Guest Free Lunch Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:33:46 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0306071833470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <uvl663lr1nsjuoarku4uqs9mb2gmdufs07@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> 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? > >How did those chemicals (involved in the chemical processes) come to be? Through other chemical processes. The world is chock full of chemical processes and the world before life would have had different ones. It's not at all hard for the processes to have happened. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:36:57 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0306071836580001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <tom6639bkk4hjo12q8jh6vc9m8husi9vk3@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:14:46 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0306071814470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <r3l663975kb3elm88j7muavkj3a6hoo0mb@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 >> ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: >> > >> >> 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. >> > >> >Dr. Gish's fossil book has 391 pages. M. Lubenow's fossil book has 295 >> >pages. I am NOT going to attempt to summarize those books. If you want to >> >read the books, here are the titles: >> > >> >"Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow >> >"Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by D.T. Gish >> > >> Neither of them provide a shred of evidence that creation happened. > >Did you read those two books? If not, how would you know? > I've read enough of both to know their approach. You'll have to provide evidence that I am wrong, because I see no reason to read their lies just to get back to tell you, again, that they have not offered a shred of evidence that creation happened. No one, anywhere has any evidence that creation happened, so they cannot possibly be offering any. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:39:19 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0306071839200001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <i7m663dr6bvkmmq9qdt8h7gfrbl2q1cfjn@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> 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>: >> >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've read enough of Gish's claims and know enough science to know that >> Gish and the entire ICR are professional liars. You have admitted that >> you are not well enough informed about science to know whether anything >> they say is lying or telling the truth, yet you believe the liars rather >> than the scientists. > >D.T. Gish has a Ph.D degree. He has as much credibility as anyone else >that has a Ph.D degree. > It depends on whether they have sold their credibility for a bunch of religious lies. Gish has no credibility. His PhD is meaningless. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >In article <r3l663975kb3elm88j7muavkj3a6hoo0mb@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > >> 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. > >Dr. Gish's fossil book has 391 pages. M. Lubenow's fossil book has 295 >pages. I am NOT going to attempt to summarize those books. If you want to >read the books, here are the titles: > >"Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow >"Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by D.T. Gish > I don't think you get my point. THe way science works, the creationists have a positive obligation to show that the fossil record confirms creationism. How can I say that more directly? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:42:08 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0306071842090001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <ONI8i.18085$px2.17076@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-0306071610140001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <4sF8i.15341$JQ3.14436@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:Jason-0306071242230001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> > In article <1180863203.738843.244120@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, >> >> > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On 2 Jun., 03:01, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> > In article <i9c163t9qp9l8uhdkc3a0mmiahrdffg...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> > > On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:35:24 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> >> > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> > > <Jason-0106071735240...@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >> > > >In article >> >> >> > > ><1180735061.142997.73...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, >> >> >> > > >gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > ... >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> Except those who are educated and are not idiots. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >Visit a large city zoo and you will notice that they keep the >> >> >> > > >apes >> >> >> > > >and >> >> >> > > >monkeys in cages. When I visited the San Diego Zoo, they kept the >> >> >> > > >gori= >> >> >> lla >> >> >> > > >in a facility that made it impossible for him to escape or throw >> >> >> > > >fecal >> >> >> > > >material at the crowd. Perhaps God should have created and >> >> >> > > >designed >> >> >> > > >monkeys and apes to be vastly different than humans so as not to >> >> >> > > >confu= >> >> >> se >> >> >> > > >the advocates of evolution. >> >> >> > > >Jason >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > What does California keep in the cages at San Quentin? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > People that do not obey the laws. Do wild monkeys and gorillas use >> >> >> > fire?-= >> >> >> Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >> >> >> > >> >> >> > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >> >> >> >> >> >> Does using fire mean that you are not related to other apes? No >> >> >> Jason, it does not mean that. You zoo example was completely >> >> >> meaningless. >> >> > >> >> > These are some of the differences: >> >> > the use of fire >> >> > burying the dead >> >> > the ability to communicate by talking >> >> > differences in DNA >> >> > differences in IQ >> >> > the ability to worship >> >> >> >> Explain to me how chimps and humans share the same defect gene as >> >> explained >> >> here: >> >> >> >> http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0500450102v1.pdf >> > >> > Sorry, I have never taken any classes related to genes or read any books >> > or articles about genes. >> >> Then you need to learn about the defective gene which we share with >> chimpanzees that we both inherited from our common ancestor. Either that or >> god was so incompetent that he gave us the same defect. > >I don't know enough about genes to make a comment. Then why have you been so arrogantly dismissive of evolution? Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >In article <tom6639bkk4hjo12q8jh6vc9m8husi9vk3@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:14:46 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0306071814470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <r3l663975kb3elm88j7muavkj3a6hoo0mb@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 >> ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: >> > >> >> 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. >> > >> >Dr. Gish's fossil book has 391 pages. M. Lubenow's fossil book has 295 >> >pages. I am NOT going to attempt to summarize those books. If you want to >> >read the books, here are the titles: >> > >> >"Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow >> >"Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by D.T. Gish >> > >> Neither of them provide a shred of evidence that creation happened. > >Did you read those two books? If not, how would you know? Because you can't provide ONE page reference, that shows that the fossil record confirms creation. After all, the claimant does have a burden of proof. Or do you agree that these books do not contain one page showing that the fossil record confirms creation????? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <1180913480.690671.61410@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 4, 2:57 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1180862637.657471.263...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 3, 9:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <kb14639jhm2blku18rlfbu04og9sink...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 13:34:34 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > > > <Jason-0206071334340...@66-52-22-85.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > > >In article <4661add3.268...@news.east.earthlink.net>, > > > > > >lumin...@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:48:06 -0700, bramble > > > > > >> <leopoldo.perd...@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. > > > > > > > No, the problem is that you refuse to accept scientific discoveries and > > > > > are stamping your feel like a toddler who can't have his way. Your > > > > > claims about the history of life on earth are false. Repeating them will > > > > > not make them true. > > > > > > > >They don't even like it when college professors teach college students > > > > > >about creation science. 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. The evolutionists are the new > > > > > >fascist. Several days ago, I read about a college professor that was an > > > > > >advocate of creation science. He was denied tenure (spelling??). Of > > > > > >course, if he was an advocate of evolution, he would have been granted > > > > > >tenure. > > > > > > > Your understanding of the case is wrong. Please, stop offering your > > > > > opinion about things that you are ignorant of. > > > > > > Since you know more than I do about that story--do you believe the > > > > professor would have been denied or granted tenure if he had been an > > > > advocate of evolution? > > > > > Considering the "expertise" of those who advocate creationism, it > > > would be one less reason NOT to hire him on, wouldn't it? > > > You are making an assumption. He may or may not have had more expertise > > than other professors. > > Am I? Have you considered how easily those of us here can refute > creationist "arguments"? > > Hint: we are not all university professors here. > > Martin Martin, It's easy for you to refute my arguments. My master's degree is not related to biology or a related field. I doubt that you or anyone else could easily refute the arguments of Dr. D.T. Gish; K. Ham; M. Denton or any of the staff members that have Ph.D degrees that teach at the ICR college. You still have spelled out to me how life came about from non-life. One of the other members of this newsgroup told me something like this: We know that living cells came about from non-life, otherwise, there would not be living cells. 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. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >In article <i7m663dr6bvkmmq9qdt8h7gfrbl2q1cfjn@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> 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>: >> >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've read enough of Gish's claims and know enough science to know that >> Gish and the entire ICR are professional liars. You have admitted that >> you are not well enough informed about science to know whether anything >> they say is lying or telling the truth, yet you believe the liars rather >> than the scientists. > >D.T. Gish has a Ph.D degree. He has as much credibility as anyone else >that has a Ph.D degree. The possession of a PhD degree by someone lends no credibility, in my experience of them. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0306071833470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <uvl663lr1nsjuoarku4uqs9mb2gmdufs07@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> 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? > > How did those chemicals (involved in the chemical processes) come to be? Through supernovae's. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:02:10 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0306071902110001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <E%I8i.18094$px2.298@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-0306071721290001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > 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? >> >> Actually I have and several other creationist books. You can't discuss a >> subject logically if you are not aware of the position of the other side. IN >> this case Gish doesn't understand the conclusions which he is attempting to >> refute. >> >> In your answer I noticed you missed the salient point of Jim's post. If the >> fossils don't support evolution then they must support creation. Please >> present the evidence that the fossils support creation. > >I read Dr. Gish's book many years ago. I avoided answering Jim's question >since I no longer have a copy of Dr. Gish's book. If I still had a copy of >that book, I could have given him an answer. Jim should read Dr Gish's >book if he wants an answer. I >Jason If you had Gish's book you would know that he never offered any evidence to support creation. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <r3l663975kb3elm88j7muavkj3a6hoo0mb@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > 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. Dr. Gish's fossil book has 391 pages. M. Lubenow's fossil book has 295 pages. I am NOT going to attempt to summarize those books. If you want to read the books, here are the titles: "Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by D.T. Gish Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:12:07 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0306071912070001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <avn663h572filef3evnhqeah8f6ikmpp3a@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:33:46 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0306071833470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <uvl663lr1nsjuoarku4uqs9mb2gmdufs07@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> 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? >> > >> >How did those chemicals (involved in the chemical processes) come to be? >> >> Through other chemical processes. The world is chock full of chemical >> processes and the world before life would have had different ones. It's >> not at all hard for the processes to have happened. > >I am asking you how all those chemicals came to be? > Chemicals are the natural or artificial result of natural or artificial chemical precursors which behave in very consistent manners. Chemical reactions always occur in the same way when the same conditions are present. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:09:59 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0306071909590001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <u1J8i.18095$px2.5052@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-0306071814470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <r3l663975kb3elm88j7muavkj3a6hoo0mb@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 >> > <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: >> > >> >> 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. >> > >> > Dr. Gish's fossil book has 391 pages. M. Lubenow's fossil book has 295 >> > pages. I am NOT going to attempt to summarize those books. If you want to >> > read the books, here are the titles: >> > >> > "Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow >> > "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by D.T. Gish >> >> You are really hung up on the number of pages. Why don't you pull out one of >> either Gish's or Lubenow's points and we will examine the evidence behind >> the point. > >I mentioned the number of pages for a reason. Several people stated that >the advocates of creation science have no evidence. Dr. Gish's book has >391 pages and M. Lubenow's book has 295 pages. My point was that there is >EVIDENCE discussed on those pages--they are NOT blank pages. People should >read the books if they want to examine their evidence. >jason > Absolutely none of either book is evidence or even refers to evidence for creation. None at all. The writing on the pages is not evidence for creation. Much of it isn't even true. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <1180914462.863805.266520@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 4, 3:42 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > These are some of the differences: > > the use of fire > > People have to cook their food. Animals don't. > > > burying the dead > > So? My cat can use a litter box. > > > the ability to communicate by talking > > Parrots can communicate by talking. > > > differences in DNA > > Humans and gorillas are 97% identical. > > > differences in IQ > > No difference between you and a chimpanzee as far as I can tell. > > > the ability to worship > > This implies that animals are more intelligent than most humans. > > Martin funny Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In alt.atheism On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:05:07 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <yuF8i.15375$JQ3.5714@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-0306071213090001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > Yes, I believe there was a global flood. I don't know how many years ago >> > that it happened. I doubt that anyone knows the time period that it took >> > place. >> >> I'm glad you believe that Jason. Since the world of science says that there >> is no evidence of a global flood perhaps you can explain why you think there >> was. > >Hello, >Dr. Henry Morris Is wrong. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:16:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0306071916490001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <fjn6631mv5qk50a9fgnms26tnndi53mikj@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:30:19 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0306071830200001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <khm663l8r4e98gh1pcrgcm87mpf4tdp6pa@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:54:47 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-0306071754470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >In article <1180913480.690671.61410@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> >> >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> ... >> >> >> >> >> Am I? Have you considered how easily those of us here can refute >> >> >> creationist "arguments"? >> >> >> >> >> >> Hint: we are not all university professors here. >> >> >> >> >> >> Martin >> >> > >> >> >Martin, >> >> >It's easy for you to refute my arguments. My master's degree is not >> >> >related to biology or a related field. I doubt that you or anyone else >> >> >could easily refute the arguments of Dr. D.T. Gish; K. Ham; M. Denton or >> >> >any of the staff members that have Ph.D degrees that teach at the ICR >> >> >college. >> >> >> >> The arguments of the anti-science creationists were shown to be wrong >> >> decades, even centuries ago. You refuse to accept that fact. >> >> >> >> >You still have spelled out to me how life came about from non-life. >> >> >> >> You know you are being dishonest here. What god do you worship that >> >> requires you to lie? >> >> >> >> >One of the other members of this newsgroup told me something like this: We >> >> >know that living cells came about from non-life, otherwise, there would >> >> >not be living cells. >> >> >> >> Natural chemical reactions allow all of it to have happened. The fact >> >> that we cannot spell out every step to your satisfaction when you have >> >> admitted that you don't even understand the problems says a lot about >> >> you, none of it good. >> >> >> > >> >How did the chemicals that were involved in the chemical reactions come >to be? >> >> I cannot explain it to you until you take Junior High Chemistry. >> >> Are you really so ignorant of science that you have no idea how chemical >> reactions work? > >I know how chemical reactions work. However, when we done the experiments, >we already had the chemicals. I am asking how the chemicals came to be? _All_ chemicals are a result of prior chemical processes. Even a free oxygen molecule has been part of many different molecules in the past. All of the chemical reactions that freed and bound atoms into these molecules was part of a well-understood process. >Since you have taken at least one chemistry class, you already know that >chemicals are needed before a chemical reaction to take place. I am asking >you how those chemcials came to be? Chemicals come from prior chemical processes. Atoms more complex than hydrogen come from stellar fusion. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <f3vkgm$h36$03$2@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <4sF8i.15341$JQ3.14436@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> news:Jason-0306071242230001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >>> In article <1180863203.738843.244120@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > >>> gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 2 Jun., 03:01, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>>> In article <i9c163t9qp9l8uhdkc3a0mmiahrdffg...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:35:24 -0700, in alt.atheism > >>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >>>>>> <Jason-0106071735240...@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >>>>>>> In article <1180735061.142997.73...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > >>>>>>> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > >>>>>> ... > >>>>>>>> Except those who are educated and are not idiots. > >>>>>>> Visit a large city zoo and you will notice that they keep the apes > >>>>>>> and > >>>>>>> monkeys in cages. When I visited the San Diego Zoo, they kept the > >>>>>>> gori= > >>>> lla > >>>>>>> in a facility that made it impossible for him to escape or throw > >>>>>>> fecal > >>>>>>> material at the crowd. Perhaps God should have created and designed > >>>>>>> monkeys and apes to be vastly different than humans so as not to > >>>>>>> confu= > >>>> se > >>>>>>> the advocates of evolution. > >>>>>>> Jason > >>>>>> What does California keep in the cages at San Quentin? > >>>>> People that do not obey the laws. Do wild monkeys and gorillas use > >>>>> fire?-= > >>>> Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > >>>>> - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > >>>> Does using fire mean that you are not related to other apes? No > >>>> Jason, it does not mean that. You zoo example was completely > >>>> meaningless. > >>> These are some of the differences: > >>> the use of fire > >>> burying the dead > >>> the ability to communicate by talking > >>> differences in DNA > >>> differences in IQ > >>> the ability to worship > >> Explain to me how chimps and humans share the same defect gene as explained > >> here: > >> > >> http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0500450102v1.pdf > > > > Sorry, I have never taken any classes related to genes or read any books > > or articles about genes. > > > > > > So how can you then argue? This is what this is about, after all. > So you just admitted that you have no idea about genetics. > > You have now two choices. You can either learn. Or you can choose not to > learn. If you choose not to learn, then why should anyone try to explain > anything to you? > > Tokay I had to learn how to do Punnett Squares to pass the biology lab class. I hated that those Punnett Squares. I would never read a book on a subject that was related to that subject. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <5ch3c3F2tu10kU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > "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. Would you have any problems with state colleges that taught classes related to the history of creation science? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <khm663l8r4e98gh1pcrgcm87mpf4tdp6pa@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:54:47 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-0306071754470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <1180913480.690671.61410@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > ... > > >> Am I? Have you considered how easily those of us here can refute > >> creationist "arguments"? > >> > >> Hint: we are not all university professors here. > >> > >> Martin > > > >Martin, > >It's easy for you to refute my arguments. My master's degree is not > >related to biology or a related field. I doubt that you or anyone else > >could easily refute the arguments of Dr. D.T. Gish; K. Ham; M. Denton or > >any of the staff members that have Ph.D degrees that teach at the ICR > >college. > > The arguments of the anti-science creationists were shown to be wrong > decades, even centuries ago. You refuse to accept that fact. > > >You still have spelled out to me how life came about from non-life. > > You know you are being dishonest here. What god do you worship that > requires you to lie? > > >One of the other members of this newsgroup told me something like this: We > >know that living cells came about from non-life, otherwise, there would > >not be living cells. > > Natural chemical reactions allow all of it to have happened. The fact > that we cannot spell out every step to your satisfaction when you have > admitted that you don't even understand the problems says a lot about > you, none of it good. > How did the chemicals that were involved in the chemical reactions come to be? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <uvl663lr1nsjuoarku4uqs9mb2gmdufs07@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > 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? How did those chemicals (involved in the chemical processes) come to be? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <KLI8i.18084$px2.10576@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0306071607170001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <RoF8i.15298$JQ3.14669@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> news:Jason-0306071236540001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> > In article <1180864433.482133.263330@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > >> > Martin > >> > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Jun 3, 9:37 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >> > In article <f3t1f1$i75$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > >> >> > > Jason wrote: > >> >> > > > In article <f3rg71$rer$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > >> >> > > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> Jason wrote: > >> >> > > >>> In article <s9j163tfd53h20c63pfengglsdqakrb...@4ax.com>, Free > >> >> > > >>> Lunch > >> >> > > >>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > >>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:29:51 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> >> > > >>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> > > >>>> <Jason-0106071829510...@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> > > >>>>> In article <bqc163pt6i3gfpq0oi8u9lp5rr85pmd...@4ax.com>, > >> >> > > >>>>> Free > >> >> > > >>>>> Lunch > >> >> > > >>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > >>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:01:10 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> >> > > >>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> > > >>>>>> <Jason-0106071801100...@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> > > >>>>>>> In article <i9c163t9qp9l8uhdkc3a0mmiahrdffg...