.

On

Posted on March 10 at 3:13 p.m.Suggest removal

The 'problem', Strauss, is that I was taught evolution by 'reasonable religious people'. Those 'reasonable religious people' did not and do not behave as you do.

*I* had nothing to do with you speaking at Creationist symposiums.

*I* had nothing to do with you writing apologetics for Reasons to Believe et al.

That is what *you* have done, Mr. Strauss. And I am under no illusions that you or I will learn anything by interacting with one another. If you cant read the pages of Science and Nature and learn something, why would I think I could 'teach' you a thing? However I want everyone to be perfectly clear about your motivations behind bawwwing about Dawkins-- it has nothing to do with 'science'. Its about your personal decision to be a Creationist, which is contrary to the ideals of Dawkins and the scientific community. Boo hoo.

On

Posted on March 10 at 12:41 p.m.Suggest removal

"What I believe is that the current evidence, (which I know in detail) is not conclusive enough for me to believe in totally naturalistic evolution."
AAAAAAAAAHAHAHA!!!

Because, as we all know, a degree in Physics makes you an expert in all things biological, from Archaea to Zoology! LOL! Yes, evilutionists are the arrogant ones, eh?

Oh so delicate and civil Strauss-- You are still attempting to mislead people. Youre just a regular ol scientist who 'questions naturalistic evolution'? Great. Lots of scientists do. They refer to themselves as theistic evolutionists. The vast majority of my professors, personally, have been some stripe of Christian, and none of then have a problem with evilution. They were all heavily involved with science outreach lectures to the surrounding community, which included lectures on evilution.

Of course, none of them went to Biola University, nor have any of them written for online Creationist organizations like Access Research Network and Reasons to Believe, nor do any of them give lectures in radical churches demeaning the work of virtually every scientist on the planet.

You are not a normal scientist who just happens to believe that a God is guiding evolution.

Youre a Creationist.

Dawkins is not your Mummy, nor are you paying him as a professor or tutor to bring you up to speed on the basics of biology cataloged in PubMed. Did you think Dawkins was going to present something to *you* that hasnt been said a million times over in PubMed already? You know, those millions of papers published over the decades, marking increases in our understanding of the universe and how it works, you 'know in detail'? Dawkins, and no one else, is arrogant enough to think that they can correct your lazy personal choices, dude, and that wasnt the point of his lecture.

It was a fun lecture of ideas, which those of us who paid attention in Bio101 could sit back an enjoy, spinning more fun ideas in our heads.

Sorry you missed out.

On

Posted on March 10 at 9:46 a.m.Suggest removal

"... but why didn't you criticize my graduate degree from UCLA? And by the way, that prestigious looking research really is good prestigious research."
People like you are the reason I have to defend my choice to go to OUHSC, despite the fact it has a top-tier micro department. "Why go to school surrounded by hicks and Bible thumping Creationists when you could have gone to a *good school* like Harvard or UCSF?"

Thanks, "PhysicsProf"! *high-five*

On

Posted on March 10 at 9:07 a.m.Suggest removal

Ah, 'civil dialog', aka 'Im going to release a major motion picture equating all scientists who dont agree with me to Nazis. Im going to spit in the face of every researcher trying to make this world a better place by using my personal choice of theology to degrade the publics trust and understanding of science. And, Im going to personally attack and slander any student who speaks out against my choice of theology in defense of science. BUT DONT CALL ME A CREATIONIST OR BRING UP THE FACT I WENT OT BIOLA! THATS AN AD HOM!'

LOL!

On

Posted on March 10 at 8:29 a.m.Suggest removal

Huh. The same Strauss who is the sponsor of the Creationist Club on campus? Yeah, youre real concerned about 'The Science'.

LOL!

On