Guest Jason Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 In article <1182075020.267569.195280@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, George Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 17, 4:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <f51ago$cb...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > Jason wrote: > > > > In article <981ck4-7cg....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > > > <kbjarna...@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. > > 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? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 In article <46753e27$0$1181$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote: > 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 Or--one of the Gods may be the true God. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 In article <f53du2$4m0$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f51ago$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. I speed read the detailed report. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 In article <1182069696.752111.106710@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 16, 9:48 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <rg4673t02p5k6qdd1qh2i4jm4b20gr8...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:03:10 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > <Jason-1506071503110...@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > > ... > > > > > >I doubt that is true. Who makes them sign the pledge? > > > > > Ask the ICR, CRS and AIG. > > > > > The ICR tells us that they won't let something as silly as facts get in > > > the way of their teaching of doctrine: <http://icr.org/home/faq/> and > > > scroll down a bit. > > > > Thanks--I would like to read that pledge. > > They are hardly going to make it public, are they? > > Martin Martin, It's very possible that ICR requires their employees to sign a pledge. I have read that Microsoft programmers are required to sign some sort of pledge or agreement stating that will not share the computer codes with other companies. Some employees of Coca Cola have to sign pledges or agreements stating they will not share the formulae for Coke with other companies. ICR would NOT require non-employees to sign a pledge. Even if they wanted to do it, non-employess would just refuse to sign the pledge. If they asked me to sign the pledge, I would not sign it. Jason Quote
Guest John Baker Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 10:03:17 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >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. Neither, unfortunately, do most prosecutors. > >>>> >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 Jason Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 In article <f53bft$160$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > Revisit the site and copy and paste evidence that indicates that the > > advocates of creation science are required to sign a pledge. Otherwise, > > admit that such evidence is not at that site. I have never signed a pledge > > and I subscribe to the ICR newsletter. > > The original question was: > > "Is that why your creation 'scientists' sign a pledge that if science > produces evidence that the bible is wrong then that evidence is to be > ignored?" David F. Coppedge is an advocate of creation science. He works in the Cassini program at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. He is NOT employed by ICR. There may be lots of people like David F. Coppedge working as scientists in various other companies. They are NOT employees of ICR. Do you have evidence that indicates that non-employees of ICR (such as David F. Coppedge) are required to sign a pledge? > > NOTHING was said about peons who get the newsletter having to sign the > pledge. It was said that those 'scientists' (and I use that word as > loosely as possible here) have to sign it before they can work for the > place. Do you work for them and submit articles to be published by them? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 In article <1182075339.439694.204490@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, George Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 17, 5:05 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <ZqWci.644$W9....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > >news:Jason-1506071822310001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > > You should consider reading this book: "Jerusalem Countdown" by a > > > > television preacher named John Hagee. > > > > > John Hagee is a joke. As I said I sometimes watch him for laughs. The > > > subject under discussion was on textual criticism and you getting the book > > > Misquoting Jesus. If you don't read it you can't refute what I say. > > > > I'm not going to buy the book. > > Of course not, because that could cause you to actually learn > something. > > What possible reason do you think any of us would have to want to read > a book recommended by you? What possible reason do you think I would have to want to read a book recommended by you? Quote
Guest John Baker Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 10:55:50 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >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. Not the least of which was fabricating evidence when there was already more than enough real evidence to put him away. > Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 In article <1182070783.958231.241840@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 16, 11:12 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:48:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-1506071848480...@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > > > > > >In article <rg4673t02p5k6qdd1qh2i4jm4b20gr8...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > >> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:03:10 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> <Jason-1506071503110...@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > >> ... > > > > >> >I doubt that is true. Who makes them sign the pledge? > > > > >> Ask the ICR, CRS and AIG. > > > > >> The ICR tells us that they won't let something as silly as facts get in > > >> the way of their teaching of doctrine: <http://icr.org/home/faq/> and > > >> scroll down a bit. > > > > >Thanks--I would like to read that pledge. > > > > Read it. > > You mean > > "ICR holds to certain tenets. By Biblical Creationism, ICR believes: > > "The Creator of the universe is a triune God -- Father, Son and Holy > Spirit. There is only one eternal and transcendent God, the source of > all being and meaning, and He exists in three persons, each of whom > participated in the work of creation." > > and so on? > > Do you think ICR would allow any of its employees to deviate from > their dogma, Jason? These guys with Ph.D.s who write articles for > their newsletters are their emplyees. Period. > > Martin Martin, That may be true in some cases but am not sure that is true in all cases. For example, David F. Coppedge works in the Cassini Program at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. His article related to the Big Bang was recently published in the newsletter. Is he an employee of ICR? The answer is no. Was he required to sign a pledge? I doubt it. Are the authors of articles (that are college professors) that have articles published in various magazines and journals (such as National Geographic) employees of those journals and magazines? It's my guess that the answer is NO. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 In article <1182070937.259254.309190@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 16, 1:05 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > You are a college professor despite the fact that you are not acting like > > one. > > Jason, you are a complete moron and you are acting like one. > > Who the Hell are YOU to tell a college professor how he should > behave? I started by treating you with respect and you come back and > tell us we are "fucking morons" for disagreeing with you. In your 57 > years of life, did you ever learn to respect people who are better > educated and more knowledgable than you? > > Obviously not. > > Martin Martin, I never called anyone that name. I do have respect for some of the advocates of evolution and abiogenesis. I do not have respect for all advocates of evolution and abiogenesis. I read many of the posts in this newsgroup for about a week and some of the posters were VERY disrespectful to the advocates of creation science. I read the posts in another thread that were directed towards a person that is an advocate of creation science. Almost every person that responded to his posts used derogatary language. Only one or two advocates of evolution treated him with respect. As far as I know, Professor Behe has never posted in this newsgroup and various people made derogatory remarks about his newest book. They could easily have written a well written review of his book--but they failed to do that. Jason Jason Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 In article <1182076221.706436.246210@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, George Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 17, 4:35 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 22:13:36 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-1506072213360...@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <i5sbk4-7cg....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > ><kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> [snips] > > > > >> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 12:57:36 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > > >> > Is a testimony evidence? > > > > >> No, it's testimony. Nor does your exemplar even qualify; even the people > > >> involved don't claim to have seen God, or seen how the healings were > > >> performed; they only assert "God dunnit" with no foundation whatsoever. > > > > >> Anyone can make claims. Finding someone else making the same claim > > >> doesn't back it up; it just means there are two people failing to provide > > >> evidence of their claims. > > > > >> By your logic, if Free Lunch claimed he was the president of the United > > >> States and I said the same thing, this is "evidence" that he is, in fact, > > >> the president. Obviously this is not true, so there's something wrong > > >> with your logic. Try again. > > > > >I now understand why atheists do not believe Cheryl Prewitt's testimony. > > >Do you understand why most of the Christians that listen to her testimony > > >believe her testimony? (Hint: it's related to a person's belief system) > > > > So you will believe any lie that someone tells you as long as they claim > > to be Christian, but you will reject actual physical evidence if the > > person telling you about it isn't a Christian. > > So he is finally admitting that he believes someone if they are > Christian and considers them liars if they aren't. He's got it > backwards. It's a case by case basis. For example, I recently read a well written article that was published in National Geographic that was related to the basics of Evolution. One section of the article was related to Natural Selection. One of the other sections of the article was related to abiogenesis. I believed and accepted data and information related to Natural Selection since the concepts of Natural Selection made sense and have evidence. I had a different opinion about abiogenesis. It appeared to me that many of the concepts of abiogenesis are based more on speculation than on evidence. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 In article <1182076039.822522.86530@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, George Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 17, 5:27 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > I had no reason to not believe her testimony. > > You admitted that she hadn't produced any evidence. That right there > is a good reason not to believe her testimony. On top of that, there > is the fact that no car accident is going to result in her leg being > two inches shorter, not unless the accident resulted in part of her > foot being severed off: I'm sure plenty of us here have had broken > arms or broken legs and we know that doctors never remove pieces of > bone, knowing that the break will repair on its own if it is set in > place. Bones heal naturally and people don't claim that God was > involved. > > You had plenty of reason to not believe her testimony. Stop lying > about that. Her leg bone was crushed in the accident. The doctors had to remove about two inches of bone. The doctor used pins put together the two sections. I have a friend that lost about 4 inches of leg bone in an accident. He wears a platform shoe on one foot and walks with a limp. Cheryl walked with a limp before God caused her leg bone to grow two inches. She never would have become Miss America if God had not healed the leg bone. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 In article <46753d99$0$1182$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote: > "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). I understand your point. That is the reason college biology teachers that are advocates of creation science can teach their students about evolution as well as college biology professors that are NOT advocates of creation science. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 In article <1182072589.110570.285900@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 17, 3:28 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <je8873pjs52mgi113uqmgk7v7uidq6t...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > > > > <...> > > > >Whether or not > > > >atheists believe that God healed Cheryl Prewitt and William Kent is > > > >probably not important to Cheryl Prewitt or William Kent. > > > > > On the day that Christians like Prewitt and Kent do not care about the > > > beliefs of those whose beliefs differ from theirs, pigs will fly and > > > bones will grow. > > > > > Kent speaks: > > > > >http://www.christian-faith.com/testimonies/miraclehealingtestimony.html > > > > > "In the meantime be blessed and relax in the Spirit of the Lord and I > > > am looking forward to God blessing the masses through the blessing > > > that He has bestowed upon me as I follow His directive to go forth and > > > spread the Word and demonstrate the awesome power of the Lord as He > > > has provided in me." > > > > > Prewitt wrote a book on her alleged miracle. > > > > Good point. Do you think the people that buy her book will be Christians > > or atheists? Would you buy a copy of her book? > > > > Now that you mention it, I do recall that there was a book table near the > > entrance. I should have waited for the service to be over. I could have > > purchased a copy of her book and had it signed by Cheryl Prewitt. > > So her motivation was to sell her book, eh? > > You should have looked at her book, Jason. Then asked her why she > didn't include any of her medical records to prove her story. > > Martin Martin, As various people have told me, even if medical evidence proved her leg bone grew two inches, it would not prove that God healed her leg bone. Of course, Cheryl Prewitt and many Christians believe that God caused her leg bone to grow two inches. As a result of the belief system of atheists, I now understand why atheists do not believe that God healed her leg bone since atheists do not believe there is a God. The belief system of Christians is the reason we believe that God caused her leg bone to grow two iches and also caused William Kent to no longer need to make use of a wheel chair. jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 In article <1182076891.543736.111300@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, George Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 17, 6:19 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <2di873lbeeshm9r2u5i2dp4c1q3cv5p...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > > > <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > > > > >No, there was a crowd of people gathered around the table waiting for > > > >Cheryl to show up and sign the books for them. I did not buy a copy. I had > > > >already heard her testimony so saw no reason to read the book. It was > > > >probably her life story--including details about the car accident and > > > >healing. > > > > > So you don't know if she presents any evidence in the book, for her > > > claims. > > > > No--I did not buy the book or read the book. As someone pointed out to me, > > even if the physical evidence proved that the bone grew two inches--it > > would not prove that God healed her. Of course, Cheryl and most of the > > Christians that heard her testimony and have read her book believe that > > God healed her leg. > > Which tells you what, exactly? > > I'd answer my own question but you'd accuse me of disparaging > Christians. That the belief system of people determined whether they believed that God did or did not heal her leg bone. Feel free to answer the question. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 In article <dhia73p7j846pbim1ektn3h75dm58dro9p@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> 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. I would make the judgement based on the physical evidence and the testimonies of the witnesses. I agree that I would be pro-prosecution but would not want to be responsible for sending an innocent man to prison. That is the reason I would listen to the testimony and examine the physical evidence. Jason Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:57:01 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1706071257010001@66-52-22-4.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <dhia73p7j846pbim1ektn3h75dm58dro9p@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> 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. > >I would make the judgement based on the physical evidence and the >testimonies of the witnesses. I agree that I would be pro-prosecution That shows that you are biased and are not qualified to sit on a criminal jury. You should be ashamed to have that attitude as an American. >but would not want to be responsible for sending an innocent man to prison. Yes you would. Your job, on the jury, is to make certain that the prosecution has provided enough evidence that no reasonable doubt is left. You have demonstrated that you would not show the sekpticism that is your job on the jury. >That is the reason I would listen to the testimony and examine the >physical evidence. A juror who was taking his job seriously would care about the evidence far more than the testimony and would never presume that the prosecution was correct. It's people like you who are destroying justice in this country. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 11:53:14 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1706071153140001@66-52-22-4.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1182070783.958231.241840@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 16, 11:12 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:48:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> > <Jason-1506071848480...@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> > >> > >> > >> > >In article <rg4673t02p5k6qdd1qh2i4jm4b20gr8...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> > >> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:03:10 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> > >> <Jason-1506071503110...@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> > >> > >> ... >> > >> > >> >I doubt that is true. Who makes them sign the pledge? >> > >> > >> Ask the ICR, CRS and AIG. >> > >> > >> The ICR tells us that they won't let something as silly as facts get in >> > >> the way of their teaching of doctrine: <http://icr.org/home/faq/> and >> > >> scroll down a bit. >> > >> > >Thanks--I would like to read that pledge. >> > >> > Read it. >> >> You mean >> >> "ICR holds to certain tenets. By Biblical Creationism, ICR believes: >> >> "The Creator of the universe is a triune God -- Father, Son and Holy >> Spirit. There is only one eternal and transcendent God, the source of >> all being and meaning, and He exists in three persons, each of whom >> participated in the work of creation." >> >> and so on? >> >> Do you think ICR would allow any of its employees to deviate from >> their dogma, Jason? These guys with Ph.D.s who write articles for >> their newsletters are their emplyees. Period. >> >> Martin > >Martin, >That may be true in some cases but am not sure that is true in all cases. >For example, David F. Coppedge works in the Cassini Program at the Jet >Propulsion Laboratory. His article related to the Big Bang was recently >published in the newsletter. Is he an employee of ICR? The answer is no. >Was he required to sign a pledge? I doubt it. Are the authors of articles >(that are college professors) that have articles published in various >magazines and journals (such as National Geographic) employees of those >journals and magazines? It's my guess that the answer is NO. >Jason > The ICR only publishs religious lies that are hidden in the guise of science to deceive their followers. They have succeeded with you. Your opinion about the ICR is worthless since you have demonstrated a total inability to critique what they do. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 14:35:51 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in <0nva731dvekag7v7i2ph4jfrpotaf6fh9n@4ax.com>: >On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 10:03:17 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> >wrote: > >>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: ..... >>>>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. > >Neither, unfortunately, do most prosecutors. Indeed. I do like the example of North Carolina's bar, if you engage in prosecutorial abuse in capital cases, they will 'tsk, tsk', but if you pick on some students from Duke and engage in the same abusive behavior toward rich white kids in a rape case, you are disbarred. .... Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 In article <f53are$o4$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > 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?" Thanks for your post. You explained your point of view very well. I'll try to remember to stop stating, "Good Point" because that would cause people to think that I agreed with every point. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 In article <1182072308.567299.14820@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 17, 3:02 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <8KadnTbDRc_Jd-7bnZ2dnUVZ_jidn...@sti.net>, "David V." > > > > <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: > > > > What defines a "major" mutation? Of the 100-odd mutations > > > > each of us is walking around with, which are "major" ones, > > > > which are "minor"? How is "major" defined? > > > > > That's part of the problem with anti-evolutionists; when they use > > > the word "mutation" they always think of an extra leg, two heads, > > > or a catfish and a turtle mating to create a swamp monster. > > > > In order for lower life forms (living cells) to evolve into higher life > > forms (mammals)--major mutations would have been required. > > Apparently not. > > Martin Martin, I disagree. I mentioned in another post the evolution of Hyracotherium (a vaguely horselike cerature) to Equus (the modern genus of horse). I left out 4 steps. Lots of major mutations would have had to happen. Even more major mutations would be needed before lower life forms (living cells) could have evolved into higher life forms (mammals). jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 In article <f539gg$u7n$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <brKdnS6w5O9iCenbnZ2dnUVZ_qfinZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." > > <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In order for lower life forms (living cells) to evolve into higher life > >>> forms (mammals)--major mutations would have been required. > >> No, it would not. > >> > >>> example: Hyracotherium evolving into Equus > >> Which is why a hyracotherium did not evolve into an equus. > >> > >> Evolution doesn't work that way.... and you know it. > > > > Did you want me to mention all of the steps: > > > > step 1: Hyracotherium--"vaguely horselike creature" > > step 2: Orohippus > > step 3: Epihippus > > step 4: Mesohippus > > step 5: Dinohippus > > step 6: Equus--"modern genus of horse" > > And that right there shows that "a hyracotherium did not evolve into an > equus." In fact, there wasn't just those 6 steps. There was millions of > steps where a hyracotherium evolved into antother hyracotherium that was > just the tiniest bit different. Then that one evolved into another that > was a tiniest bit different, etc. Eventually these differences added up > enough to where we no longer called it a Hyracotherium but instead > called it a Orohippus. But there wasn't any point where some animal was > 2' tall and then all of a sudden its immediate offspring were 4' tall > like cretinists like to make it look. > > It didn't take a major mutation but simply required thousands or > millions of tiny ones. I understand your points. Is it possible that some of the mutations were major mutatations (eg related to size)? It's my understanding that the Hyracotherium was about the same size as a German shepard dog--is that true? jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 In article <1182072816.078773.209410@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 17, 2:30 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > > > news:Jason-1606071202060001@66-52-22-31.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > > > > > > > > > > In article <8KadnTbDRc_Jd-7bnZ2dnUVZ_jidn...@sti.net>, "David V." > > > <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: > > >> > What defines a "major" mutation? Of the 100-odd mutations > > >> > each of us is walking around with, which are "major" ones, > > >> > which are "minor"? How is "major" defined? > > > > >> That's part of the problem with anti-evolutionists; when they use > > >> the word "mutation" they always think of an extra leg, two heads, > > >> or a catfish and a turtle mating to create a swamp monster. > > > > > In order for lower life forms (living cells) to evolve into higher life > > > forms (mammals)--major mutations would have been required. > > > > > example: Hyracotherium evolving into Equus > > > > Hey Jason, where did you copy that? We all know that you haven't a clue as > > to what you said :-) > > It's possible that Jason (assuming there is only one of them) is an > employee of ICR who is just here to promote the website. The ICR > website says they are located in California, so it all makes sense. > It's sad that this is the best they can do. Are none of their Ph.D.s > available? Why doesn't any creationist with a Ph.D. ever want to > debate us? Why are we left arguing with somebody who obviously has no > education whatsoever? > > Martin Martin, The audience of the staff members employed by ICR is not atheists. Their audience is fellow Christians. In the ICR newsletter, the speaking schedules of the staff members of ICR are posted. In almost every case, the ICR employee is providing his presentation in a large church or in the auditorium of a Christian high school or college. I attended one such presentation at the largest church in this city. He gave a power point lecture. The professors take Christians on tours of the Grand Canyon and Mount St. Helens every summer. John Morris (the new president of ICR) (He is the son of Henry Morris) wrote a book entitled, "Footprints in the Ash". It's about Mount St. Helens. The book has color pictures of St. Helens area that were taken shortly after the volcano. They returned the following year and took a new series of color pictures. The area had quickly recovered. John Morris's conclusion is that the rapid recovery was evidence for creation science. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 In article <qrqa73denflmffls0ra83nn8q8pl3e3lor@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > 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. Why have such experiments not been done? That scientist could get a Nobel prize. jason Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:06:39 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1706071506390001@66-52-22-102.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <pu4b73pn6q0p6vv5kv0qsetk95tsfiakmq@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:57:01 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1706071257010001@66-52-22-4.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <dhia73p7j846pbim1ektn3h75dm58dro9p@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> 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. >> > >> >I would make the judgement based on the physical evidence and the >> >testimonies of the witnesses. I agree that I would be pro-prosecution >> >> That shows that you are biased and are not qualified to sit on a >> criminal jury. You should be ashamed to have that attitude as an >> American. >> >> >but would not want to be responsible for sending an innocent man to prison. >> >> Yes you would. Your job, on the jury, is to make certain that the >> prosecution has provided enough evidence that no reasonable doubt is >> left. You have demonstrated that you would not show the sekpticism that >> is your job on the jury. >> >> >That is the reason I would listen to the testimony and examine the >> >physical evidence. >> >> A juror who was taking his job seriously would care about the evidence >> far more than the testimony and would never presume that the prosecution >> was correct. It's people like you who are destroying justice in this >> country. > >I understand your point. The reality is that many people are either >pro-prosecution or pro-defence. A Jury Expert that derives her income from >helping lawyers pick juries explained (on a television show) how she could >easily determine whether a potential jury member was pro-prosecution or >pro-defence by their answers to a series of well developed questions. >Jason > Yet you seem unapologetic for being pro-prosecution, even though the judge told you not to be. 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.