Guest Mike Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 Jason wrote: > I don't believe that you understood my point. It's probably because I done > a poor job of explaining my point. I'll try again. No, it's because your point was wrong. > Let's say (for the sake of discussion) a scientist (that is an advocated > of evolution and abiogenesis) makes this statement in an article or a > book: > > "We had a time when there was no life. We now have life. Thus, it is > logical to conclude that life naturally evolved from non-life." No reputable scientist would say such a thing so it's a meaningless question. > Would you conceed that most of the advocates of abiogenesis and evolution > theory agree with the above statement? No. If your answer is yes, this is the > problem: > > There are at least three possible causes of life evolving from non-life: > > 1. abiogenesis Get a clue. You've already admitted that abiogenesis happened. John Baker: Actually, Jason, abiogenesis is an absolute proven fact. Whether it came about through divine intervention or by purely natural means, at some point in the planet's history, life did arise from non-life. We both agree on that. We just disagree about how it happened. Jason: Excellent point. #1 should be "natural causes." > 2. intelligent design OK, any evidence that a god exists to have done this designing? Also how did this god come about? > 3. ancient astronauts And who caused them to come to be? > The scientist (mentioned above) failed to take intelligent design or > ancient astronauts into consideration. He just assumed that "life > naturally evolved from non-life". And that's why he wouldn't have said what you tried to make him say. > I mentioned that many advocates of evolution and abiogenesis don't know > the difference between speculation and evidence. No, you've claimed that but you're only proving that YOU are the one who doesn't have a clue as to the difference. > This leads to another question: Is the statement of the above mentioned > scientist based on evidence or speculation that life naturally evolved > from non-life. Why do you come up with these fantasies and expect us to comment on them? It's about as useless as asking "who is faster, superman or the flash?" Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 Jason wrote: > Revisit the site and copy and paste evidence that indicates that the > advocates of creation science are required to sign a pledge. Otherwise, > admit that such evidence is not at that site. I have never signed a pledge > and I subscribe to the ICR newsletter. The original question was: "Is that why your creation 'scientists' sign a pledge that if science produces evidence that the bible is wrong then that evidence is to be ignored?" NOTHING was said about peons who get the newsletter having to sign the pledge. It was said that those 'scientists' (and I use that word as loosely as possible here) have to sign it before they can work for the place. Do you work for them and submit articles to be published by them? Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 Ralph wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> I subscribe to the ICR newsletter. They have an article written by someone >> that has a Ph.D. degree in every issue. I believe the older articles are >> on the website. For example, if you typed a term into their search engine, >> the result would probably be an article that was once part of a >> newsletter. >> Jason > > Oh, someone who has a Ph.D. Should we all kneel? Their degrees go: BS (BullShit) MS (More of the Same) PhD (Piled higher and Deeper) Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Jun 17, 9:03 pm, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > Revisit the site and copy and paste evidence that indicates that the > > advocates of creation science are required to sign a pledge. Otherwise, > > admit that such evidence is not at that site. I have never signed a pledge > > and I subscribe to the ICR newsletter. > > The original question was: > > "Is that why your creation 'scientists' sign a pledge that if science > produces evidence that the bible is wrong then that evidence is to be > ignored?" > > NOTHING was said about peons who get the newsletter having to sign the > pledge. It was said that those 'scientists' (and I use that word as > loosely as possible here) have to sign it before they can work for the > place. Do you work for them and submit articles to be published by them? It is quite obvious that he does work for them and is only here to promote their website. The only question is whether or not he is actually getting paid and if he is under contract and, if so, if he is in fact the same Jason all along or if we just get a new one every month reading from the same script. "There is no evidence for evolution. Evidence for creation science can be found at the ICR site" etc. Martin Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f518q3$ai2$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f50rdc$sbq$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <f4u8s4$5me$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>> In article <f4rd13$5bc$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>>>>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article <f4otjc$j2u$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>>>>>>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> I was referring to these two steps: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) >>>>>>>>>>> STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual >>>>>>> reproduction) >>>>>>>>>> And leaving out the millions of steps that came before and between. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Testimony is considered as evidence in court. Someone pointed > out that >>>>>>>>>>> physical evidence (eg gun, bloody knife) is more important than >>>>> testimony. >>>>>>>>>>> I agreed with that person that made that statement. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Let's say that the neighbors in an apartment building hear a married >>>>>>>>>>> couple having an argument. They hear the husband say, "I'm going >>> to kill >>>>>>>>>>> you". The argument ends and the police are not called. The >>>>> following day, >>>>>>>>>>> the wife was shot as she was walking home from work. The husband >>> took a >>>>>>>>>>> shower after he shot his wife and washed his hands with bleach >>> to remove >>>>>>>>>>> any evidence. There were no witnesses present when the husband >>> shot his >>>>>>>>>>> wife. The police are not able to find a gun when they search the >>>>> apartment >>>>>>>>>>> and all surrounding areas. They arrest the husband and charge him >>>>> with the >>>>>>>>>>> murder. All of the neighbors provide testimony at the murder trial. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The jury members convict the husband of first degree >>> murder--based upon >>>>>>>>>>> the testimonies of the people that heard the argument and heard >>> him say, >>>>>>>>>>> "I'm going to kill you." >>>>>>>>>> No, they wouldn't. You'd never even find a DA that would even think >>>>>>>>>> about arresting the guy to begin with, much less prosecuting him, >>> based >>>>>>>>>> on simply an "I'm going to kill you." Was there even a body? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Do you now understand that TESTIMONY is evidence--even if > there is no >>>>>>>>>>> physical evidence? >>>>>>>>>> Testimony is simply evidence that the person says he >>>>>>>>>> saw/heard/tasted/smelled/felt something but NOT evidence that the >>>>>>>>>> something actually exists.. But if the neighbor claimed "Yeah, I >>> saw him >>>>>>>>>> shoot her and bury her body right here" and yet there was no body >>> found >>>>>>>>>> (or better yet, the wife is actually standing there, alive and >>> well) the >>>>>>>>>> testimony would likely be ignored. >>>>>>>>> Let's try again: >>>>>>>>> A woman's husband is observed by 8 witnesses going inside their >>> apartment >>>>>>>>> with a gun in his hand and shouting, "I am going to kill that >>> woman." The >>>>>>>>> witnesses hear a gunshot and see the man running from the > building. The >>>>>>>>> husband had watched over a hundred episodes of CSI and followed >>> his plan: >>>>>>>>> He was able to get rid of all physical evidence--including the > gun. The >>>>>>>>> only evidence at the murder trial is the testimony of the > witnesses. The >>>>>>>>> body of the woman is found. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you was on the jury, would you find him guilty? I would >>>>>>>> Let's try again: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Several people say they overheard a man say "I'm going to kill my > wife." >>>>>>>> No shot is heard, no gun is found, no bullet, no blood, no body, > no wife >>>>>>>> has ever been seen (dead OR alive,) there's no woman's clothes in the >>>>>>>> apartment, there's a single twin bed, the guy is a flaming gay man. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Would you convict him of murder. Yes, YOU would but any sane person >>>>>>>> wouldn't. >>>>>>> You failed to answer this question in relation to my scenario: >>>>>>> If you was on the jury of the man that 8 witnesses claimed to have heard >>>>>>> the husband state: "I am going to kill that woman", would you find him >>>>>>> guilty him guilty? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In relation to your scenario, I would find him not guilty since a dead >>>>>>> body was not found. >>>>>> And there has been "no body found" in the case of god. >>>>> You failed to tell me if you would find the man guilty or not guilty. >>>> The only difference between your example and mine was "there was a shot >>>> heard." That STILL wouldn't be enough to even GET to court so there'd be >>>> no trial to begin with for me to decide "not guilty" in. So your >>>> question was about as meaningful as "if you could fly off into the sky >>>> and into the center of the sun, would you eat some ice cream there?" >>> Thanks for your post. I now understand why O.J. was found not guilty >>> despite the fact that most people in America (according to polls) believe >>> that he was guilty. His defense was that "Some other guy did it". >>> >>> If I had been on that jury, I would have found him guilty. >> What do you find so hard to understand about the difference between >> "evidence" and "no evidence"? In OJ's case, there was TONS of physical >> evidence produced (the jury just didn't accept it as proving what the DA >> claimed it did.) In your hypothetical above, there was NO (none, nadda, >> zilch, zero, null, squat) physical evidence. In the case of your god, >> there is................... (fill in the blank.) > > I disagree. Disagree with what? > In my scenario, there was NO physical evidence. That's exactly what I said. However, there > were 8 witnesses that heard him say, "I'm going to kill that woman." They > observed him take a gun in the apartment and heard a gunshot. Thus far no evidence so it wouldn't even make it to the DA, much less to trial. They found > the man's dead wife. This IS physical evidence. What, exactly, do you think evidence is? So at one point you say there is none and then you say there is some. Which is it? I would have believed the testimony of the witnesses. > I would have found him guilty. Based on what? The evidence or the lack of evidence? And again, if there was NO evidence (no body, no gun, etc.) there wouldn't eb a trial to begin with. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 John Baker wrote: > However, it appears that Jason has changed the details a bit since he > first proposed the question. Seems to me, IIRC, that in the "original > draft", there was no gun and no dead body. Just an overheard argument > and a missing wife. > > Under those circumstances, the police might well have their > suspicions, but they'd have no valid reason to arrest the man, let > alone charge him with murder. However, if the wife doesn't soon turn > up alive and well, they're definitely going to be watching him. Jason's also ignoring that there'd be OTHER physical evidence such as a marriage license showing that there was a wife to begin with, freshly worn clothing with female DNA on it showing that there had been a woman in the apartment recently, etc. There's never going to be any murder case that even makes it to trial SOLELY based on someone (or even several someones) saying "we heard him say he was 'going to kill her', we saw him carrying a gun and we heard a gunshot." Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f519hm$bea$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <760ck4-7cg.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> [snips] >>>> >>>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:50:27 -0700, Jason wrote: >>>> >>>>> Speculation is not evidence. The advocates of creation science have fossil >>>>> evidence. >>>> Sigh. Okay... your continuing science education. >>>> >>>> Here's a rock (find any handy one, the specific rock doesn't matter). Is >>>> it evidence of: >>>> >>>> 1) Me being the King of Spain >>>> 2) Me being the supreme creator of all things >>>> 3) Me being left-handed >>>> 4) Me causing rocks to form in your vicinity >>>> 5) None of the above >>>> >>>> Correct answer: 5. Here's the question: why is it not evidence of those >>>> things? >>>> >>>> The reason it's not evidence of those things is that there is no mechanism >>>> on the table which relates the rock in any way to those claims. There is >>>> no theory which predicts that if a rock is found, this supports my claim >>>> to the Spanish throne. There needs to be some sort of testable, >>>> falsifiable, causal link between the two things. >>>> >>>> So let's take fossils. Got lots of 'em. Not all of 'em, and while there >>>> are plenty of exemplars of transitional forms, these don't account for >>>> 100% of all cases we've got so far. All very good. >>>> >>>> Now, is that evidence that I'm the King of Spain? No, because there's no >>>> mechanism involved which explains the relation between those two ideas; I >>>> can say the fossils prove my claim, but my saying it doesn't make it so. >>>> >>>> You say the fossils somehow support creation science, yet, like my claim >>>> they support my ascension to the throne, you fail to demonstrate any >>>> actual link between the ideas. >>>> >>>> You might, for example, claim that the fossils represent subsequent waves >>>> of creation. Very good, except for one minor issue: you haven't shown >>>> the process of creation, so you can't say anything meaningful about how it >>>> works. This is about like me asserting the fossils are evidence of >>>> fairies; until I show how fairies explain the fossils, how fairies >>>> cause the fossils to come to be, and in the manner we find them, then I >>>> have no basis to assert that the fossils support my claim, as I've shown >>>> no manner in which they _can_ support my claim. I haven't shown the >>>> mechanism the fairies used, so I can't show the fossils are consistent >>>> with that mechanism. >>>> >>>> SO you say the fossils support creation science... well, okay, maybe they >>>> do. What is the mechanism of creation? Without it, we cannot make any >>>> predictions about what we should find in the fossil record, so we can't >>>> very well say the fossils match the predictions of the mechanism and thus >>>> support creation science. >>>> >>>> So, what is the mechanism of creation? You must have this, as you >>>> assert that the fossils support creation science, and this is what you'd >>>> need to make such an assertion. >>>> >>>> Feel free to trot out this mechanism, we'd all love to see it. >>> Kelsey, >>> Thank you for your well written report. I read the book entitled, >>> "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by D.T. Gish. As you know, my memory >>> is poor so I don't recall everything that I read in his book. If you read >>> the first chapter of the Bible, you will know the basics of creation >>> science. I summarize it this way: God created mankind; some plants and >>> some animals. After the creation process was finished, Natural Selection >>> kicked in. D.T. Gish had all of the above information in mind when he >>> wrote his fossil book. After discussing lots of different fossils, his >>> conclusion was that the fossil evidence indicated that abiogenesis was not >>> how life came to be. >> Now that you've shown ON YOUR OWN where he was wrong, are you going to >> quit quoting him? >> >> "Oh, but I didn't show him to be wrong!" you say? >> >> Sure you did. >> >> You stated that he claimed that "abiogenesis was not how life came to >> be." But you also wrote the following about 10 hours EARLIER yesterday: >> >> John Baker: Actually, Jason, abiogenesis is an absolute proven fact. >> Whether it came about through divine intervention or by purely natural >> means, at some point in the planet's history, life did arise from >> non-life. We both agree on that. We just disagree about how it happened. >> >> You: Excellent point >> >> So if John has an excellent point (that abiogenesis happened even if ti >> was god that caused it to happen) then Gish's point (that abiogenesis >> didn't happen) is bogus. >> >> >> His other conclusion was that the fossil evidence >>> indicated that intelligent design was how life came to be on this planet. >>> I have never conducted any research related to fossils. I agree with at >>> least one of your points: I don't believe the fossil evidence reveals what >>> you call the "mechanism of creation." D.T. Gish does believe the fossils >>> supports creation science. >> So why quote him if you don't agree with him? > > When I stated, "good point", it does not mean that I agree with every word > of a post. For example, if you explained an aspect of abigenesis really > well--I would conceed that you made some good points. That would not mean > that I agreed that abiogenesis was how life came to be on this planet. Then you need to learn how to write what you mean. > When I use the term "abiogenesis" in my posts, I define it differently > than John defines it. Then you use it wrong, plain and simple. No wonder you can't get anyone to agree with you; you make up your own language. I define it the same way that the advocates of > abiogenesis define it No, you don't. Please don't lie. --when means that God was not involved in relation to > abiogenesis. No, they don't. Please don't lie. If I am referring to God creating life--I use the term > creation science or intelligent design. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f51ago$cbb$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <981ck4-7cg.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> [snips] >>>> >>>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:55:49 -0700, Jason wrote: >>>> >>>>> If it really did happen the way the advocates of abiogenesis claim that it >>>>> happened, scientists should be able to design an experiment to make it >>>>> happen. Do you think that scientists will ever be able to perform such an >>>>> experiment? >>>> So let's see if we have this right. >>>> >>>> Science demonstrates that, on a small scale, water causes erosion of rock. >>>> We know water exists, we know rock exists, we know water can erode rock. >>>> >>>> By anyone else's standard, this would be sufficient to explain, oh, the >>>> formation of the Grand Canyon, as long as sufficient time is available for >>>> the process to work. >>>> >>>> According to your standards, we cannot conclude this, as we have all the >>>> requisite components but we haven't made an experiment that actually >>>> recreated the Grand Canyon - despite such an experiment requiring >>>> something on the order of a few million years to carry out. >>>> >>>> This, to you, is a sensible requirement is it? >>>> >>>> I suspect even you wouldn't think so... yet it is almost exactly what >>>> you're asking above. We have all the key elements, we have a pretty good >>>> idea - several, actually - of the steps to go from A to B... but we're >>>> also quite certain that in the best of cases, it would require hellishly >>>> long times to duplicate the result. Yet you blithely expect it, as if >>>> such an expectation made any sense whatsoever. >>> I was told that a chemical process was what caused life to develop from >>> non-life. If that is correct, it seems to me that scientists should be >>> able to duplicate that process. >> The lottery balls coming up 2-26-34-39-61-62 are a simple matter of >> randomness. Now let's see how long it takes you to have the lottery >> machine run to generate those specific numbers. >> >> Clue-time: just because something can happen doesn't mean we can make it >> happen in a short period of time. >> >>> If scientists are not able to do it, it means that abiogenesis will >>> continue to be based more on speculation than on evidence. >> So if scientists can't make a sun, then how the sun works is "based more >> on speculation than on evidence"? > > You changed the subject from chemistry experiments to the creation of the sun. No, I used the sun as an extreme example of how not everything can be duplicated in a lab. > Chemistry experiments are easy to do. The creation of a sun is impossible. > There are thousands of colleges that have chemistry labs. Those chemistry > professors should consider conducting more experiments related to > abiogenesis. They are. Martin referred me to a website that mentioned various > chemistry experiments related to abiogenesis. And did you actually read any of them? Of course not. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 Ralph wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-1606071339190001@66-52-22-19.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> In article <f51ago$cbb$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> >>> Jason wrote: >>>> In article <981ck4-7cg.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >>>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> [snips] >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:55:49 -0700, Jason wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> If it really did happen the way the advocates of abiogenesis claim >>>>>> that it >>>>>> happened, scientists should be able to design an experiment to make >>>>>> it >>>>>> happen. Do you think that scientists will ever be able to perform >>>>>> such an >>>>>> experiment? >>>>> So let's see if we have this right. >>>>> >>>>> Science demonstrates that, on a small scale, water causes erosion of >>>>> rock. >>>>> We know water exists, we know rock exists, we know water can erode >>>>> rock. >>>>> >>>>> By anyone else's standard, this would be sufficient to explain, oh, >>>>> the >>>>> formation of the Grand Canyon, as long as sufficient time is available >>>>> for >>>>> the process to work. >>>>> >>>>> According to your standards, we cannot conclude this, as we have all >>>>> the >>>>> requisite components but we haven't made an experiment that actually >>>>> recreated the Grand Canyon - despite such an experiment requiring >>>>> something on the order of a few million years to carry out. >>>>> >>>>> This, to you, is a sensible requirement is it? >>>>> >>>>> I suspect even you wouldn't think so... yet it is almost exactly what >>>>> you're asking above. We have all the key elements, we have a pretty >>>>> good >>>>> idea - several, actually - of the steps to go from A to B... but we're >>>>> also quite certain that in the best of cases, it would require >>>>> hellishly >>>>> long times to duplicate the result. Yet you blithely expect it, as if >>>>> such an expectation made any sense whatsoever. >>>> I was told that a chemical process was what caused life to develop from >>>> non-life. If that is correct, it seems to me that scientists should be >>>> able to duplicate that process. >>> The lottery balls coming up 2-26-34-39-61-62 are a simple matter of >>> randomness. Now let's see how long it takes you to have the lottery >>> machine run to generate those specific numbers. >>> >>> Clue-time: just because something can happen doesn't mean we can make it >>> happen in a short period of time. >>> >>>> If scientists are not able to do it, it means that abiogenesis will >>>> continue to be based more on speculation than on evidence. >>> So if scientists can't make a sun, then how the sun works is "based more >>> on speculation than on evidence"? >> You changed the subject from chemistry experiments to the creation of the >> sun. >> Chemistry experiments are easy to do. The creation of a sun is impossible. >> There are thousands of colleges that have chemistry labs. Those chemistry >> professors should consider conducting more experiments related to >> abiogenesis. Martin referred me to a website that mentioned various >> chemistry experiments related to abiogenesis. >> Jason > > I do think that this might be the most simple person with whom I've ever > dealt. Hey, you just insulted "persons." He's the simplest ROCK you've ever dealt with. Oh, wait, that's insulting rocks as well. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 "Martin" <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1182071263.602369.18620@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 16, 2:13 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> I once talked to a >> biology professor that was an advocate of creation science. He knew as >> much about evolution as any of the other biology professors that worked >> at >> that college. > > Obviously not. It is possible to believe in everything about evolution itself, and still believe there was some external creating entity that either created the universe initially and/or caused life to first emerge. Evolution really only kicks in once there is life and a process in place for selection and mutation to take place. So its not incompatible .. but not necessarily reasonable .. to believe in some sort of creator that did his job and then let nature (his creation) take its course (see deism). Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Jun 16, 9:26 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > I hope those Arabic Christians realize that the true God is very different > than a false God. Just as you believe your god to be true and others false, everyone else believes their gods true and your god false. If you go by majority decision, EVERY god must be false Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Jun 17, 1:30 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > There is a story in the Bible about a blind man that was healed by Jesus. There is a story about a young wizard called Harry Potter. A story is just a story. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Jun 17, 2:00 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > I believe that God created the solar system and life. If you do, what is the basis for that belief? Is there any more evidence that god created the solar system and life and that it was not an invisible space pixie that did it? BTW: Did your particular god create anything outside the solar system .. was it just the solar system, or the galaxy, or our particular clump of galaxies, or .... ? Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On 16 Jun., 14:21, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f4u3vf$h...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <f4rc1o$46...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >>> <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > >>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>> In article <WgYbi.3170$s8.2...@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > >>>>> <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>>>>> "Jason" <J...@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. > >> And what about the xian farmers that pray for rain and don't get it? > > >> Are you saying god is capricious and arbitrary? > > > There is a scripture that says something like this: > > God's ways are not our ways. God's thoughts are not our thoughts. > > There's also one that says "Wise men store up knowledge, but the mouth > of a fool invites ruin." You, Jason, are a disaster area. > > > The point is that God has a reason for every action he takes. We don't > > know his reasons. The most that we can do is to make guesses based upon > > various situations. Examples: rainstorm; the healing of Cheryl Prewitt and > > William A. Kent. > > I.e. you don't have any possible way of telling what healing was done by > some god and which wwasn't but you'll still claim that one was and > another wasn't based on your whims.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On 16 Jun., 13:14, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: > On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 01:32:37 -0700, gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > - Refer: <1181982757.807399.255...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com> > > > > > > >On 16 Jun., 04:22, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 05:33:59 -0700, gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > >> - Refer: <1181910839.488132.244...@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> > > >> >On 15 Jun., 00:37, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: > >> >> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:34:56 -0700, gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > >> >> - Refer: <1181831696.476643.218...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com> > > >> >> >On 14 Jun., 16:25, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> >> >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in > > >> >> >> snip > > >> >> >> > No--not really. I now avoid going to the beach. It was easier in the old > >> >> >> > days when women wore 1 piece bathing suits. Have you been to a beach or > >> >> >> > swimming pool in recent years? > > >> >> >> Are you turned off by women's bodies? > >> >> >> -- > >> >> >> Robyn > >> >> >> Resident Witchypoo > >> >> >> BAAWA Knight! > >> >> >> #1557 > > >> >> >I wonder how the poor schmuck would act on our beaches. Nudity is not > >> >> >the rule, but it is very common. Of course it is very dangerous. One > >> >> >hears that men have gotten er you know one of those really nasty > >> >> >things. > > >> >> What? White Pointers? > > >> >Huh? > > >> Australian beaches. > >> White pointers = huge sharks (as seen in Jaws) > >> White pointers = first time male nudist bathers untanned penises. > > >> (It's got a bit sad when I have to explain my jokes!) > > >> --- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 Martin Phipps wrote: > On Jun 17, 9:03 pm, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> Jason wrote: >>> Revisit the site and copy and paste evidence that indicates that the >>> advocates of creation science are required to sign a pledge. Otherwise, >>> admit that such evidence is not at that site. I have never signed a pledge >>> and I subscribe to the ICR newsletter. >> The original question was: >> >> "Is that why your creation 'scientists' sign a pledge that if science >> produces evidence that the bible is wrong then that evidence is to be >> ignored?" >> >> NOTHING was said about peons who get the newsletter having to sign the >> pledge. It was said that those 'scientists' (and I use that word as >> loosely as possible here) have to sign it before they can work for the >> place. Do you work for them and submit articles to be published by them? > > It is quite obvious that he does work for them and is only here to > promote their website. Nah, if he was trying to promote their website, he'd mention it specifically more often. The only question is whether or not he is > actually getting paid and if he is under contract and, if so, if he is > in fact the same Jason all along or if we just get a new one every > month reading from the same script. There's no way there's more than one person that stupid. "There is no evidence for > evolution. Evidence for creation science can be found at the ICR > site" etc. > > Martin > Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:50:26 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1606072150260001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <7c29735s3e2ff7nlm8mqtbeq7lnihmuej4@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: .... >> Belief is _never_ evidence under any circumstance. >> >> Do you comprehend that simple fact? > >When I was called for jury duty, we all had to listen to the judge tell us >some of the same information that you mentioned in your post. > Yet your posts show a total disregard for justice. You have made it clear that you would rather hang an innocent man than not find anyone guilty of a crime. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 08:36:41 -0000, in alt.talk.creationism Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in <1182069401.771357.221140@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>: >On Jun 16, 9:22 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> In article <lYEci.1211$s9....@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >news:Jason-1506071621450001@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > > In article <OxDci.291$P8....@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > >> Why don't you buy a copy of Misquoting Jesus and read it? >> >> > > I have no desire to read such a book. A book written by Tom Clancy would >> > > be more interesting to me. Someone suggested that I read a book related to >> > > Quantum Physics--that made me laugh. I barely passed the college math 101 >> > > class. >> >> > If you don't care to read 'such a book',then you have no authority to argue >> > with others when it comes to your bible. Don't be ignorant all of your life, >> > do something about it! >> >> You should consider reading this book: "Jerusalem Countdown" by a >> television preacher named John Hagee. > >What makes you think we have any "desire" to read propaganda books >written by lying Christians. We were exposed to enough lies when we >read the Bible. Do you know what I do now if I find a copy of the >Bible in my possession? I rip it up and throw it out. I suggest you >do the same with all of yours: they have poisoned your mind. I don't do that. I've got a bunch of copies of religious texts and ancient tales, even a few more modern ones from Elron, Mary Baker Eddy and Joseph Smith. Most of those stories are great as long as you don't start to deceive yourself about them as Jason has done. Quote
Guest John Baker Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 09:54:35 -0000, George Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Jun 17, 3:12 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:Jason-1506071852300001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> > In article <844673l3qbgm6b42m59ps8l29e1ah3o...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 11:46:45 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-1506071146450...@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >In article <fHyci.169$W9....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> >> ><mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:Jason-1406072012490001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> ... >> >> >> > I am convinced that people only believe things that "fit" their >> >> >> > belief >> >> >> > system. That is the reason I believed Cheryl Prewitt and William A. >> >> >> > Kent. >> >> >> > It also explains the reason that atheists did not believe that God >> >> >> > healed >> >> >> > Cheryl Prewitt and William A. Kent. It also explains why the rich >> >> >> > man's >> >> >> > brothers (mentioned in Luke 16:19-21) would not have listened to the >> >> >> > rich >> >> >> > man--even if he had returned from the dead. Do you agree or >> >> >> > disagree? >> >> >> >> Quit attempting to open secondary discussions, Jason, it is dishonest. >> >> >> Everyone examines anything in light of their worldview. Some of us >> > are able >> >> >> to see the truth even though we might be looking at something that is >> >> >> diametrically opposed to our worldview. Others can't see the splinter >> >> >> for >> >> >> the log. >> >> >> >The advocates of creation science are able to do the same thing. >> >> >> To do what? You didn't have a meaningful antecedent. >> >> >> I know that the advocates of creation science refuse to learn science or >> >> admit the facts that they know about, so you cannot possibly be saying >> >> that they are willing to look at the scientific evidence. >> >> > I subscribe to the ICR newsletter. They have an article written by someone >> > that has a Ph.D. degree in every issue. I believe the older articles are >> > on the website. For example, if you typed a term into their search engine, >> > the result would probably be an article that was once part of a >> > newsletter. >> > Jason >> >> Oh, someone who has a Ph.D. Should we all kneel? > >To Jason, a Ph.D. is only of value if the person is also a believer. >He's on record as having said that non-believers are "fucking morons". If we're "fucking morons" in Jason's eyes, how is it that we're making a complete and utter fool out of him? <G> Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 09:03:57 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote in <f53bft$160$1@news04.infoave.net>: >Jason wrote: >> Revisit the site and copy and paste evidence that indicates that the >> advocates of creation science are required to sign a pledge. Otherwise, >> admit that such evidence is not at that site. I have never signed a pledge >> and I subscribe to the ICR newsletter. > >The original question was: > >"Is that why your creation 'scientists' sign a pledge that if science >produces evidence that the bible is wrong then that evidence is to be >ignored?" > >NOTHING was said about peons who get the newsletter having to sign the >pledge. It was said that those 'scientists' (and I use that word as >loosely as possible here) have to sign it before they can work for the >place. Do you work for them and submit articles to be published by them? > It's quite clear that Jason doesn't comprehend the word _tenet_ or reality for that matter. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 00:45:08 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in <9qd9739p11loflcj8hhg45gj5tnq98mndi@4ax.com>: >On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:33:14 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> >wrote: > >>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 13:31:32 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >>Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >><Jason-1606071331320001@66-52-22-19.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>In article <bra873tuptej1b6nio0c4q9amov1e7lc57@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 >>><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >>>> >>>> <...> >>>> > >>>> >I disagree. In my scenario, there was NO physical evidence. However, there >>>> >were 8 witnesses that heard him say, "I'm going to kill that woman." They >>>> >observed him take a gun in the apartment and heard a gunshot. They found >>>> >the man's dead wife. I would have believed the testimony of the witnesses. >>>> >I would have found him guilty. >>>> > >>>> I recommend the movie "12 Angry Men". >>> >>>Juries make mistakes. I believe O.J's jury made a major mistake. I would >>>have found O.J. guilty. >>> >>>Dozens (or perhaps hundreds) of convicts have been released from prison as >>>a direct result of DNA tests that confirmed they were not guilty. That >>>means that lots of juries made incorrect decisions. >>> >>>When I serve on jury duty, my concern is justice for the victim. That is >>>the reason I would find the husband guilty. >>> >>Because it's more important to find someone guilty than to actually find >>the right person. >> >>You hate our system of justice. > >To be fair, most people would find the husband guilty under these >circumstances: And those are the cases that have been giving the Innocence Project almost as much work as prosecutorial abuse. My problem with Jason isn't that he's likely to vote guilty, but that he wants to vote guilty because he thinks its important to convict _someone_ of the crime. He doesn't actually care if the person convicted actually did the crime. >>> >I disagree. In my scenario, there was NO physical evidence. However, there >>> >were 8 witnesses that heard him say, "I'm going to kill that woman." They >>> >observed him take a gun in the apartment and heard a gunshot. They found >>> >the man's dead wife. I would have believed the testimony of the witnesses. >>> >I would have found him guilty. > >However, it appears that Jason has changed the details a bit since he >first proposed the question. Seems to me, IIRC, that in the "original >draft", there was no gun and no dead body. Just an overheard argument >and a missing wife. > >Under those circumstances, the police might well have their >suspicions, but they'd have no valid reason to arrest the man, let >alone charge him with murder. However, if the wife doesn't soon turn >up alive and well, they're definitely going to be watching him. Agreed. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:38:33 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1606072238330001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <qja9739q0g0d4jf795abu1i5tt5fjkghlt@4ax.com>, John Baker ><nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: > >> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 13:31:32 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >In article <bra873tuptej1b6nio0c4q9amov1e7lc57@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 >> ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >> >> >> >> <...> >> >> > >> >> >I disagree. In my scenario, there was NO physical evidence. However, there >> >> >were 8 witnesses that heard him say, "I'm going to kill that woman." They >> >> >observed him take a gun in the apartment and heard a gunshot. They found >> >> >the man's dead wife. I would have believed the testimony of the witnesses. >> >> >I would have found him guilty. >> >> > >> >> I recommend the movie "12 Angry Men". >> > >> >Juries make mistakes. I believe O.J's jury made a major mistake. I would >> >have found O.J. guilty. >> >> The jury didn't find Simpson not guilty because they actually believed >> he was not guilty. They did so because it was discovered during the >> trial that a racist cop named Mark Fuhrman had tampered with the >> evidence. Several members of the jury later stated in interviews that >> under the circumstances, they felt they really had no other choice. >> >> > >> >Dozens (or perhaps hundreds) of convicts have been released from prison as >> >a direct result of DNA tests that confirmed they were not guilty. That >> >means that lots of juries made incorrect decisions. >> >> Yes they have. And it really isn't their fault. It's because the deck >> is stacked against the accused from the start, especially if he or she >> is poor and/or non-white. Prosecutors routinely petition judges to >> disallow evidence they feel could hurt their case, and court-appointed >> defense attorneys more often than not don't protest because they just >> don't give a damn. >> >> It might interest you to know that several years ago, legislation was >> proposed in Congress that would have made DNA testing mandatory in all >> felony cases where such testing was possible (i.e. where DNA evidence >> existed). By far the majority of prosecutors opposed the measure, >> citing the high cost of DNA testing as the reason for their >> opposition. Oddly enough, I don't hear those same prosecutors >> complaining about the cost when they think DNA testing will establish >> guilt. And why do you suppose that is? Simple. Most prosecutors >> don't really care about seeing justice done. They just want to put a >> warm body in a prison cell so they can stamp the case file closed. The >> reason for that is no secret. Prosecutors who don't secure high >> conviction rates don't keep their jobs. It's all politics. It has >> nothing to do with justice. >> >> > >> >When I serve on jury duty, my concern is justice for the victim. That is >> >the reason I would find the husband guilty. >> >> Well, try this on for size. Every person who goes to prison for a >> crime he/she didn't commit is also a victim. >> >> >> > > >I agree that every person who goes to prison for a crime he/she didn't >commit is also a victim. I also agree that improvements need to be made in >the criminal justice system. Poor people that are accused of crimes do not >get the same justice as rich people that are accused of crimes. The main >reason that O.J. was found not guilty is because he had some of the best >lawyers in America working for him. Sure, that was necessary, but no sufficient. Had the cops done their jobs properly and the DAs office not screwed up, even OJ wouldn't have gotten off. He lost quite handily in the civil suit. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 Free Lunch wrote: > On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:50:26 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-1606072150260001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> In article <7c29735s3e2ff7nlm8mqtbeq7lnihmuej4@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > ... >>> Belief is _never_ evidence under any circumstance. >>> >>> Do you comprehend that simple fact? >> When I was called for jury duty, we all had to listen to the judge tell us >> some of the same information that you mentioned in your post. >> > Yet your posts show a total disregard for justice. You have made it > clear that you would rather hang an innocent man than not find anyone > guilty of a crime. He says he had to listen to it. He didn't say he had to understand it. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >In article <1182075020.267569.195280@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, George >Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: <...> >> >> As is the creation of a living cell from non-living base elements. >> That is not how it happened. As you've been told already, the >> proteins, RNA and lipid membranes all existed first (and all have been >> produced in laboratories). Even with all of these in existance, it >> apparently took millions of years for them to come together under the >> right conditions and form the first cell. >> >> Martin > >It took millions of years for them to come together naturally. Would it >take MUCH less time if everything that was needed came together as a >result of scientific experiments? > Yes, it will take much less time for a living cell to be formed, probably a few weeks for a multi-step process, including the various reactions and isolation steps involved. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 In article <oaja73lq067nj0nmd57193neojjg9len5t@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:38:33 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-1606072238330001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <qja9739q0g0d4jf795abu1i5tt5fjkghlt@4ax.com>, John Baker > ><nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 13:31:32 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > >> >In article <bra873tuptej1b6nio0c4q9amov1e7lc57@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > >> ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > >> >> > >> >> <...> > >> >> > > >> >> >I disagree. In my scenario, there was NO physical evidence. However, there > >> >> >were 8 witnesses that heard him say, "I'm going to kill that woman." They > >> >> >observed him take a gun in the apartment and heard a gunshot. They found > >> >> >the man's dead wife. I would have believed the testimony of the witnesses. > >> >> >I would have found him guilty. > >> >> > > >> >> I recommend the movie "12 Angry Men". > >> > > >> >Juries make mistakes. I believe O.J's jury made a major mistake. I would > >> >have found O.J. guilty. > >> > >> The jury didn't find Simpson not guilty because they actually believed > >> he was not guilty. They did so because it was discovered during the > >> trial that a racist cop named Mark Fuhrman had tampered with the > >> evidence. Several members of the jury later stated in interviews that > >> under the circumstances, they felt they really had no other choice. > >> > >> > > >> >Dozens (or perhaps hundreds) of convicts have been released from prison as > >> >a direct result of DNA tests that confirmed they were not guilty. That > >> >means that lots of juries made incorrect decisions. > >> > >> Yes they have. And it really isn't their fault. It's because the deck > >> is stacked against the accused from the start, especially if he or she > >> is poor and/or non-white. Prosecutors routinely petition judges to > >> disallow evidence they feel could hurt their case, and court-appointed > >> defense attorneys more often than not don't protest because they just > >> don't give a damn. > >> > >> It might interest you to know that several years ago, legislation was > >> proposed in Congress that would have made DNA testing mandatory in all > >> felony cases where such testing was possible (i.e. where DNA evidence > >> existed). By far the majority of prosecutors opposed the measure, > >> citing the high cost of DNA testing as the reason for their > >> opposition. Oddly enough, I don't hear those same prosecutors > >> complaining about the cost when they think DNA testing will establish > >> guilt. And why do you suppose that is? Simple. Most prosecutors > >> don't really care about seeing justice done. They just want to put a > >> warm body in a prison cell so they can stamp the case file closed. The > >> reason for that is no secret. Prosecutors who don't secure high > >> conviction rates don't keep their jobs. It's all politics. It has > >> nothing to do with justice. > >> > >> > > >> >When I serve on jury duty, my concern is justice for the victim. That is > >> >the reason I would find the husband guilty. > >> > >> Well, try this on for size. Every person who goes to prison for a > >> crime he/she didn't commit is also a victim. > >> > >> > >> > > > > >I agree that every person who goes to prison for a crime he/she didn't > >commit is also a victim. I also agree that improvements need to be made in > >the criminal justice system. Poor people that are accused of crimes do not > >get the same justice as rich people that are accused of crimes. The main > >reason that O.J. was found not guilty is because he had some of the best > >lawyers in America working for him. > > Sure, that was necessary, but no sufficient. Had the cops done their > jobs properly and the DAs office not screwed up, even OJ wouldn't have > gotten off. He lost quite handily in the civil suit. That is true. Many mistakes were made by the cops. 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.