Evolution is Just Junk Science

June 14, 2007

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:33:27 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

<Jason-1406070033280001@66-52-22-114.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>In article <3141739t0lmpjt8n7o087rb2u93abpjga6@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>

>> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:12:57 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

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

>> <Jason-1306071312570001@66-52-22-31.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

....

>> >I understand your point. I do believe that a testimony is evidence. The

>> >members of a jury can decide which testimonies to believe. Those same jury

>> >members can decide which testimonies to not believe. The testimony of

>> >Chery Prewitt can be believed by some people (esp. Christians). On the

>> >other hand, her testimony is not believed by other people (esp. atheists).

>> >

>> Cheryl had absolutely no evidence that God had anything to do with it.

>> You refuse to acknowledge your intentional and repeated dishonesty.

>>

>> Does God really deserve your lies?

>

>Cheryl honestly believed that God healed her leg. I also believe that God

>healed her leg. Last week, I posted a story about the miracle healing

>testimony of

>William A. Kent. I also believe that God healed Mr. Kent.

So, God exists because you say so and you don't care that you have

absolutely no evidence to support your claim. Fine with me. You worship

yourself, I don't care. I won't worship you, you've already demostrated

that you are dishonest and unreliable, an enemy of knowledge and a

cheerleader for ignorance. Clearly, you do not follow Jesus, who

strongly condemned your behavior in the Parable of the Talents. Of

course I don't recall that he told his followers to lie, either.

June 14, 2007

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:21:35 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

<Jason-1406070021350001@66-52-22-114.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>In article <1181790614.886041.18490@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>> On Jun 14, 7:33 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>> > In article <1181767645.983506.69...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, bramble

>> >

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

>> > > On 13 jun, 21:01, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>> > > > In article <7f50735gqg9n7ifa3ib8ucmhc2t0jd9...@4ax.com>, John Baker

>> >

>> > > > <n...@bizniz.net> wrote:

>> > > > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 02:48:04 -0700, gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

>> >

>> > > > > >On 12 Jun., 19:42, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>> > > > > >> In article <1181643770.817395.36...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,

>> >

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

>> > > > > >> > On 11 Jun., 21:54, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>> > > > > >> > > In article <0de0k4-blk....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey

>Bjarnason

>> > > > > >snip

>> >

>> > > > > >> > A person that has been healed is evidence that he was

>healed. It is

>> > > > > >> > not evidence of a god.

>> >

>> > > > > >> Yes, that is true. If I provided physical evidence which

>indicated that

>> > > > > >> her leg bone grew 2 inches--how would you explain how it happened?-

>> >

>> > > > > >I would not be able to explain it, and that is not evidence that god

>> > > > > >did it.

>> >

>> > > > > But then, Jason isn't about to provide any evidence either.....

>> >

>> > > > Why bother--several have told me that if I provided physical evidence to

>> > > > prove that her leg bone grew two inches, they would still not

>believe that

>> > > > God healed her leg.

>> >

>> > > You are asking for imposibles, Jason. Dismissing the posibility of a

>> > > cooked fraude... yes, frauds happens all the times. Well, dismissing

>> > > the case of fraud, we are in front of an unexplained phenomenon. A

>> > > phenomenon that we cannot explain is not the prove of any divine

>> > > intervention. Just, we cannot yet explain the rain. We supose it is

>> > > a natural phenomenon, bur it cannot be explained yet. Well, there is

>> > > a lot of phenomenons we cannot explain. But these can be atributed to

>> > > god by some people. But others simple confess "we cannot understand

>> > > it or explain it." So, if this lady's leg really grew two inches, it

>> > > is all right. But this is not the prove of an action on the part of

>> > > God.

>> > > In the past, all calamites were called, acts of god. Hurricanes,

>> > > tornados, huge floods, persitent raining, droughts, earthquakes,

>> > > sunamies... you name them.

>> > > Acts of god. A very malevolent one, but the way.

>> > > Bramble

>> >

>> > If her leg bone grew two inches--how would you explain how it happened?

>>

>> No it didn't. She lied.

>>

>> Martin

>

>But how would you know if you have not seen any physical evidence?

>

You are the one who has the duty to produce the evidence to support your

unlikely claim. You have already demonstrated that you are dishonest, so

we aren't likely to give you a break on this. Why should we?

June 14, 2007

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:38:39 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

<Jason-1406070038390001@66-52-22-114.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>In article <r341739dii650oscan5npn42p14d433ijk@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>

>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:06:57 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

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

>> <Jason-1206072106570001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>> >In article <jbdu63dbf8uae5r7fv9mee2g40sb6q0ks1@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

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

>> >

>> >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:09:13 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

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

>> >> <Jason-1206071509130001@66-52-22-111.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>> >> >In article <31d3k4-7or.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

>> >> ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >> >

>> >> >> [snips]

>> >> >>

>> >> >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 13:03:44 -0700, Jason wrote:

>> >> >>

>> >> >> >> It's easy to find people who will tell us what a blasphemous

>> >infidel you

>> >> >> >> are for saying that the 9/11 Jihadists were not pleasing Allah with

>> >> >> >> their actions.

>> >> >> >

>> >> >> > You already know that millions of people in America agree that the

>> >actions

>> >> >> > of those men were not pleasing to Jehovah.

>> >> >>

>> >> >> "in America"? Oh, wonderful. Now someone's religion is invalidated

>> >> >> simply by where they live .

>> >> >

>> >> >I mentioned America since those 3000 people were killed in America.

>> >> >Millions of people in other countries also realize that the actions of

>> >> >those men were not pleasing to Jehovah.

>> >>

>> >> So you say. Apparently you never read the Old Testament. Jehovah was a

>> >> pretty bloodthirsty tyrant. He might love the murders of 9/11 and the

>> >> wars that happened afterward.

>> >>

>> >> >What is your opinion about those men that killed 3000 people on 9/11?

>> >>

>> >> They are evil. But I don't have to defend the evil acts that people do

>> >> in the name of God.

>> >>

>> >> Remember, they worship the same God you do.

>> >

>> >They worship a God named Allah. There were some people in the Bible that

>> >worshipped a false God named Baal. Judges 2:13. I consider Allah to be a

>> >false God. I already know people will diagree with me.

>> >jason

>> >

>> Your ignorance of comparative religion is noted.

>>

>> Jews, Christians, Moslems, and Bahai all worship the same god. The word

>> for God in Arabic is Allah. It is exactly the same name that Christian

>> Arabs use when they pray to God.

>>

>> You are remarkably proud of your ignorance. Why do you think your god

>> will be proud of you or even tolerate you?

>

>There are vast differences between the Christian religion and the Moslem

>religion. One example: I know for a fact that the Christian Bible does not

>mention anything about Christians getting a bunch of virgins in heaven.

>

That has absolutely nothing to do with the _fact_ that Jews, Christian,

Moslems and Bahai all agree that they worship the same God, the God of

Abraham. I don't know what god you worship. If you worship the God of

Abraham, you worship the same God that Moslems worship.

Deal with reality sometime. I'm sick of the lies that you tell because

you indulge in so much wishful thinking and intentional ignorance.

June 14, 2007

In article <f4s36c$se9$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

<prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> Jason wrote:

> > In article <f4rce1$54j$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> >

> >> Jason wrote:

> >>> Cheryl Prewitt told me that she was healed by God. She stated that she saw

> >>> her leg bone grow two inches. I believed her testimony. She has gave her

> >>> testimony at many different churches. Her name is mentioned on over 700

> >>> websites.

> >> "UFO" is mentioned on 37,800,000 websites. Are they real?

> >>

> >> The words "Jason" "owes" and "money" match to 467,000 websites. Does

> >> that mean you're a deadbeat?

> >>

> >> The phrase "pigs fly" matches to 432,000 and "flying pigs" match to

> >> 204,000 sites. Are pigs now flying?

> >>

> >> "Jason is smart" matched to 3,560 sites. Well, that proves the number of

> >> sites google matches is worthless for proving something.

> >>

> >> Oh, wait, "Jason is an idiot" matched 6,490 sites. Maybe there really IS

> >> something to this whole "mentioned on over XXXXX sites" thing.

> >

> > Google your full name and determine if it is mentioned on over 700 websites.

> >

>

> Personalized Results 1 - 100 of about 577,000 English pages for "Michael

> Anderson".

>

> Your point is, again?

Your first name and last name are common names.

One more try--I found this name in the phone book-try it:

John Pietrzak

June 14, 2007

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:35:14 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

<Jason-1406070135150001@66-52-22-114.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>In article <0c41731qbu3l8n3j7rhumqe3vmdvf5rvs7@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>

>> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:22:57 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

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

>> <Jason-1306070022570001@66-52-22-83.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>> >In article <1181708123.776350.23860@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>> ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> >

>> >> On Jun 13, 11:59 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>> >> > In article <1181695356.967104.238...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,

>Martin

>>

>> ...

>>

>> >> > > By the way, Genesis 1 says "El" created the universe and mankind but

>> >> > > Genesis 2 says it was "Yahweh".

>> >>

>> >> > Do you have the verses? El may be one of the many names of God.

>> >>

>> >> In fact, Genesis 1 talks about the Elohim, which means "gods", in

>> >> plural. (e.g. Genesis 6:2, "... the sons of Elohim saw the daughters

>> >> of men that they were fair; and they took them for wives... ,")

>> >>

>> >> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim

>> >>

>> >> Martin

>> >

>> >This is in reference to the intermarriage among the Cainites and Sethites.

>> >The Cainites were sinful, evil people and the Sethites were devoted and

>> >consecrated to God. God became very upset with the Sethites for taking

>> >Cainite women as their wives since God wanted them to only marry Sethite

>> >women.

>> >

>> >I copied most of the above info. from a footnote in my study Bible.

>> >Jason

>> >

>> The authors of your study bible note were making it up. They have no

>> evidence at all that their claim is correct.

>

>Should I believe you or the words of the W.A. Chriswell, Ph.D--the editor

>of my study Bible or yourself--take a guess on my choice.

>

I know that you would be mistaken to believe those who make things up

like this, but I also know that you have a demonstrated willingness to

be led astray by those who tell you what you want to hear. Chriswell

does not have _any_ evidence that "this is in reference to the

intermarriage among the Cainites and Sethites."

Deal with facts.

June 14, 2007

In article <5ddithF340ot4U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"

<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:

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

> news:Jason-1406071240170001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> > In article <5dd120F32b338U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"

> > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:

> >

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

> >>

> >> snip

> >> >

> >> > Cheryl Prewitt told me that she was healed by God.

> >>

> >> So? You believe every thing you're told?

> >

> > In relation to some people, including Chery Prewitt, I do believe what

> > they say.

>

> Why? Because they're christians?

In this case, it played a role. I don't trust all people that are

Christians such as Jimmy Swaggart. I trust the members of my family and

one of them is a Moslem--my niece married a man that is a Moslem and she

decided to become a Moslem.

>

> I don't believe everything that many people say---such as Bill

> > Clinton. Did you believe him when he stated, "I did not have sex with that

> > woman"?

>

> Irrelevant

June 14, 2007

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

news:Jason-1406071218540001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> In article <%_aci.3526$s8.1518@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph"

> <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>> "Martin" <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:1181791042.696607.245920@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

>> > On Jun 14, 8:37 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>> >> > Even if Jesus himself

>> >> > saiys not any word about this in the NT.

>> >>

>> >> Yes, he does. He forgave a prostitute for her sins. He could have had

>> >> her

>> >> stoned to death--he did not do it.

>> >

>> > And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the Christian concept of a loving

>> > god!

>> >

>> > Martin

>>

>> Actually Jason the story about the prostitute was added to the bible.

>> Jesus

>> never had such an encounter.

>

> It was absent from the Alexandrian text but was in other

> manuscripts--including in the writings of Augustine.

>

> I copied the above information from a footnote in my study Bible--the

> editor was W.A. Criswell, Ph.D.

This story is not part of the original story told by John. You are correct

that it is found in some manuscripts but not necessarily in John. I think

the fact that it isn't in the best texts we have and that when it is found

it is found in various places makes it pretty certain that the story was a

later inclusion by the followers of Jesus. Which brings us to the writings

of Augustine. While we can get valuable information from the writings of the

early church fathers as to the composition of the earliest bible, it must

also be remembered that the early church fathers wrote many of the things in

the bible to support their point of view.

June 14, 2007

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

news:Jason-1406071520210001@66-52-22-102.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> In article <2Dhci.2$C31.1@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph"

> <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

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

>> news:Jason-1406071246330001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

>> > In article <f4rc1o$46b$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

>> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>> >

>> >> Jason wrote:

>> >> > In article <WgYbi.3170$s8.2400@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph"

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

>> >> >

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

>> >> >> news:Jason-1306071303300001@66-52-22-31.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

>> >> >>> The people (like Cheryl Prewitt) that are healed by God are

>> >> >>> evidence

>> >> >>> that

>> >> >>> there is a God. Even when Jesus was on this earth, he did not heal

>> >> >>> everyone that needed to be healed.

>> >> >> Mighty convenient Jason, your god doesn't heal all just select

>> >> >> ones.

>> > I guess

>> >> >> you need it that way to fit what we all know to be reality.

>> >> >

>> >> > If God healed all people of all medical problems--people would never

>> >> > die.

>> >>

>> >> Then why heal ANY of them? Your "logic" just doesn't pass muster.

>> >

>> > Because he enjoys answering the prayers of his servants--such as

>> > Christian

>> > farmers praying for rain.

>>

>> Why did he deny them the rain in the first place?

>

> Probably because natural weather patterns were the cause for the lack of

> rain.

I see, the bad is natural and the god is performed by god. What a screwed up

sense of values.

June 14, 2007

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 02:01:09 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

<Jason-1406070201090001@66-52-22-114.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>In article <8f4173tmksbno3p7t9nf3h9hriue2vrlkl@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

....

>> So you claim, but I've learned that your claims are not reliable. I

>> would be a total fool to accept something that you tell me without any

>> evidence or reference.

>

>I heard the story on a Christian radio show. I found this story on the web:

>

>Vietnam Police Kill Christian Prisoners And Relatives, Investigators Say

>Added: May 29th, 2007 2:47 AM

>

>By Stefan J. Bos, Chief International Correspondent BosNewsLife with

>reporting from Vietnam

>

>HANOI, VIETNAM (BosNewsLife) -- Vietnamese security forces have tortured

>and killed at least two Christian Degar Montagnards in Vietnam's Central

>Highlands in recent months and allegedly murdered relatives of religious

>prisoners, representatives said Monday, May 28.

>

>The US-based advocacy group Montagnard Foundation Incorporated (MFI),

>which has contacts in the region, told BosNewsLife that one of the

>Christian Degar Montagnard prisoners, 43-year-old Rahlan Lua from the

>village of Bon Toat in Gialai province, died last month, April 10. He died

>"from the effects of torture and maltreatment he received in prison," MFI

>stressed.

Please notice that this is not a news report but the hearsay of a story

told by one group with a political agenda to someone else with a

political agenda. Please also notice that these people were not only

Christian, but also anti-government activists and members of minorities.

I have no idea if they were killed by government agents, but, once

again, you are too self-centered to recognize that the Christianity of

these activists is not the problem.

....

June 14, 2007

In article <f4s386$se9$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

<prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> Jason wrote:

> > In article <f4rbvv$46b$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> >

> >> Jason wrote:

> >>> In article <f4pa1r$vpv$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> >>>

> >>>> Jason wrote:

> >>>>> In article <opc3k4-7or.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

> >>>>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>>>

> >>>>>> [snips]

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:42:26 -0700, Jason wrote:

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>>> Yes, that is true. If I provided physical evidence which

indicated that

> >>>>>>> her leg bone grew 2 inches--how would you explain how it happened?

> >>>>>> Honestly, by stating the cause - if any, you haven't validated even

> > this

> >>>>>> much yet - simply isn't known yet.

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> "I don't know" is not the same as "Yes, there really is a super

> > being who,

> >>>>>> of all the thousands of such beings described, just happens to

match this

> >>>>>> particular one and he really does heal people, but does it magically

> >>>>>> without leaving any evidence he did it - or even that he exists."

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> You see how those differ? Maybe, some day, you'll let it sink in.

> >>>>> Have you considered that God is giving you evidence that he exists by

> >>>>> healing people? Maybe, some day, you'll let it sink in.

> >>>> Are all the people that aren't healed evidence that there is no god?

> >>>>

> >>>> BTW, if I went to a doctor that had as bad of a healing rate as your

> >>>> god, I'd sue him for malpractice.

> >>> The people (like Cheryl Prewitt) that are healed by God are evidence that

> >>> there is a God. Even when Jesus was on this earth, he did not heal

> >>> everyone that needed to be healed.

> >> Let's try to answer the question asked this time:

> >>

> >> "Are all the people that aren't healed evidence that there is no god?"

> >

> > no

>

> Then by what logic are those who ARE healed "evidence for god?"

It's a case by case basis. In the case of Cheryl Prewitt and William Kent,

it is my opinion that it is evidence of God. That does not mean that all

healings are evidence for God. For example, if someone develops a common

cold and the man prays--and the cold goes away in three weeks---that is

not evidence for God.

June 14, 2007

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:32:13 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

<Jason-1406070132130001@66-52-22-114.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>In article

><DipthotDipthot-CCA16E.18144813062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,

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

....

>> Maybe you'd learn that there is none, and that you were wrong all along.

>>

>> Don't be afraid that learning such a thing could shake your faith in

>> your god. I know that wouldn't happen.

>

>I asked at least two people a question like this:

>

>If I produced physical evidence that proved that Cheryl's leg bone grew

>two inches, would you agree that God healed her?

>

>Both posters told be that even if I proved that Cheryl's leg bone grew two

>inches, that it would NOT mean that God healed her.

Because it doesn't. It does not matter what you believe. Belief is not

evidence. All you are doing is making an arrogant assertion and then

whining because you are being asked to provide some evidence that God

had anything to do with it, but you know you cannot. Stop whining. Stop

lying.

>All of the various questions related to the THE MIRACLE HEALING TESTIMONY

>OF WILLIAM A. KENT AND CHERYL PREWITT reminded me of a story in the Bible.

>See Luke 16:19-31. The rich man was in the place of torment and requested

>permission to return to the earth so that he could warn his brothers about

>the place of torment. Abraham said to him, "They have Moses and the

>prophets; let them hear them [Moses and the prophets]. The rich man said

>to Abraham: "No, father Abraham, but if one went from the dead, they will

>repent." And Abraham said to the rich man: "IF THEY HEAR NOT MOSES AND

>THE PROPHETS, NEITHER WILL THEY BE PERSUADED, THOUGH ONE ROSE FROM THE

>DEAD.

>

>I hope that you now get the point. If you don't believe the words of Moses

>and the Prophets, neither will you listen to William A. Kent, Cheryl

>Prewitt or myself.

You completely missed the point of the Rich Man and Lazarus.

June 14, 2007

On 14 jun, 21:00, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <g71373dfcekim64ogjoeu0v9but8ngn...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7

>

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

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

>

> > >Bramble,

> > >You explained your point of view very well. Please tell me whether you

> > >think the other members of this newsgroup view abiogenesis as a theory

> > >that will be discarded when a better theory is developed?

>

> > If no minds are changed in this discussion, at least they can be

> > informed of what science does and doesn't do.

>

> > As a chemist, I believe the idea that biological life came about by

> > chemical reactions involving only energy and non-living matter

> > interacting in accordance with their physical properties (what you

> > call abiogenesis) is properly classified as a hypothesis, or a set of

> > hypotheses. There are several different hypothetical models for how

> > this might have happened, but none of them has been used in a

> > laboratory experiment to yield living organisms. If abiogenesis

> > happened on earth, it should not be particularly difficult to repeat

> > in a lab setting, once the correct conditions are set up.

>

> > One reason this field is moving slowly is that there are no obvious

> > commercial applications that cannot be satisfied by starting with

> > biological materials.

>

> > Note: proving abiogenesis can happen will not prove it did happen.

> > And even proving it did happen will not prove it was unguided or

> > undesigned.

>

> > quoting from:

>

> >http://servercc.oakton.edu/~billtong/eas100/scientificmethod.htm

>

> > Below is a generalized sequence of steps taken to establish a

> > scientific theory:

>

> > 1. Choose and define the natural phenomenon that you want to figure

> > out and explain.

> > 2. Collect information (data) about this phenomena by going where

> > the phenomena occur and making observations. Or, try to replicate

> > this phenomena by means of a test (experiment) under controlled

> > conditions (usually in a laboratory) that eliminates interference's

> > from environmental conditions.

> > 3. After collecting a lot of data, look for patterns in the data.

> > Attempt to explain these patterns by making a provisional explanation,

> > called a hypothesis.

> > 4. Test the hypothesis by collecting more data to see if the

> > hypothesis continues to show the assumed pattern. If the data does

> > not support the hypothesis, it must be changed, or rejected in favor

> > of a better one. In collecting data, one must NOT ignore data that

> > contradicts the hypothesis in favor of only supportive data. (That is

> > called "cherry-picking" and is commonly used by pseudo-scientists

> > attempting to scam people unfamiliar with the scientific method. A

> > good example of this fraud is shown by the so-called "creationists,"

> > who start out with a pre-conceived conclusion - a geologically young,

> > 6,000 year old earth, and then cherry-pick only evidence that supports

> > their views, while ignoring or rejecting overwhelming evidence of a

> > much older earth.)

> > 5. If a refined hypothesis survives all attacks on it and is the

> > best existing explanation for a particular phenomenon, it is then

> > elevated to the status of a theory.

> > 6. A theory is subject to modification and even rejection if there

> > is overwhelming evidence that disproves it and/or supports another,

> > better theory. Therefore, a theory is not an eternal or perpetual

> > truth.

>

> > unquote

>

> Jim,

> Thanks for your excellent post. It is one of the most informative posts

> that I have read. I don't believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

> Do you agree that abiogenesis will not become a valid theory unless

> experiments such as the ones you mentioned are successful?

> Jason

You are confused with theories. Theories are theoretical. A therory

is valid so far as a majority of scientists would favor them.

In a near or far future, scientists could reject this theory and them

it would no be valid anymore. This concept has nothing to do with

experiments. Is theretical construction

When a theory is validated by experiments, just parcially, it gets

more prestige and more strength. But a theory is never valid in the

sense of being an absolute truth. The experimental positive results,

or the lack of them, are not any guarantee for a theory. We can find

a better theory to explain the experimental facts.

What I mean is... this is not a religion. Is a theoretical image, a

sort of delusion, a fancy of the intelligence. But facts are facts.

This is not theory.

A theory is an explanation we compose with a limited set of facts. As

we go discovering new facts, our theories would change if we need to

for the sake of logic.

So, if you are trying to imagine that one day, scientists would be

convinced by facts that a god exists, and that he made all life on

earth, scientists would do that. But, at present, most scientists are

atheist. They do not believe in a supernatural beings.

Bramble

A theory has to look good to the mind of scientists. It is all that

is needed

June 14, 2007

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

news:Jason-1406071543010001@66-52-22-102.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> In article <BIhci.6$C31.1@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph"

> <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

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

>> news:Jason-1406071417560001@66-52-22-66.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

>> > In article <f4s36c$se9$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

>> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>> >

>> >> Jason wrote:

>> >> > In article <f4rce1$54j$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

>> >> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>> >> >

>> >> >> Jason wrote:

>> >> >>> Cheryl Prewitt told me that she was healed by God. She stated that

>> >> >>> she saw

>> >> >>> her leg bone grow two inches. I believed her testimony. She has

>> >> >>> gave

>> >> >>> her

>> >> >>> testimony at many different churches. Her name is mentioned on

>> >> >>> over

>> >> >>> 700

>> >> >>> websites.

>> >> >> "UFO" is mentioned on 37,800,000 websites. Are they real?

>> >> >>

>> >> >> The words "Jason" "owes" and "money" match to 467,000 websites.

>> >> >> Does

>> >> >> that mean you're a deadbeat?

>> >> >>

>> >> >> The phrase "pigs fly" matches to 432,000 and "flying pigs" match to

>> >> >> 204,000 sites. Are pigs now flying?

>> >> >>

>> >> >> "Jason is smart" matched to 3,560 sites. Well, that proves the

>> >> >> number

>> >> >> of

>> >> >> sites google matches is worthless for proving something.

>> >> >>

>> >> >> Oh, wait, "Jason is an idiot" matched 6,490 sites. Maybe there

>> >> >> really

>> >> >> IS

>> >> >> something to this whole "mentioned on over XXXXX sites" thing.

>> >> >

>> >> > Google your full name and determine if it is mentioned on over 700

>> >> > websites.

>> >> >

>> >>

>> >> Personalized Results 1 - 100 of about 577,000 English pages for

>> >> "Michael

>> >> Anderson".

>> >>

>> >> Your point is, again?

>> >

>> > Your first name and last name are common names.

>> >

>> > One more try--I found this name in the phone book-try it:

>> > John Pietrzak

>>

>> You can't just count web sites, you have to read them. I think I

>> established

>> that point very clearly in my prior post.

>

> What was the result related to John Pietrzak?

I don't have a clue and it has no relevance to any discussion here. I

answered that for you, you little coward but you have conveniently ignored

it Here is the post again and it is highly relevant since you have used the

statement Darwin made:

Jason, you need to read the sites, not just count them. For example if you

had done a little research you would have found this blurb from a Christian

apologetic web site:

"In the closing paragraph of certain editions of The Origin of Species,

there appears a reference by Charles Darwin to a

June 14, 2007

In article <1181854004.691446.248910@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, bramble

<leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 14 jun, 19:32, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: