Evolution is Just Junk Science

June 3, 2007

In article <1180908743.707884.147410@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,

gudloos@yahoo.com wrote:

> On 4 Jun., 00:26, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <ba8663tn66fnvj274pchevj2ue693ks...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> >

> > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> > > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 14:11:57 -0700, in alt.atheism

> > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> > > <Jason-0306071411580...@66-52-22-102.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> > > >In article <615663l15ik3mdb5s0bm2rg636pnmqf...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7

> > > ><Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

> >

> > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) said:

> >

> > > >> <...>

> >

> > > >> >I attended a Christian college for two years. One of the biology

> > > >> >professors was a Christian and was an advocate of creation science.=

> He

> > > >> >taught evolution theory. He did not teach creation science to his

> > > >> >students. He did have a special session each quarter where he taugh=

> t the

> > > >> >basics of creation science. None of his students were required to a=

> ttend

> > > >> >and none of the students that attended the special session were req=

> uired

> > > >> >to take tests. As far as I know, the other biology professors did n=

> ot

> > > >> >discriminate against him. I visited his office and had a conversati=

> on with

> > > >> >him. He was not my biology professor. I doubt that he would have be=

> en

> > > >> >allowed to teach the special creation science session if he had wor=

> ked in

> > > >> >a state university.

> > > >> >Jason

> >

> > > >> Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, has been the location of

> > > >> a presentation by Duane Gish, presenting the case for scientific

> > > >> creationism. "Gish is [or was] the vice president of the Institute f=

> or

> > > >> Creation Research and was touted in fliers for the event as "one of

> > > >> the world's leading experts on Scientific Creationism.""

> >

> > > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish

> > > >>http://www.ftvc.org/news0900.html

> >

> > > >That is great news. I saw Dr. Gish debate a professor from the local s=

> tate

> > > >college. The auditorium was full of people. They advertised the debate=

> in

> > > >the ICR newsletter and at many of the churches. As a result, lots of

> > > >Christians attended the debate.

> > > >Jason

> >

> > > Gish is a con man. It's not great that he is allowed to teach his lies

> > > anywhere. Churches should feel shame that they let him teach such

> > > nonsense.

> >

> > He has debated hundreds of science professors and won most of those

> > debates. He easily won the the debate that I attended. The main reason is

> > because the professor from the state college lost his temper and made a

> > fool of himself. Even the students that came to support their professor

> > stopped clapping for him after he made a fool of himself. I learned from a

> > professor that a taught public speaking class that when someone that is in

> > a debate starts name calling, it means that person lost the debate. That's

> > the reason I don't get upset when people call me names--it means that I

> > won the debate. Someone told me that Dr. Gish lost the debate that he

> > attended. The reason was that the professor had attended a previous debate

> > and was prepared to respond to every issue that Dr. Gish mentioned in the

> > debate. That professor that won the debate never lost his temper or

> > started name calling.

> > Jason- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -

> >

> > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -

>

> Whether he won the debate or not, Gish was wrong. Science is not

> determined by debating skills, nor is it determined by the opinions of

> the people attending debates.

I agree.

June 3, 2007

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said:

>In article <p0h663p20161j3rhibqd0k9psf10vvughk@4ax.com>, Jim07D7

><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote:

>

>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said:

>>

>> >Dr. D.T. Gish wrote a book that was published many years ago and was

>> >revised in 1995. The title of the original book was, "Evolution: The

>> >Fossils Say No" and the revised version is entitled, "Evolution: The

>> >Fossils Still Say No". The book has 391 pages. Dr. Gish discusses the

>> >fossil evidence and the basic concepts of creation science. It would be

>> >easy for a professor to use that book and related books to develop a two

>> >hour lecture. My college biology professor could use one chapter from our

>> >college text book to develop a two hour lecture. The advocates of

>> >Intelligent Design developed an entire textbook and the textbook did not

>> >mention God or any scriptures. I did read Dr. Gish's book.

>>

>> But in order to support his alternative, what is needed is "Creation:

>> The Fossils Say Yes". Why don't you see this?

>

>Have you read Dr. Gish's book? If not, how would you know whether or not

>Dr. Gish is telling the truth about the fossil evidence?

>

I am asserting that we need a book that presents solid fossil

evidence FOR creation. Because you are the defender of Gish's book,

you should be able to show this.

June 4, 2007

Jason wrote:

> In article <f3ueed$8qe$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>>> In article <f3t24v$7mv$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

>>> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Jason wrote:

>>>>> In article <4661add3.268854@news.east.earthlink.net>,

>>>>> luminoso@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:48:06 -0700, bramble

>>>>>> <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> On 31 mayo, 21:21, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>>>>>>> In article <f3mkof$hbv$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> My point was that the so called founder of evolution theory was a

>>>>>>>> Christian at least during some years of his life. I only read the last

>>>>>>>> chapter of his book and it was apparent that he had an excellent

>>>>>>>> understanding of the book of Genesis. He mentioned the term "creator"

>>>>>>>> several different times. I am more in agreement with Darwin than I

>>> am with

>>>>>>>> Evolutionists that believe that mankind evolved from a one celled life

>>>>>>>> form. It's my opinion that Darwin did NOT believe that. I read the last

>>>>>>>> paragraph three times and it was difficult to understand the point

>>> that he

>>>>>>>> was making. However, he did use these words in that sentence:

>>>>>>>> "...having been originally BREATHED INTO A FEW FORMS OR INTO ONE." That

>>>>>>>> appeared to me to be related to God breathing life into people. That is

>>>>>>>> very different than believing that mankind evolved from a one

> celled life

>>>>>>>> form.

>>>>>>>> Jason

>>>>>>> Of course, Jason. He was living in a Christian world. He had to

>>>>>>> tread very carefully as not to have problems. That is why, he let in

>>>>>>> his first book the man outside of the picture. It was a time in which

>>>>>>> there was a certain degree of freedom. If Darwin had lived a hundred

>>>>>>> years earlier, he could not have dared to write this book. So in

> spite of

>>>>>>> being the author of the book, Origins of species, he had to behave as

>>>>>>> any other high class gentleman of his time, going to church on

>>>>>>> sundays.

>>>>>> There is a myth propagated by the extreme 'creationist' faction

>>>>>> that it's impossible to be both "religious" and an "evolutionist".

>>>>>> Very likely Darwin -was- religious, his culture was saturated

>>>>>> with religious ideas and perspectives. It would have been very

>>>>>> unusual for him -not- to have been religious in some way.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> But he couldn't have been a strict "CHRISTIAN". His studies

>>>>>> showed that the proposed scheme of creation in the christian

>>>>>> bible was flat wrong. No "Zap ! There's an elephant, Zap !

>>>>>> There's a chicken". A long and winding road instead.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> So Darwin had to be something other than a strict "christian".

>>>>>> A "bad christian" perhaps, a deist maybe. What he had learned

>>>>>> was incompatible with christian dogma, but not with the idea

>>>>>> of -some- kind of god-entity kick-starting life on earth.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> The kind of reason & evidence-based thinking that Darwin helped

>>>>>> along eventually spawned a crop of unbelievers, but AT THE TIME

>>>>>> and given the cultural environment true athiests were few and

>>>>>> far between (and they usually didn't advertise themselves).

>>>>>>

>>>>>> As for the thread title, yes, there may be an "alternative"

>>>>>> to evolution. Alas it would have to involve aliens or 'gods'

>>>>>> constantly bringing new forms of life to earth over a very

>>>>>> long period. The 'intermediate forms' not being 'intermediate'

>>>>>> but simply genetically-engineered lifeforms that didn't adapt

>>>>>> well, thus requiring a series of "improved" versions to be

>>>>>> constructed.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> That scenerio, while not impossible, seems -extremely- unlikely.

