Can an Evolutionist be Saved?

[av1611jim]

Oh!...
And BTW Craig. Just because you are a theistic evolutionist, I would not be so disingenuos as to discount everything you say based on your warped view of Creation. Unlike many, (including yourself) who do that very thing to we who hold to KJVo.


In HIS service;
Jim

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Alas, our spiritual enemy continues to succeed in dividing God's church over this issue. It's perfectly plain that the earth is more than 10,000 years old, just on how much the volcano under Hawaii has moved over the millions of years, just on the overall accumulation of radioactive decay products around the world, and so forth and so forth; it is also perfectly plain that God's word is our hope of salvation, and our infallible guide in matters of faith and doctrine, but . . . when properly interpreted.

Satan merely divides God's church over the interpretation issues, and this is merely another one of them. Too bad, of course, that some people equate open mindedness to evidence as being traiterous to God's truth when the exact opposite applies.

 

[Glory Bound]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Satan merely divides God's church over the interpretation issues, and this is merely another one of them.

I'm not convinced that Satan has anything to do with it, but you did hit the nail on the head with the central issue being interpretation.

I personally have always leaned toward YEC, but I'm not nearly so bold as to say my interpretation of the word "days" in Genesis MUST mean 24 hours. While I think there's evidence to back up the 24 hour concept, I realize that it's possible that the word translated "days" means something more than 24 hours.

I would not dare accuse someone who interprets the verse differently of disagreeing with "the clear word of God." There are plenty of disagreements among theologians about a lot of things in the Bible. I've read good arguments on both sides, which makes me think we don't have a "clear" understanding of some of these issues.

If God created the universe in 6 seconds, minutes, days, or "ages"... He still created it. I don't think Craig or UT believe otherwise. Whether God created the animals fully formed or brought them into existence over a period of time... he still did it.

I believe everyone in this discussion has a saving faith in Christ, and also believes God is responsible for the existence of the Earth and all that is in it. I think we need to remember to treat our brothers and sisters with some respect, even if we don't agree with some of their ideas.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> So they can't be "real physicists with real doctorates from real universities" unless they adopt your philosophical bias and the theory founded on it?

“My” philosophical bias??? 99.9% of Ph.D. scientists believe in an old earth and macroevolution based upon an almost infinite amount of data—and I am biased because I agree with some of their basic tenets???</font>[/QUOTE] Evolution is ultimately based on a philosophical premise of naturalism, not a scientific one. Neither you nor anyone else has refuted that here and honest scientific philosophers freely acknowledge this to be true.

Therefore, whether you admit it or even recognize it, YES- your philosophical bias. It is an assumption (and biblically speaking a bad one) to assume that creation was solely or even primarily the result of purely natural processes.

BTW, please cite the survey that shows that 99.9% of PhD scientists believe in macroevolution and an old earth. The last part I would more readily believe than the first.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> If they have been academically conditioned to believe that only one premise (naturalism) and one conclusion (evolution) is valid then they have been brainwashed... and that is very close to what occurs.

Please either post some data to support your notion that 99.9% of Ph.D. scientists have been “academically conditioned” or retract your ludicrous and totally absurd notion.</font>[/QUOTE] If you are taught one way and only one way with all other ways being not only rejected but mocked then that is a very effective form of brainwashing. You can close your eyes all you want but this is a simple fact-

It doesn't even matter if evolution turns out to be true. Science departments in most universities are not encouraging critical thought. They do not encourage students to question the theory of evolution nor explore other possibilities. It is taught as fact. "Period. End of discussion." Truth is obviously not the goal when genuine, meaningful criticism of the premises and assumptions of a theory are dogmatically suppressed.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> They do not entertain or even allow the discussion of alternatives. That is by definition indoctrination, propaganda, and, yes, brainwashing. Science Education should be about discovering truth... not limited by philosophical presuppositions.

There is much more evidence that the earth is flat than there is that the earth is only 10,000 years old, but both notions are about as irrational as any notion could possibly be.</font>[/QUOTE] That is an opinion- not a fact. You don't see the evidence because you don't want to. Further, the only real evidence you should need is the attributes of God and what He said He did.

Again, if a trustworthy person told me that they personally caused a ravine behind my house but a geologist came and told me that it occurred by natural forces... It really wouldn't matter how well the geologist explained it, the eyewitness testimony would win out.

But you appear to be arguing that for scientists to ignore the possibility that the earth is flat and only 10,000 years old indicates that they have not only been indoctrinated, but brainwashed.

The earth has been proven not to be flat and the Bible doesn't say it is flat. The Bible uses figures of speech that are recognizeable. The staunchest literalist (Bible in general) doesn't deny that there are figures of speech. That is the normal way we communicate. I know few Americans that haven't said the sun is going down or coming up.

Genesis 1-11 gives no indication of being a figure of speech. In fact the account of separating the waters above from the waters below is very specific. The account of fish and birds being created on the same day and before the land dwelling animals is in direct contradiction to evolution that says land dwelling animals gave rise to flying reptiles that gave rise to birds. If these things did not occur then it they are lies- not allegories.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> They do not entertain or even allow the discussion of alternatives.

Since you are neither conditioned nor brainwashed and not only allow the discussion of alternatives, but even entertain them, I suppose that you would also argue for the entertainment of alternative life styles like cross-dressing, pedophilia, and bestiality.</font>[/QUOTE] That is ridiculous to the extreme. What kind of debate points do you think you win with this type of non-sense?

BTW, it is interesting that you compare this debate to a debate of morals. If we are no more than animals... the products of millions of years of evolution then we are not accountable to a creator. If naturalism is true then these things you mention can be nothing less than normal natural impulses.

I oppose these things on the same grounds I oppose evolution (though I do not morally equate them). The Bible literally condemns sexual perversion ultimately because we have a responsibility to obey our Creator.

Personally, I find the concept of a young earth and a boat built out of Tinker Toys bobbing up and down in the ocean with 6,000,000+ animals in it to be outside the realms of both science and sanity.

That is between you and God. His Word, not mine, describes these things in narrative form as if they were factual history.

Your mockery of the Bible however is very telling.

I also believe that the God made man smarter than monkeys so that we could read the Bible and understand it rather than trip over our shoelaces and make fools of ourselves and our Creator.

So unless someone agrees with you and denies that an all-powerful, all-knowing God could have spoken the universe into existence in a moment of time, we are fools? We make a fool of the Creator by believing the Bible as He gave it and without the lense of naturalism?

BTW, according to evolution, God didn't make man smarter than the monkeys. A natural process of mutation, adaptation, and natural selection did that. God was at best a hopeful bystander.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Alas, our spiritual enemy continues to succeed in dividing God's church over this issue. It's perfectly plain that the earth is more than 10,000 years old, just on how much the volcano under Hawaii has moved over the millions of years, just on the overall accumulation of radioactive decay products around the world, and so forth and so forth; it is also perfectly plain that God's word is our hope of salvation, and our infallible guide in matters of faith and doctrine, but . . . when properly interpreted.

This isn't divisive? It is not perfectly plain that the earth is older than 10K years. I haven't denied that as a possibility but until it is categorically proven I will fall back to the simplest, most direct interpretation of God's Word. All dating systems used by scientists on things older than about 4000 years have NO independent means of verification.

UT posted an article here some place that was supposed to answer creationists' objections to the dating methods. It did nothing if not affirm what creationists have been arguing. Evolutionists affirm chemical dating by the geologic column and the geologic column by chemical dating and both by the fossils found in them (except for the significant number of anomalies which are tossed out because they showed up where evolution didn't expect them)... creating a classic case of circular reasoning.

The bottom line is that you look down on those of us who disagree with you. I have reasons that have nothing to do with ignorance. I realize and admit that I am making philosophical, faith-based choices on which to found my arguments about origins. Why won't you simply do the same?

You don't have to believe that God created the world in 6 days less than 10K years ago but when you mock and deny the possibility you demonstrate close-mindedness and, frankly, deny the attributes of God as taught in the Bible.

Satan merely divides God's church over the interpretation issues, and this is merely another one of them. Too bad, of course, that some people equate open mindedness to evidence as being traiterous to God's truth when the exact opposite applies.

I don't think you are intentionally being traitorous to God's truth... nor do I think you are being open minded.

I don't know your reasons for believing evolution. If I had to guess, I would suspect your education or the influence of someone you trust.

I didn't reject evolution so much because of creationism as because of evolution itself. When you strip away all of the technical jargon and imaginative explanations... and boil it down to just the facts and the logic... there simply isn't alot there. The first and only necessary failure of evolution IMO is its premise of naturalism. The Bible doesn't teach a purely naturalistic history of God's interaction with mankind. In fact as I have stated before, our faith and hope are built on a purely supernatural event... something no less miraculous than a 6 day creation. A man who was literally dead literally rose from the dead.

Further, we are promised a home in heaven that is superior to this natural realm. Where did heaven come from? Did it evolve? If the creation of heaven wasn't too much for God to accomplish by sheer will, why must we believe that the universe is in order to be rational in your view?

 

[Craigbythesea]

Your mockery of the Bible however is very telling.

I am not mocking the Bible but rather those persons who don’t know the difference between what the Bible says and their irrational interpretation of it.

 

[Benfranklin403]

"Evolutionists affirm chemical dating by the geologic column and the geologic column by chemical dating and both by the fossils found in them (except for the significant number of anomalies which are tossed out because they showed up where evolution didn't expect them)... creating a classic case of circular reasoning."
...............................................
If the above every happened it must correspond to a real case. Please cite a specific case of the above claim.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I was just this afternoon talking to a physicist who is a good friend of mine and a Christian. He was telling me theories they crammed down his throat in college; theories that he knew couldn't be right, but he indicated that by the time they finished, nearly all scientists are so brainwashed by this rubbish that they think they are god's themselves and know so much more than the average man. He is a YEC, by the way and he uses his God CREATED brain every single day and he has a real problem with people like you saying the "evidence" shows this or the "evidence" shows that. He said we THINK the evidence shows this and that because we are brainwashed by the egotistical ivory tower scholars who teach a lot of hogwash.

Phillip,

Are you sure that you are not using the word “physicist” a little bit loosely? Your description of your friend strongly suggests that this man is much less than a scientist and that he has virtually no formal education. If I am wrong, post his name and the university from at which he earned his doctorate in physics, and tell us by whom he is employed as a physicist.

If you would like, I can post the names of hundreds of real physicists with real doctorates from real universities who are currently employed as physicists in prestigious positions, ALL of whom KNOW that the earth is billions of years old, and NONE of whom have been brainwashed.

</font>[/QUOTE]I could tell you but I'd have to kill you. As the old saying goes. I'm just kidding Craig. Actually, he has two earned Phds from two major university one in astronomical physics (of some kind, I'm not sure the exact name) and another in some kind of mathematical physics; and he is on the leading edge of a major military research program. For obvious reasons, I cannot tell you who he is, but I hope you can take my word for it. He works with a team of Phd level scientists who are all working in research several of which are geologists, astrophysicists, electronics experts, laser and optical experts among others. Surprisingly, several from the group are all YEC and are Christians and they are not silent about it when they work with others.

The difference between them and you is, they believe that the our view of the world and the evidence cannot properly be determined when the creation involved supernatural powers beyond our comprehension.

These guys are privy to some of the best research data and have the best equipment in the world to use for their experiments. They do not sit around writing papers, they produce things based on their theories.

If you think these guys are "loose" you have another thing coming Craig, I can guarantee you that.

What most people don't realize is that a good portion of the cutting edge technology in this world is based on hand-me-downs from the military. For example, the Global positioning system was paid for by congress as long as the military agreed to allow civilians to use its "inaccurate" C-code (Commercial Code which repeats itself bout 100 times per second and runs at 1 Mhz) as compared to the military code "I" which runs at 10 Mhz and repeats encryptian cycle every two weeks.

By allowing the civilians to use the low resolution, congress agreed to fund the multi-billion dollar project. Now we find GPS in almost everything and will be seeing it in every cell-phone being sold from this year onward (of course, for homeland security reasons--or so we are told).

This is just an example of a project these different groups do and the GPS system was designed back in the 70's, so you can imagine what is being worked on in 2005.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:

99.9% of Ph.D. scientists believe in an old earth and macroevolution based upon an almost infinite amount of data—and I am biased because I agree with some of their basic tenets???
I also believe that the God made man smarter than monkeys so that we could read the Bible and understand it rather than trip over our shoelaces and make fools of ourselves and our Creator.

Would you please provide the data that indicates that 99.9% Phd scientists believe this? I am getting really sick and tired of you and others making blank statements, such as "they KNOW the Earth is billions of years old" How do they KNOW, the Bible tells differently--were they there when it was created or did they find some rocks that date a billion years old.

You and ALL of these so called scientists that you know are obviously missing a major issue. The fact that God can do anything supernaturally and he is NOT stuck in making this world, universe and man through natural methods.

You cannot accept the fact that creation was a supernatural event.

YOU have a paradox.

Either:
A) You believe totally in God and believe that He can do this supernaturally, but you do not allow that variable to be included in your science, so that is bad science.

or

B) You really don't believe God can do anything supernaturally or don't believe there is anything supernatural "out there". So, then your science becomes good science.

Your belief is your choice. But, by telling us that science cannot have supernatural elements or even a completely supernatural six day creation regardless of what you see, you throw away a possible variable that could completely change science. Therefore, your science is bad. Unless you want to admit that you believe that it is very possible that the supernatural variable does not exist. Your choice.

Don't ever insinuate that when I say I talked to a phyicist that he is obviously "loose" or is not educated when YOU do not know the facts. I have worked with more upper level scientists that you will probably ever meet. The best scientists don't always wind up sitting in an ivory tower looking for another government grant so they can study the mating habits of a billion year old two-celled insect. This is NOTHING against the professors, but universities are not always the place to find the latest technology on this Earth (and neither is silicon valley for that matter, since they are profit driven to produce smaller and cheaper electronic toys.)

 

[av1611jim]

Amen brother Phillip; PREACH IT!

Craig;
I can't answer your questions, nor do I know the right questions to ask you. But I PERSONALLY know someone who does. Here are his questions for you;
Job 38:1
¶ Then the LORD answered Job(Craig) out of the whirlwind, and said,
Job 38:2
Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
Job 38:3
Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
Job 38:4
¶ Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Job 38:5
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Job 38:6
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
Job 38:7
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Job 38:8
Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?
Job 38:9
When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,
Job 38:10
And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,
Job 38:11
And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?
Job 38:12
¶ Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;
Job 38:13
That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?
Job 38:14
It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.
Job 38:15
And from the wicked their light is withholden, and the high arm shall be broken.
Job 38:16
Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?
Job 38:17
Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?
Job 38:18
Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.
Job 38:19
Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof,
Job 38:20
That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?
Job 38:21
Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great?
Job 38:22
Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,
Job 38:23
Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?
Job 38:24
By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?
Job 38:25
¶ Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder;
Job 38:26
To cause it to rain on the earth, where no man is; on the wilderness, wherein there is no man;
Job 38:27
To satisfy the desolate and waste ground; and to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth?
Job 38:28
Hath the rain a father? or who hath begotten the drops of dew?
Job 38:29
Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?
Job 38:30
The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.
Job 38:31
Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?
Job 38:32
Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?
Job 38:33
Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?
Job 38:34
Canst thou lift up thy voice to the clouds, that abundance of waters may cover thee?
Job 38:35
Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?
Job 38:36
Who hath put wisdom in the inward parts? or who hath given understanding to the heart?
Job 38:37
Who can number the clouds in wisdom? or who can stay the bottles of heaven,
Job 38:38
When the dust groweth into hardness, and the clods cleave fast together?
Job 38:39
Wilt thou hunt the prey for the lion? or fill the appetite of the young lions,
Job 38:40
When they couch in their dens, and abide in the covert to lie in wait?
Job 38:41
Who provideth for the raven his food? when his young ones cry unto God, they wander for lack of meat.

I'll be interested to see your answers to Him.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

[Phillip]

AMEN Brother AV1611JIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There's the EVIDENCE. ...and Look who's Words it is.

In a courtroom, only a person who was a witness to the event could make this testimony. Not someone who just absolutely "knows" it has to be that way. Too bad science cannot learn from the legal system; which may not be perfect, but I would rather be "tried" by a judge than a scientist, for ANY reason.

 

[Craigbythesea]

¶ Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Job 38:5
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Job 38:6
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
Job 38:7
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Job 38:8
Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?
Job 38:9
When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,
Job 38:10
And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,
Job 38:11
And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?

Thank you for posting this excellent example of the foolishness of interpreting as literal a piece of literature which obviously was not intended to be interpreted in that manner. God is an infinite God and His creation of the universe was and is an infinite creation. How very sad it is that when some people read Genesis 1 – 11 they are so blind to the works of our infinite God that they interpret these chapters as being literal and thereby miss not only the beauty of the literature but the spiritual truths they were penned to express.

Just once, read Job 38 and interpret every verse in a strictly literal manner and see for yourself how doing so destroys the majesty of this portion of Scripture that that our infinite God so graciously blessed us with. And then consider how interpreting Genesis 1 – 11 in a strictly literal manner does the same thing to that passage.

 

[av1611jim]

Oh Brother!
I should have seen that one coming. Ya' got me Craig.
God didn't REALLY mean that we are but puny humans and have no way of knowing how He created the earth and all of creation with it without Him telling us about it.
He didn't really mean to imply in this passage that we are fools to think we know so much.

I just would like you to one time quit with your dodging and arrogance and answer the question.
If you know so much about creation and how God did it, WERE YOU THERE?
God was. He laid it out plain for us to see. In Gen 1-3. Literally.
Strange you would ignore verse 4.
That one, my friend, is the clincher isn't it? So you dodge it.
I fell for that one alright brother. Ya' got me.
In HIS service;
Jim

 

[Craigbythesea]

If you know so much about creation and how God did it, WERE YOU THERE?

I don't remember—that was a looooong time ago! But I do remember that the earth is not flat, square, and built upon four corner stones as God Himself described it in Job 38. And I did not hitch a ride on Noah's Ark, but nonetheless I did not drown—I must have climbed up into a tall tree until the flood waters passed.

Were you there when they crucified my Lord?
Were you there when they crucified my Lord?
Oh!
Sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble, tremble.
Were you there when they crucified my Lord?

Were you there when they nailed him to the tree?
Were you there when they nailed him to the tree?
Oh!
Sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble, tremble.
Were you there when they nailed him to the tree?

Were you there when they pierced him in the side?
Were you there when they pierced him in the side?
Oh!
Sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble, tremble.
Were you there when they pierced him in the side?

Were you there when they laid him in the tomb?
Were you there when they laid him in the tomb?
Oh!
Sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble, tremble.
Were you there when they laid him in the tomb?

 

[LRL71]

Craig,

Just what would make you think that Genesis chapters 1-3 would be interpreted? Literally, allegorically, or by some other method? If God said He created the earth in six days (YOM, in Hebrew), why else not take Him at His Word? Secondly, why would someone interpret the first chapters of Genesis in a way that doesn't make God look like He is lying? Just a question, not a start to a debate.......

[ January 29, 2005, 05:46 AM: Message edited by: LRL71 ]

 

[Craigbythesea]

Just how do you think that Genesis chapters 1-3 should be translated? Literally, allegorically, or by some other method? If God said He created the earth in six days (YOM, in Hebrew), why else not take Him at His Word? Secondly, why would someone interpret the first chapters of Genesis in a way that doesn't make God look like He is lying? Just a question, not a start to a debate.......

I believe that you need to get a good night's sleep so that you can think clearly—and speaking of sleep,

 

[LRL71]

^^^^

Nice dodge.
Methinks you need to 'think clearly'; denying God's Word makes men liars.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Just how do you think that Genesis chapters 1-3 should be translated?

The NASB, 1995, translation is a good one.

Literally, allegorically, or by some other method?

It appears to me that you are confusing translation with interpretation.

If God said He created the earth in six days (YOM, in Hebrew), why else not take Him at His Word?

“If God said . . . .” I believe God, but I place little value on interpretations of what God has said unless those interpretations are based upon a substantial knowledge of the biblical languages and the people to whom God was speaking.

Secondly, why would someone interpret the first chapters of Genesis in a way that doesn't make God look like He is lying?

I read this question several times last night and again today and I do not understand it.

Just a question, not a start to a debate.......

Actually, it appears to me that you have asked four questions, none of which was well thought out. I responded to them, however, out of courtesy to you as a fellow member of this board who has in the past made some excellent contributions.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by LRL71:
^^^^

Nice dodge.
Methinks you need to 'think clearly'; denying God's Word makes men liars.

I was not dodging your questions—I was hoping that you would get some sleep and subsequently rephrase your questions to make them more coherent so that I could post more cognizant answers.

I believe that anyone who will take the time to compare my posts with your questions will see quite readily enough which one of us was thinking clearly—and which one of us was not. And you should know better than to confuse grossly inadequate interpretations of Genesis 1 -11 with what God Himself has said. To make a careful and prayerful study over a period of many years of what God has said and to share this knowledge with others is not a sin but a Christian virtue.

 

[LRL71]

^^^

Sounds like a 'neo-orthodox' answer to me...... whatever one thinks in his heart is right.
Especially if one thinks he still gets revelations from God

As to your earlier comments, perhaps you didn't pay attention to my revised comments as to how you would approach the 'interpretation' of Genesis chapters 1-3, or through chapter 11 (not, as to my earlier mis-statement of 'translated', as we both would agree the 1995 NASB updated edition is pretty darn good). You dodged my question: are you going to make your interpretation allegorical, historical-grammatical (known as literal and narrative), or otherwise?

As a good personal friend of mine (swaimj) had stated earlier in another post on another subject, these words I would think apply to Craig:
So, my fellow BB readers/posters, what is the evidence that YEC's are ignorant, emotionally unhinged people? Craig's-by-the-Sea empty, unproven assertions.

What is the evidence that Craig-by-the-sea is an elitist? His words.

This thread has reached its 20 page limit.
Moderator! Check, please!