@4ax.com>, > >> > Free Lunch > >> >> > > >>>>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:35:24 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> <Jason-0106071735240...@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> In article > >> > <1180735061.142997.73...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> ... > >> >> > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> Except those who are educated and are not idiots. > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> Visit a large city zoo and you will notice that they > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> keep > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> the > >> >> > apes and > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> monkeys in cages. When I visited the San Diego Zoo, they > >> > kept the > >> >> > > >>> gorilla > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> in a facility that made it impossible for him to escape > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> or > >> >> > throw fecal > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> material at the crowd. Perhaps God should have created > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> and > >> > designed > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> monkeys and apes to be vastly different than humans so > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> as > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> not to > >> >> > > >>> confuse > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> the advocates of evolution. > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> Jason > >> >> > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> What does California keep in the cages at San Quentin? > >> >> > > >>>>>>> People that do not obey the laws. Do wild monkeys and > >> >> > > >>>>>>> gorillas > >> >> > use fire? > >> >> > > >>>>>> Does your entire theology rely on the fact that humans > >> > learned to tame > >> >> > > >>>>>> fire and other animals did not? > >> >> > > >> >> > > >>>>>> Wow.... > >> >> > > >>>>> No--I was only pointed out one of the major difference > >> >> > > >>>>> between > >> >> > mankind and > >> >> > > >>>>> animals. > >> >> > > >>>> It's a trivial behavioral difference. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >>>>> I also pointed out in another post that mankind worships God > >> >> > > >>>>> and > >> >> > > >>>>> that animals do not worship God. Of course, not all humans > >> > worship God. > >> >> > > >>>> Another trivial difference. > >> >> > > >>> Another major difference: > >> >> > > >>> IQ levels--much lower than normal people. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >>> also: Animals can not have conversations with people by > >> >> > > >>> talking. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> Actually, they can. You should really start reading some > >> >> > > >> scientific > >> >> > > >> stuff. They taught some bonobos to use a kind of sign language. > >> >> > > >> So > >> >> > > >> they > >> >> > > >> can't "talk" by language. But conversation is not limited to > >> >> > > >> sound. > >> >> > > >> What was your point again? > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> Tokay > >> >> > > >> >> > > > My point is that they can not have converations with people BY > >> >> > > > TALKING. > >> >> > > >> >> > > I hope you do not fix this on language. Language, i.e. sounds. We > >> >> > > are > >> >> > > communicating by internet. No sound? > >> >> > > >> >> > > > Of course, they can communicate. One lady had a bird feeder > >> >> > > > outside > >> >> > her window. > >> >> > > > When the bird feeder became empty, the birds would peck on her > >> >> > > > window to > >> >> > > > let her know that she needed to refill the bird feeder. After > >> >> > > > she > >> > refilled > >> >> > > > the feeder, the birds would stop pecking on her window. Dogs let > >> >> > > > their > >> >> > > > owners know when they are hungry. Yes, apes can use sign > >> >> > > > language. > >> > Do you > >> >> > > > think that an ape would be able to win a chess game with a 12 > >> >> > > > year > >> >> > > > old > >> >> > > > child? > >> >> > > >> >> > > Hardly. But that is not the question. > >> >> > > >> >> > > Do you think that an ape would be able to figure out the > >> >> > > solution > >> >> > > > to an algebra problem? One of the other differences is a low IQ. > >> >> > > > jason > >> >> > > >> >> > > Ah, so the difference is one of IQ? > >> >> > > >> >> > > You are on very thin ice, let me tell you..... > >> >> > > >> >> > I have provided three separate reasons. > >> >> > >> >> The point is, Jason, that your IQ is hardly that much more than that > >> >> of an ape, based on what you've posted here. I'm sure an ape could > >> >> also learn to cut and paste, especially if there was no requirement > >> >> for him to understand what he was cutting and pasting. > >> >> > >> >> You really do need to have things spelled out for you, don't you? > >> >> > >> >> Martin > >> > > >> > Martin, > >> > You have told me that life evolved from non-life. Yes, spell it out for > >> > me. Explain how life evolved from non-life. > >> > Jason > >> > >> It's really simple Jason, once the earth was uninhabitable. Now there is > >> life. Life doesn't 'evolve' from non-life. Life can begin from non-life. > >> Regardless of how life started, evolution now directs the distribution > >> and > >> diversity of life on earth. > > > > Spell it out, explain how life can begin from non-life. > > I can't Jason and don't claim that I can, I can only tell you how it > developed. If you wish to claim that your god started life that is your > privilege. Thanks for being honest. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <tom6639bkk4hjo12q8jh6vc9m8husi9vk3@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:14:46 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-0306071814470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <r3l663975kb3elm88j7muavkj3a6hoo0mb@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > > > >> 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. > > > >Dr. Gish's fossil book has 391 pages. M. Lubenow's fossil book has 295 > >pages. I am NOT going to attempt to summarize those books. If you want to > >read the books, here are the titles: > > > >"Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow > >"Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by D.T. Gish > > > Neither of them provide a shred of evidence that creation happened. Did you read those two books? If not, how would you know? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <i7m663dr6bvkmmq9qdt8h7gfrbl2q1cfjn@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > 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>: > >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've read enough of Gish's claims and know enough science to know that > Gish and the entire ICR are professional liars. You have admitted that > you are not well enough informed about science to know whether anything > they say is lying or telling the truth, yet you believe the liars rather > than the scientists. D.T. Gish has a Ph.D degree. He has as much credibility as anyone else that has a Ph.D degree. Quote
Guest cactus Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <0kF8i.13105$RX.1723@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>, > bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > >> 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. How would you feel if a Christian college >>> refused to grant tenure to a biology professor since he was an advocate of >>> evolution? >> First, it's their right. Second, it is exactly what I would expect. The >> surprise would be that they hired him in the first place. > > If a Christian college refused to grant a biology professor tenure since > he was an advocate of evolution--would the college have that right? > > Sure, if it's a private college. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 4, 2007 Posted June 4, 2007 In article <ONI8i.18085$px2.17076@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0306071610140001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <4sF8i.15341$JQ3.14436@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> news:Jason-0306071242230001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> > In article <1180863203.738843.244120@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > >> > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> > > >> >> On 2 Jun., 03:01, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >> > In article <i9c163t9qp9l8uhdkc3a0mmiahrdffg...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> > > On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:35:24 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> >> > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> > > <Jason-0106071735240...@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> > > >In article > >> >> > > ><1180735061.142997.73...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > >> >> > > >gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > ... > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> Except those who are educated and are not idiots. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >Visit a large city zoo and you will notice that they keep the > >> >> > > >apes > >> >> > > >and > >> >> > > >monkeys in cages. When I visited the San Diego Zoo, they kept the > >> >> > > >gori= > >> >> lla > >> >> > > >in a facility that made it impossible for him to escape or throw > >> >> > > >fecal > >> >> > > >material at the crowd. Perhaps God should have created and > >> >> > > >designed > >> >> > > >monkeys and apes to be vastly different than humans so as not to > >> >> > > >confu= > >> >> se > >> >> > > >the advocates of evolution. > >> >> > > >Jason > >> >> > > >> >> > > What does California keep in the cages at San Quentin? > >> >> > > >> >> > People that do not obey the laws. Do wild monkeys and gorillas use > >> >> > fire?-= > >> >> Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > >> >> > > >> >> > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > >> >> > >> >> Does using fire mean that you are not related to other apes? No > >> >> Jason, it does not mean that. You zoo example was completely > >> >> meaningless. > >> > > >> > These are some of the differences: > >> > the use of fire > >> > burying the dead > >> > the ability to communicate by talking > >> > differences in DNA > >> > differences in IQ > >> > the ability to worship > >> > >> Explain to me how chimps and humans share the same defect gene as > >> explained > >> here: > >> > >> http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0500450102v1.pdf > > > > Sorry, I have never taken any classes related to genes or read any books > > or articles about genes. > > Then you need to learn about the defective gene which we share with > chimpanzees that we both inherited from our common ancestor. Either that or > god was so incompetent that he gave us the same defect. I don't know enough about genes to make a comment. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.