>>>>>> If there are aliens involved, more likely an alien stopped-off

>>>>>> here to take a crap and some of its bacteria managed to survive,

>>>>>> and subsequently evolve. There would be a certain poetic justice

>>>>>> in discovering that egomaniacal humans were spawned from a

>>>>>> floater left by some grey-skinned alien :-)

>>>>> The problem is that evolutionists now have total control and will not

>>>>> allow any alternative theories to be taught in the public school system.

>>>> If it's a valid theory, no problem. We explained at length what a valid

>>>> scientific theory must be. Which criteria it must fulfill. ID simply and

>>>> plainly fails said criterias.

>>>>

>>>>> They don't even like it when college professors teach college students

>>>>> about creation science.

>>>> See above.

>>>>

>>>> Many years ago, there was a famous movie about the

>>>>> Scopes Monkey Trial. I saw that movie. The Christians were accused of not

>>>>> allowing a teacher to teach students about evoluton. That has all changed.

>>>>> The evolutionists are now in control and will not allow intelligent design

>>>>> to be taught in the public schools system.

>>>> NOT in SCIENCE CLASS! It FAILS all criteria. So it is not science! Teach

>>>> it all you like. Around here the class is termed "Religion" (pronounce

>>>> it german). Or "Ethik". (It IS taught, just not in science class.)

>>>>

>>>> The evolutionists are the new

>>>>> fascist.

>>>> lol

>>>>

>>>> Several days ago, I read about a college professor that was an

>>>>> advocate of creation science. He was denied tenure (spelling??).

>>>> That depends what class he wanted to teach. If it was sociology, he can

>>>> be my guest. If it was biology, he is out. Nor science. Simple, actually.

>>>>

>>>> Of

>>>>> course, if he was an advocate of evolution, he would have been granted

>>>>> tenure.

>>>> Depends. If he wanted to teach sociology, What is his qualification?

>>>>

>>>> Tokay

>>> I was told he taught astronomy classes.

>>>

>> Also a field in which the so called "ID-nuts" don't especially do too

>> good. Astonomy includes how the universe began. He probably "argued"

>> that "goddidit". So no wonder. Also, if he is one of those buggers that

>> believes the universe and/or the earth is only 6000 years old, he runs

>> into tons of trouble.

>> So, no. He is out.

>>

>> Tokay

>

> Tokay,

> He did not get tenure but is still a professor. If they fire him, he could

> get a job as a professor at a Christian college where they don't

> discriminate against the advocates of creation science. Discrimination is

> suppose to be illegal but I guess that some of the members of this

> newsgroup appear to believe that it's acceptable for public colleges to

> discriminate against professors that are advocates of creation science by

> not granting them tenure.

Depends on what their field is. If it is biology, or astronomy, they

have a hard time. Hey, to decide who is better fit to teach a scientific

class, I would look at what he actually wants to teach. If he wants to

teach "goddidit", as we all have endlessly explained to you, then, yeah,

he is out. Because it is not science. And actually hinders teaching

science in some fields. Biology is one. Astronomy another.

So, if you want to say I am discriminating against ignorance, then yes.

I am.

I would also not hire a car mechanic that believed there were little

demons inside the engine. If thats discrimination, then I am all for it.

How would you feel if a Christian college

> refused to grant tenure to a biology professor since he was an advocate of

> evolution?

I guess he would not apply for the job in the first place.

Tokay

--

Weinberg's Second Law:

If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote

programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would

destroy civilization.

June 4, 2007

"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in

sni

>

> They actually teach withcraft classes at Columbia. Here is the proof:

Wrong - It's a history class - It's not a class on how to do witchcraft.

--

Robyn

Resident Witchypoo

BAAWA Knight!

#1557

June 4, 2007

In article <1180908177.745993.278380@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,

gudloos@yahoo.com wrote:

> On 3 Jun., 22:12, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <9j1663pg2co5elm1hpf7umont827mer...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> >

> > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> > > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 12:08:44 -0700, in alt.atheism

> > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> > > <Jason-0306071208450...@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> > > >In article <f3ueed$8qe$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

> > > ><tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote:

> >

> > > ...

> >

> > > >> Also a field in which the so called "ID-nuts" don't especially do too

> > > >> good. Astonomy includes how the universe began. He probably "argued"

> > > >> that "goddidit". So no wonder. Also, if he is one of those buggers t=

> hat

> > > >> believes the universe and/or the earth is only 6000 years old, he ru=

> ns

> > > >> into tons of trouble.

> > > >> So, no. He is out.

> >

> > > >> Tokay

> >

> > > >Tokay,

> > > >He did not get tenure but is still a professor. If they fire him, he c=

> ould

> > > >get a job as a professor at a Christian college where they don't

> > > >discriminate against the advocates of creation science.

> >

> > > Real colleges don't teach religious lies as science. I don't think you

> > > can find a single church-related college that would want the lies of

> > > 'creation science' taught in science class. The 'Bible colleges' you are

> > > thinking of have are not real colleges.

> >

> > > >Discrimination is

> > > >suppose to be illegal but I guess that some of the members of this

> > > >newsgroup appear to believe that it's acceptable for public colleges to

> > > >discriminate against professors that are advocates of creation science=

> by

> > > >not granting them tenure. How would you feel if a Christian college

> > > >refused to grant tenure to a biology professor since he was an advocat=

> e of

> > > >evolution?

> >

> > > Once again, you defame those who disagree with you. There was no illegal

> > > discrimination and the man did not fail to get tenure because of his

> > > religious beliefs. Stop telling lies.

> >

> > I attended a Christian college for two years. One of the biology

> > professors was a Christian and was an advocate of creation science. He

> > taught evolution theory. He did not teach creation science to his

> > students. He did have a special session each quarter where he taught the

> > basics of creation science. None of his students were required to attend

> > and none of the students that attended the special session were required

> > to take tests. As far as I know, the other biology professors did not

> > discriminate against him. I visited his office and had a conversation with

> > him. He was not my biology professor. I doubt that he would have been

> > allowed to teach the special creation science session if he had worked in

> > a state university.

>

> Not if the school acted properly. If he tried to teach it, the proper

> action would be to dismiss him if he insisted on continuing such

> behavior. Did you think you had a point?

My point was that a biology professor that is an advocate of creation

science can teach evolution theory as well as a biology professor that is

an advocate of evolution. The special session was probably approved by the

college administrators. It was a Christian college. I attended the college

in 1971 to 1972. Back in those days, the vast majority of the students and

professors were Christians. I doubt that they would now allow a professor

to have a special session to teach creation science. I now present proof

that they teach witchcraft classes at Columbia. What's your opinion about

witchcraft classes?

(ignore the question marks).

As a cultural studies major at Columbia, sophomore Erin Polley had always

been interested in women?s history, so after learning about an elective

class in witchcraft, she decided to sign up.

Witchcraft in Colonial America, a one credit, two-day class offered on a

trial basis in March, examined witchcraft in 17th century America. The

course explored religious beliefs and gender issues while attempting to

establish an understanding for the culture of the society.

Cultural Studies instructor Teresa Prados-Torreira created the class,

which attracted about 20 students, after seeing an interest in the topic

among students in her previous classes.

I know that students are very interested in witchcraft,? Prados-Torreira

said. ?There are always students who are wanting to write papers on

witchcraft and Salem in my other classes.?

Students first learned the history of witchcraft in context with colonial

America, such as the infamous witch trials in 17th-century Salem, Mass.

Polly said she learned about the witch movement in relation to the

political and economic background during that time in history in

Prados-Torreira?s class.

I didn"t have much history of colonial America,? Polley said. So it was

interesting for me to learn another aspect of women?s history.?

Students also watched excerpts from The Crucible, a film adapted from the

famous Arthur Miller play depicting the Salem witch trials of 1692.

The Salem witch-hunts started after 12-year-old Abigail Williams and

9-year-old Elizabeth Parris started demonstrating bizarre behavior,

including screaming and seizures, in January 1692. Within months, more

women and men were being accused of witchcraft, many of whom were

respected members of their community.

Physicians believed the girls were under the spell of Satan and by the end

of February, warrants were issued for their arrests. Though Williams and

Parris were not executed, more than 20 people died as a result of the

trials.

?At that time women were considered irrational,? Polly said. ?The movie

helped get the point across and to see the differences between the book

and readings.?

Prados-Torreira said it?s an important part of women?s history.

?It?s a good topic [to pursue] these days,? Prados-Torreira said.

Salem State College, in Salem, Mass., developed classes in witchcraft

seven years ago after professors realized most students were misinformed

on that period of history.

?Being in the witchcraft capital of the world, a lot of students had a

misconception of what the trials were really about,? said Emerson Baker,

professor of the Magic and Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe at Salem

State College. ?So we developed the curriculum because there is

significant historical relevance.?

There are many ways to look at witchcraft including race, gender,

political views, community conflict and of course women?s history, Baker

said.

It's a historical device so scholars can look into and teach what they

want from it,? Baker said.

The classes offered at Salem State are three-credit electives for graduate

students. Students are interested in enrolling and the class reaches its

capacity every semester, Baker said.

At Wheaton College, a private interdenominational Christian institution in

Wheaton, Ill., the topic of Witchcraft is briefly taught in a few history

classes, but professors generally do not go into depth, said David Maas,

professor of history at Wheaton.

From an actual class standpoint, it would be a very interesting and

legitimate topic for students,? Maas said. It"s a phenomenon that

historians and students are greatly interested in and should be explored.?

Maas said the concept of a two-day, 15-hour class is very interesting, but

a class meeting over time provides more interaction for students.

Either way, with the topic of witchcraft it would make for an interesting

class, Maas said.

Polley agrees, and said the class offered at Columbia was worthwhile and

she was glad she enrolled.

It was a great crash course in witchcraft,? Polley said. ?I feel like it

should have been a longer course, like a three credit, semester class

considering all the material to cover.?

Freshman film major Katherine Wallace, from Salem, Mass., said she likes

the idea of a witchcraft class at Columbia and would sign up if it were

offered again.

Personally I know a lot on witchcraft, it was taught extensively in high

school,? Wallace said. ?But I know a lot of people who have no clue and I

would encourage them to take the class, because it really is part of

history.?

Liberal Education Department Chairwoman Lisa Brock agrees and hopes to

bring the class back in the spring.

We may offer it again next spring, we may not,? Brock said. ?I hope we

can, we?ll have to wait and see.?

I want to make clear that I don?t believe in witches,? Prados-Torreira

said. ?That?s the first thing I told my students on the first day.?

June 4, 2007

"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote

snip

>

> That is not good enough since I could say: Yes, we have living cells but I

> believe that it's because God created living cells.

>

> You will have to do better than that.

So will you. Prove your god exists and then we'll talk.

--

Robyn

Resident Witchypoo

BAAWA Knight!

#1557

June 4, 2007

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:54:00 -0700, in alt.atheism

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

<Jason-0306071654000001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>In article <1180909414.014982.158970@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,

>gudloos@yahoo.com wrote:

....

>> How could it not?

>

>You claim that it happened. Therefore, explain to me how it happened.

Through natural chemical processes.

What other method has evidence to support it?

June 4, 2007

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:16:00 -0700, in alt.atheism

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

<Jason-0306071716010001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>In article <wGG8i.16432$JQ3.7176@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph"

><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

>> news:Jason-0306071532210001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

>> > In article <QBF8i.15473$JQ3.13928@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph"

>> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> >

>> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

>> >> news:Jason-0306071411580001@66-52-22-102.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

>> >> > In article <615663l15ik3mdb5s0bm2rg636pnmqfevk@4ax.com>, Jim07D7

>> >> > <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote:

>> >> >

>> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said:

>> >> >>

>> >> >> <...>

>> >> >> >

>> >> >> >I attended a Christian college for two years. One of the biology

>> >> >> >professors was a Christian and was an advocate of creation science.

>> >> >> >He

>> >> >> >taught evolution theory. He did not teach creation science to his

>> >> >> >students. He did have a special session each quarter where he taught

>> >> >> >the

>> >> >> >basics of creation science. None of his students were required to

>> >> >> >attend

>> >> >> >and none of the students that attended the special session were

>> >> >> >required

>> >> >> >to take tests. As far as I know, the other biology professors did not

>> >> >> >discriminate against him. I visited his office and had a conversation

>> >> >> >with

>> >> >> >him. He was not my biology professor. I doubt that he would have been

>> >> >> >allowed to teach the special creation science session if he had

>> >> >> >worked

>> >> >> >in

>> >> >> >a state university.

>> >> >> >Jason

>> >> >>

>> >> >> Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, has been the location of

>> >> >> a presentation by Duane Gish, presenting the case for scientific

>> >> >> creationism. "Gish is [or was] the vice president of the Institute for

>> >> >> Creation Research and was touted in fliers for the event as "one of

>> >> >> the world's leading experts on Scientific Creationism.""

>> >> >>

>> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish

>> >> >> http://www.ftvc.org/news0900.html

>> >> >

>> >> > That is great news. I saw Dr. Gish debate a professor from the local

>> >> > state

>> >> > college. The auditorium was full of people. They advertised the debate

>> >> > in

>> >> > the ICR newsletter and at many of the churches. As a result, lots of

>> >> > Christians attended the debate.

>> >> > Jason

>> >>

>> >> Ah yes, old "Bullfrog" Gish. Tell me Jason, do you think that real

>> >> science

>> >> is done by public debate?

>> >

>> > No--it's a great method of helping people that attend the debates to

>> > understand the issues. Most of the people that attended Dr. Gish's debates

>> > are not involved in any science related fields or involved in scientific

>> > research. Dr. Gish has retired.

>>

>> What do they learn from these 'debates'? That is takes longer to refute a

>> lie than it does to speak it? Do a search on "Bullfrog" Gish for an idea as

>> to the character of your hero.

>

>I respect Dr. Gish and the other staff members that work at ICR.

You should not. They are people who use Christianity to tell lies. Every

Christian in the world should be offended at the way they manipulate

believers to con them into donating money to spread their lies further.

>Sarah and I actually took a tour through their museum.

Too bad you didn't know enough about science to understand how

completely dishonest they are.

June 4, 2007

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:13:55 -0700, in alt.atheism

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

<Jason-0306071713550001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>In article <jvd6631jv27i1d1c4qter9cls9uifdhge9@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>

>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:32:20 -0700, in alt.atheism

>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>> <Jason-0306071532210001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>> >In article <QBF8i.15473$JQ3.13928@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph"

>> ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> >

>> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

>> >> news:Jason-0306071411580001@66-52-22-102.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

>> >> > In article <615663l15ik3mdb5s0bm2rg636pnmqfevk@4ax.com>, Jim07D7

>> >> > <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote:

>> >> >

>> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said:

>> >> >>

>> >> >> <...>

>> >> >> >

>> >> >> >I attended a Christian college for two years. One of the biology

>> >> >> >professors was a Christian and was an advocate of creation science. He

>> >> >> >taught evolution theory. He did not teach creation science to his

>> >> >> >students. He did have a special session each quarter where he

>taught the

>> >> >> >basics of creation science. None of his students were required to

>attend

>> >> >> >and none of the students that attended the special session were

>required

>> >> >> >to take tests. As far as I know, the other biology professors did not

>> >> >> >discriminate against him. I visited his office and had a conversation

>> >> >> >with

>> >> >> >him. He was not my biology professor. I doubt that he would have been

>> >> >> >allowed to teach the special creation science session if he had worked

>> >> >> >in

>> >> >> >a state university.

>> >> >> >Jason

>> >> >>

>> >> >> Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, has been the location of

>> >> >> a presentation by Duane Gish, presenting the case for scientific

>> >> >> creationism. "Gish is [or was] the vice president of the Institute for

>> >> >> Creation Research and was touted in fliers for the event as "one of

>> >> >> the world's leading experts on Scientific Creationism.""

>> >> >>

>> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish

>> >> >> http://www.ftvc.org/news0900.html

>> >> >

>> >> > That is great news. I saw Dr. Gish debate a professor from the

>local state

>> >> > college. The auditorium was full of people. They advertised the debate in

>> >> > the ICR newsletter and at many of the churches. As a result, lots of

>> >> > Christians attended the debate.

>> >> > Jason

>> >>

>> >> Ah yes, old "Bullfrog" Gish. Tell me Jason, do you think that real science

>> >> is done by public debate?

>> >

>> >No--it's a great method of helping people that attend the debates to

>> >understand the issues.

>>

>> No it isn't, Gish and his ilk are telling lies and misleading people.

>> How does that help understanding? You are completely confused because

>> you believed his lies.

>>

>> >Most of the people that attended Dr. Gish's debates

>> >are not involved in any science related fields or involved in scientific

>> >research.

>>

>> That is why he was able to get away with so many lies.

>>

>> >Dr. Gish has retired.

>> >

>> But the organization that he was part of is still telling lies and you

>> are still being misled by them.

>

>I don't believe they are telling lies.

>

It's an objective fact. Your opinion in this case is worthless.

June 4, 2007

In article <jvd6631jv27i1d1c4qter9cls9uifdhge9@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:32:20 -0700, in alt.atheism

> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> <Jason-0306071532210001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> >In article <QBF8i.15473$JQ3.13928@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph"

> ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >

> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

> >> news:Jason-0306071411580001@66-52-22-102.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> >> > In article <615663l15ik3mdb5s0bm2rg636pnmqfevk@4ax.com>, Jim07D7

> >> > <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote:

> >> >

> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said:

> >> >>

> >> >> <...>

> >> >> >

> >> >> >I attended a Christian college for two years. One of the biology

> >> >> >professors was a Christian and was an advocate of creation science. He

> >> >> >taught evolution theory. He did not teach creation science to his

> >> >> >students. He did have a special session each quarter where he

taught the

> >> >> >basics of creation science. None of his students were required to

attend

> >> >> >and none of the students that attended the special session were

required

> >> >> >to take tests. As far as I know, the other biology professors did not

> >> >> >discriminate against him. I visited his office and had a conversation

> >> >> >with

> >> >> >him. He was not my biology professor. I doubt that he would have been

> >> >> >allowed to teach the special creation science session if he had worked

> >> >> >in

> >> >> >a state university.

> >> >> >Jason

> >> >>

> >> >> Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, has been the location of

> >> >> a presentation by Duane Gish, presenting the case for scientific

> >> >> creationism. "Gish is [or was] the vice president of the Institute for

> >> >> Creation Research and was touted in fliers for the event as "one of

> >> >> the world's leading experts on Scientific Creationism.""

> >> >>

> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish

> >> >> http://www.ftvc.org/news0900.html

> >> >

> >> > That is great news. I saw Dr. Gish debate a professor from the

local state

> >> > college. The auditorium was full of people. They advertised the debate in

> >> > the ICR newsletter and at many of the churches. As a result, lots of

> >> > Christians attended the debate.

> >> > Jason

> >>

> >> Ah yes, old "Bullfrog" Gish. Tell me Jason, do you think that real science

> >> is done by public debate?

> >

> >No--it's a great method of helping people that attend the debates to

> >understand the issues.

>

> No it isn't, Gish and his ilk are telling lies and misleading people.

> How does that help understanding? You are completely confused because

> you believed his lies.

>

> >Most of the people that attended Dr. Gish's debates

> >are not involved in any science related fields or involved in scientific

> >research.

>

> That is why he was able to get away with so many lies.

>

> >Dr. Gish has retired.

> >

> But the organization that he was part of is still telling lies and you

> are still being misled by them.

I don't believe they are telling lies.

June 4, 2007

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:21:29 -0700, in alt.atheism

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

<Jason-0306071721290001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: