Evolution is Just Junk Science

June 12, 2007

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:22:11 -0700, in alt.atheism

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

<Jason-1106071822110001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>In article <asmr63hd2ffo7a6mih3epsn3mtgeit6pj8@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>

>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:13:40 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

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

>> <Jason-1106071713400001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>>

>> ...

>>

>> >You failed to tell me whether or not such an experiment has been done. I

>> >have read about some of those experiments in the November 2004 issue of

>> >National Geographic magazine in an article entitled, "Was Darwin Wrong". I

>> >recently visited a website that mentioned bacteria experiments. I did not

>> >read about any experiment like the one that is mentioned above. I seem to

>> >recall (if I understod it correctly) that they added DNA to bacteria. That

>> >was not helpful since the theory states that bacteria evolved into a

>> >single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual reproduction). The

>> >theory does not mention an intelligent designer adding DNA to bacteria.

>> >Jason

>>

>> All living organisms have DNA. I have no idea what you have

>> misunderstood here.

>

>I was refering to a Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual

>reproduction). I seem to recall (if I understood it correctly) that they

>added something like that to the bacteria--in the experiment that I read

>about.

>Jason

>

Nope, you're still not making any sense. Could you explain what you

mean? Do you have any idea what you are saying?

June 12, 2007

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:25:51 -0700, in alt.atheism

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

<Jason-1106071825520001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>In article <1181604194.743582.114060@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>> On Jun 12, 1:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>> > In article <1181566794.910552.107...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,

>> >

>> > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

>> > > On 10 Jun., 23:36, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:

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

>> >

>> > > >news:Jason-1006071257370001@66-52-22-1.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

>> >

>> > > > > In article <bg8o63lsgkbuk6ioqc8gr4lcjga1ror...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

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

>> >

>> > > > >> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 09:47:58 -0700, in alt.atheism

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

>> > > > >> <Jason-1006070947590...@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>> > > > >> >In article <1181469394.462447.51...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

>> > > > >> >Martin

>> > > > >> >Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> >

>> > > > >> >> On Jun 10, 1:55 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>> >

>> > > > >> >> > Since testimony is considered as evidence in court, I also

>consid=

>> > > er

>> > > > >> >> > the

>> > > > >> >> > testimony of Cheryl Prewitt as evidence. If you do not

>consider h=

>> > > er

>> > > > >> >> > testimony as evidence, that is your choice. Have you provided in

>> > > > >> >> > evidence

>> > > > >> >> > that indicates that it is possible for bacteria to

>naturally evol=

>> > > ve

>> > > > >> >> > into

>> > > > >> >> > an animal cell?

>> >

>> > > > >> >> Physical evidence trumps testimony, Jason. It's the only

>thing that

>> > > > >> >> can be double checked and verified.

>> >

>> > > > >> >> Martin

>> >

>> > > > >> >That is true but would you acknowledge that testimony is also

>evidenc=

>> > > e?

>> >

>> > > > >> Made up stories are not evidence.

>> >

>> > > > > Is a testimony evidence?

>> >

>> > > > I'm sure as savvy as you are you have heard the old adage, extraordinary

>> > > > claims require extraordinary evidence. No Jason, for someone to

>claim suc=

>> > > h a

>> > > > ridiculous story is true requires more than their oral testimony.-

>Skjul =

>> > > tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -

>> >

>> > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -

>> >

>> > > In all seriousness I think his position is that people just choose to

>> > > believe whatever they want, so testimony is evidence for any claim; if

>> > > one wants to believe the claim - but not if one does not want to

>> > > believe it. That provides the reason atheists do not believe it, i.e.

>> > > they don't want to believe it; so they accept other evidence which is

>> > > (in Jason's opinion) no better than his, after all they can both be

>> > > called "evidence". Jason does not seem to accept the existence of a

>> > > physical reality separate from and regardless of what he believes.

>> > > Not all dogmatic theists come across quite as insane as he does, but,

>> > > at least in the compartment of their mind in which they keep their

>> > > dogma, they are all quite mad.

>> >

>> > I agree that people just choose to believe whatever they want to believe.

>> > That is true for atheists and is also true for Christians.

>>

>> Assertion. We know you swallow every lie that your fellow Godbots

>> tell you. We don't. We rely on actual evidence. That's all there is

>> to it and none of your lies will change the actual truth.

>>

>> Martin

>

>Martin,

>An atheists swallow everything the scientists tell them if it supports

>their belief system.

Once again, you cheerfully lie.

God must hate you.

June 12, 2007

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:39:16 -0700, in alt.atheism

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

<Jason-1106071839160001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>In article <kkor63tinbmus479tfljt5ib6lmn7o9kv7@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>

>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:31:38 -0700, in alt.atheism

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

>> <Jason-1106071731380001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>>

>> ...

>> >Bramble,

>> >I agree with many of the points you made. When God created mankind, he

>> >gave us free will. He did not create robots that were programmed to do

>> >only good things. As a result of free will, people can decide to do great

>> >and wonderful things or can use their free will to decide to commit

>> >criminal acts.

>> >

>> >God is indirectly responsible since he created the solar system and

>> >created life--including mankind. However, when people end up in prison

>> >it's not God's fault. It's the fault of the person that was exercising his

>> >or her free will.

>> >

>> >Do you see my point?

>>

>> Man came about as a result of evolution. That is what the evidence shows

>> us. If God created man, He used evolution. You refuse to accept that

>> fact. You prefer lies to the truth, ignorance to knowledge. You call

>> your God a liar.

>>

>> Why?

>

>The first chapter of the book of Genesis states that God created mankind,

>some plants and some animals.

So what? You know there's no evidence that the Bible came from God or is

scientifically accurate. You also know that there is evidence that many

of the stories in Genesis are scientifically in error.

> I believe that evolution kicked in after the

>creation process was finished.

I don't care. You have already demonstrated that your opinion in this

area is worthless.

>It's my opinion, after reading the last

>paragraph of Darwin's book, that Darwin agrees that God created life on

>this planet.

Even if he did, he does not agree with your false doctrine.

>I read the last chapter of his book which was posted on a

>website and Darwin used the term CREATOR at least once in that chapter. In

>other words, the founder of evolution theory agrees that an intelligent

>designer was involved and actually "breathed [life] into a few forms or

>into one."

He had very little evidence to go on, so there was no reason for him to

speculate about what happened. We have far more, so it is foolish to

continue to refer to the God of the Gaps.

If God exists, He must hate you for telling so many lies about what He

did.

June 12, 2007

In article <CJkbi.47$s8.46@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph"

<mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:

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

> news:Jason-1106071713400001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> > In article <1181600808.174575.23410@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >

> >> On Jun 11, 11:47 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> >> > In article <1181528064.340925.207...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

> >> > Martin

> >> >

> >> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >> > > On Jun 11, 3:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> >> > > > In article

> >> > > > <DipthotDipthot-421910.10183210062...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,

> >> >

> >> > > > 655321 <DipthotDipt...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:

> >> > > > > In article

> >> > > > > <Jason-0906072006580...@66-52-22-86.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>,

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

> >> >

> >> > > > > > In article

> >> > > > > >

<DipthotDipthot-E33034.16000109062...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,

> >> > > > > > 655321 <DipthotDipt...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:

> >> >

> >> > > > > > > In article

> >> > > > > > > <Jason-0906071313520...@66-52-22-50.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>,

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

> >> >

> >> > > > > > > > In article

> >> > > > > > > >

> > <DipthotDipthot-294445.11505509062...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,

> >> > > > > > > > 655321 <DipthotDipt...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:

> >> >

> >> > > > > > > > > In article

> >> > > > > > > > >

<Jason-0906071219110...@66-52-22-50.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>,

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

> >> >

> >> > > > > > > > > > What caused that leg to get longer if God did not heal

> >> > > > > > > > > > her?

> >> >

> >> > > > > > > > > Ahem.

> >> >

> >> > > > > > > > > You are assuming that we accept your telling of the

> >> > > > > > > > > story.

> >> >

> >> > > > > > > > > I, for one, do not. Provide an authoritative source to

> >> > support it.

> >> > > > > > > > > Otherwise, my position is one of doubt.

> >> >

> >> > > > > > > > Do you believe the lady (a former Miss America) was lying

> > when she

> >> > > > stated

> >> > > > > > > > that she was healed by God?

> >> >

> >> > > > > > > Was I unclear? I repeat: You are assuming that we accept

> > your telling

> >> > > > > > > of the alleged story.

> >> >

> >> > > > > > > > If not, how do you explain why her legs are now the same

> >> > > > > > > > size?

> >> >

> >> > > > > > > I guess I was unclear.

> >> >

> >> > > > > > > Look, fellow: You have not proven yourself a reliable source

> > of fact

> >> > > > > > > about anything. You have shown yourself to be a fan of

> > liars. Why

> >> > > > > > > should anyone trust that you have a story about a beauty

> > queen and her

> >> > > > > > > magic leg?

> >> >

> >> > > > > > I copy and pasted the story from a website.

> >> >

> >> > > > > Ooooooh, I am impressed. If it's from a Web site, then it must

> > be true.

> >> > > > > I read about the Flying Spaghetti Monster from a Web site too.

> > (May you

> >> > > > > be blessed by his noodly appendages.)

> >> >

> >> > > > >http://www.venganza.org/

> >> >

> >> > > > > You're welcome.

> >> >

> >> > > > > > If you think that I am not

> >> > > > > > telling the truth about Cheryl Prewitt--google that name.

> >> >

> >> > > > > It ain't my job to do your proving, boy.

> >> >

> >> > > > > Besides, elsewhere in this thread, someone already did said

> >> > > > > search and

> >> > > > > learned that you are a lying idiot. Or extremely gullible.

> >> >

> >> > > > > Or both.

> >> >

> >> > > > > > One of the of

> >> > > > > > members of this newsgroup told me that he googled her name and

> >> > > > > > the

> >> > result

> >> > > > > > was over 700 websites. Cheryl Prewitt is a former Miss America.

> >> >

> >> > > > > But that poster was still not impressed by your claims about a

> >> > > > > divine

> >> > > > > leg-lengthening.

> >> >

> >> > > > > Of course you chose not to mention that.

> >> >

> >> > > > > I wonder why.

> >> >

> >> > > > I am no longer shocked when atheists do not believe the testimonies

> >> > > > of

> >> > > > people that have been healed by God. Atheists do not believe there

> >> > > > is a

> >> > > > God so therefore they automatically reject any evidence

> >> > > > (testimonies)

> >> > > > indicating that God was responsible for the healings. Those same

> > atheists

> >> > > > automatically believe that a single cell (example: bacteria)

> > evolved into

> >> > > > single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual

> > reproduction). They

> >> > > > don't even need evidence in order to believe it since it fits

> > their belief

> >> > > > system.

> >> >

> >> > > Again you neglected to look up and confirm that evidence for this

> >> > > process DOES exist and is well known to biologists.

> >> >

> >> > > Martin

> >> >

> >> > Martin,

> >> > I have a question for you. Has an experiment like this been done:

> >> >

> >> > The scientists place bacteria (and nothing else) on a lab table. They

> >> > can

> >> > mix any elements or combinations of elements with the bacteria. They

> >> > can

> >> > mix amino acids with the bacteria.

> >> > I mentioned the above items since they were probably present before

> >> > life

> >> > forms were on this earth.

> >> >

> >> > Have the scientists done an experiment like the one mentioned above? If

> >> > so, was the result: bacteria that evolved into an:

> >> >

> >> > Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual reproduction).

> >> >

> >> > If so, refer me to a website that mentions the experiment.

> >> >

> >> > I may ask a biology professor at the local state college this same

> >> > question.

> >>

> >> Tell you what, Jason, why don't you read about the details of

> >> experiments that actually _have_ been done. You are hardly qualified

> >> to design your own experiments and then ask real scientists why they

> >> haven't worked.

> >>

> >> Martin

> >

> > You failed to tell me whether or not such an experiment has been done. I

> > have read about some of those experiments in the November 2004 issue of

> > National Geographic magazine in an article entitled, "Was Darwin Wrong". I

> > recently visited a website that mentioned bacteria experiments. I did not

> > read about any experiment like the one that is mentioned above. I seem to

> > recall (if I understod it correctly) that they added DNA to bacteria. That

> > was not helpful since the theory states that bacteria evolved into a

> > single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual reproduction). The

> > theory does not mention an intelligent designer adding DNA to bacteria.

> > Jason

>

> Jason, just out of curiosity do you remember the conclusion of the article

> in National Geographic as to whether or not Darwin was wrong?

The title of the article was

WAS DARWIN WRONG?

the answer was:

No--the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

I read the article and my conclusion was:

the evidence for natural selection is overwhelming but the

evidence for abiogenesis and common descent is underwhelming.

June 12, 2007

In article <1181601347.999940.35070@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > In article

> > <Jason-1006071559590...@66-52-22-36.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>,

>

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

> > > She has

> > > witnessed to thousands of people.

>

> Wow. She's lied to a lot of people then. I find that completely and

> utterly morally reprehensible. It is also typical Godbot behaviour.

>

> Martin

the alternative is "she told the truth to a lot of people then."

June 12, 2007

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 10:29:29 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason

<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:57:59 -0400, Al Klein wrote:

>> And how can he argue with common descent? He didn't descend from

>> his parents?

>Well, there's that, but I was thinking more like this: if you take common

>descent out of the picture, WTF is left?

That we've all been here since the beginning? Even fundies don't

reject the notion of reproduction.

June 12, 2007

In article <1181601575.339680.162550@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jun 11, 2:07 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article

> > <DipthotDipthot-6093DF.21080710062...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,

> >

> > 655321 <DipthotDipt...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:

> > > In article

> > > <Jason-1006071559590...@66-52-22-36.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>,

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

> >

> > > > In article

> > > > <DipthotDipthot-FBD374.13472010062...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,

> > > > 655321 <DipthotDipt...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:

> >

> > > > > In article

> > > > > <Jason-1006070954070...@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>,

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

> >

> > > > > > I still believe she is telling the truth.

> >

> > > > > Of course you do. The voices in your head told you to.

> >

> > > > She came to our church and gave her testimony. She was a teenage

girl. The

> > > > other students teased her because she limped when she walked. That

is the

> > > > reason she asked God to heal her. She wanted to have a normal life. Is

> > > > there anything wrong with a teenage girl wanting to have a normal life?

> >

> > > What about those people in places where having a life beyond 15 is

> > > normally too much to ask for?

> >

> > > > The beauty contests came later in her life. She knows that she

would never

> > > > have won any of those beauty contests if God had not healed her. As a

> > > > result of becoming Miss America, many doors were opened to her. She has

> > > > witnessed to thousands of people.

> >

> > > Or, it could all be a delusion. Repetition is not evidence.

> >

> > > I'll say it again.

> >

> > > Repetition is not evidence.

> >

> > > Understand?

> >

> > > No?

> >

> > > Maybe one more time.

> >

> > > Repetition is not evidence.

> >

> > > > I could not help but laugh when someone

> > > > told me that she lied about the healing.

> >

> > > Or, she's just as deluded as you are. There's no way of telling until

> > > reliable evidence is presented.

> >

> > > Or you are still feeding us a line.

> >

> > > Ever hear of the phrase "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary

> > > evidence"?

> >

> > > Think about it.

> >

> > > Of course, you have yet to provide 'ordinary' evidence.

> >

> > > > Of couse, she is telling the truth.

> >

> > > See above.

> >

> > > > Do you think that she faked a limp so that she could later claim

> > > > that she was healed?

> >

> > > That kind of stuff is commonly known to have happened.

> >

> > > I won't address this story of your seriously unless you can provide a

> > > reliable, corroborating source with no bias toward believing that some

> > > sort of "miracle" happened.

> >

> > > You have proven yourself highly unreliable. You have admitted that you

> > > willingly swallow lies when you "respect" the liar.

> >

> > > So try again.

> >

> > > > The bottom line is that atheists would never believe

> > > > that she was healed by God even if she produced a mountain of physical

> > > > evidence to prove it.

> >

> > > The bottom line is that you have not produced PIECE ONE of physical

> > > evidence... you've just repeated the same story and asked stupid

> > > questions.

> >

> > > "A girl at my church" sets up warning flags.

> >

> > > > The reason is because a healing by God does not

> > > > "fit" their belief system.

> >

> > > Liar. You know that you have not produced one tiny shred of reliable,

> > > empirical evidence that this story is even partly true.

> >

> > > > However, they need no evidence to believe that

> > > > a single cell (example: bacteria) evolved into a single animal

cell (with

> > > > DNA nucleus capable of sexual reproduction).

> >

> > > More lies about science.

> >

> > > Nice work, dimwit. Care to try again?

> >

> > Cheryl Prewitt could provide a mountain of physical evidence and you still

> > would not believe that God healed her.

>

> Presumably. But she didn't. It's called "preaching to the choir".

> If there was really some cover up to hide the evidence that she had

> been cured then surely she would have called for an investigation by

> now. In the meantime, all we have is the word of a Godbot. And that

> is worth the same as a bucket of shit. You prove that lately with

> every other post you make here.

>

> Martin

Martin,

Dr. Gish, Dr. Morris and Cheryl Prewitt are preaching to the choir. She

does not need to carry her medial records and X rays with her when she

gives her testimony. We believed her when she gave her testimony and

enjoyed hearing her sing various songs. Perhaps she does carry the medical

records with her in case she speaks to a group that includes skeptics but

I doubt that she speaks to such groups of people. She would not enjoy

giving her testimony to people that took turns calling her a liar.

Jason

June 12, 2007

In alt.atheism On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:23:39 -0700, gudloos@yahoo.com

let us all know that:

>On 11 Jun., 15:38, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:

>> In alt.atheism On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 16:28:00 -0700, J...@nospam.com

>> (Jason) let us all know that:

>>

>> >12 percent agree with you related to one aspect of evolution theory.

>> >88 percent agree with me related to that same aspect of evolution theory.

>>

>> Wrong.

>>

>> Now then: what about my responses to the 20 questions? I'll

>> keep asking until you give me something more substantive than "thank

>> you for answering".

>

>How many years do you intend to dedicate?

Until he gives up and leaves.

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"

June 12, 2007

In article <1181604561.388652.148620@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jun 12, 1:57 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

> > Please explain what the researchers mean when they discuss "another

> > universe with space-time geometry similar to our own...." Did this

> > universe exist prior the Big Bang and would it have been possible to

> > measure time in that universe?

>

> We've been through this, Jason. I long ago said "It is reasonable to

> suppose that something happened before the big bang that led to the

> big bang". Just because it is reasonable to suppose, though, doesn't

> mean it is true: all the evidence suggests that the universe began

> with the big bang. If anything happened "before" then, yes, we would

> be talking about another universe. Why do you keep bringing this up

> as though it were new information?

>

> Martin

Martin,

I was trying to resolve conflicting information. You told me long ago that

a universe may have existed prior to the Big Bang and other people told me

that time and physics did not exist prior to the Big Bang. That was a

conflict that I was trying to resolve. It appears that some experts (such

as the ones that I mentioned) do believe that another universe existed

prior to the Big Bang. However, the consensus is that time and physics did

not exist prior to the Big Bang. Do I now have it right?

Jason

June 12, 2007

On Jun 12, 8:23 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1181601072.915645.85...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > On Jun 11, 12:04 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > I do remember that she said that her leg was damaged in a car

> > > accident. The doctors had to remove a portion of the leg bone which was

> > > the reason one leg was two inches shorter than the other leg. In the case

> > > of your injuries and the injury of your wife--sections of bone did not

> > > have to be removed--unless you left something out of your story. You are

> > > intelligent enough to know that all broken bones are not the same--if the

> > > bone is crushed--the bad section of bone is removed and the remaining two

> > > sections are put back together with pins. In her case, about 2 inches of

> > > leg bone was removed. My friend lost about 5 inches of leg bone as a

> > > result of an injury. He wears a platform shoe on one foot and walks with a

> > > limp.

>

> > This would all be very easy to confirm if it were true. It would be

> > published in a medical journal somewhere. How do you explain the fact

> > that it hasn't been? Are all doctors liars? Do you think they

> > destroyed her x-rays in some mad cover up? Do you realize just how

> > insane you'd have to be to believe this?

> I was told that Cheryl Prewitt is mentioned in over 700 websites. Perhaps

> some of them do include information about her medical records. Try a

> google search for "Cheryl Prewitt medical records" or "Cheryl Prewitt X

> Rays".

Jason, get a clue. The onus is on YOU to find support for her lies.

Any rational person would realize this.

Martin

June 12, 2007

In article <asmr63hd2ffo7a6mih3epsn3mtgeit6pj8@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:13:40 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> <Jason-1106071713400001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>

> ...

>

> >You failed to tell me whether or not such an experiment has been done. I

> >have read about some of those experiments in the November 2004 issue of

> >National Geographic magazine in an article entitled, "Was Darwin Wrong". I

> >recently visited a website that mentioned bacteria experiments. I did not

> >read about any experiment like the one that is mentioned above. I seem to

> >recall (if I understod it correctly) that they added DNA to bacteria. That

> >was not helpful since the theory states that bacteria evolved into a

> >single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual reproduction). The

> >theory does not mention an intelligent designer adding DNA to bacteria.

> >Jason

>

> All living organisms have DNA. I have no idea what you have

> misunderstood here.

I was refering to a Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual

reproduction). I seem to recall (if I understood it correctly) that they

added something like that to the bacteria--in the experiment that I read

about.

Jason

June 12, 2007

On Jun 12, 8:31 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> God

God doesn't exist.

created mankind, he

> gave us free will.

Free will doesn't exist.

You're 0 for 2.

Martin

June 12, 2007

In article <1181604194.743582.114060@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jun 12, 1:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <1181566794.910552.107...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,

> >

> > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > > On 10 Jun., 23:36, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:

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

> >

> > > >news:Jason-1006071257370001@66-52-22-1.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> >

> > > > > In article <bg8o63lsgkbuk6ioqc8gr4lcjga1ror...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

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

> >

> > > > >> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 09:47:58 -0700, in alt.atheism

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

> > > > >> <Jason-1006070947590...@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> > > > >> >In article <1181469394.462447.51...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

> > > > >> >Martin

> > > > >> >Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >

> > > > >> >> On Jun 10, 1:55 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> >

> > > > >> >> > Since testimony is considered as evidence in court, I also

consid=

> > > er

> > > > >> >> > the

> > > > >> >> > testimony of Cheryl Prewitt as evidence. If you do not

consider h=

> > > er

> > > > >> >> > testimony as evidence, that is your choice. Have you provided in

> > > > >> >> > evidence

> > > > >> >> > that indicates that it is possible for bacteria to

naturally evol=

> > > ve

> > > > >> >> > into

> > > > >> >> > an animal cell?

> >

> > > > >> >> Physical evidence trumps testimony, Jason. It's the only

thing that

> > > > >> >> can be double checked and verified.

> >

> > > > >> >> Martin

> >

> > > > >> >That is true but would you acknowledge that testimony is also

evidenc=

> > > e?

> >

> > > > >> Made up stories are not evidence.

> >

> > > > > Is a testimony evidence?

> >

> > > > I'm sure as savvy as you are you have heard the old adage, extraordinary

> > > > claims require extraordinary evidence. No Jason, for someone to

claim suc=

> > > h a

> > > > ridiculous story is true requires more than their oral testimony.-

Skjul =

> > > tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -

> >

> > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -

> >

> > > In all seriousness I think his position is that people just choose to

> > > believe whatever they want, so testimony is evidence for any claim; if

> > > one wants to believe the claim - but not if one does not want to

> > > believe it. That provides the reason atheists do not believe it, i.e.

> > > they don't want to believe it; so they accept other evidence which is

> > > (in Jason's opinion) no better than his, after all they can both be

> > > called "evidence". Jason does not seem to accept the existence of a

> > > physical reality separate from and regardless of what he believes.

> > > Not all dogmatic theists come across quite as insane as he does, but,

> > > at least in the compartment of their mind in which they keep their

> > > dogma, they are all quite mad.

> >

> > I agree that people just choose to believe whatever they want to believe.

> > That is true for atheists and is also true for Christians.

>

> Assertion. We know you swallow every lie that your fellow Godbots

> tell you. We don't. We rely on actual evidence. That's all there is

> to it and none of your lies will change the actual truth.

>

> Martin

Martin,

An atheists swallow everything the scientists tell them if it supports

their belief system.

Jason

June 12, 2007

On Jun 12, 7:33 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:13:40 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

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

> <Jason-1106071713400...@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: