Guest Free Lunch Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:12:04 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1706071512050001@66-52-22-102.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <la5b73pfm4m2cn5mlul1td4ckgivr0ncej@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> 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. >> >> ... > >I believe the North Carolina bar made the correct decision in relation to >disbarring that prosecutor. > It's the other prosecutors that should never have been given such an easy time. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1706071109440001@66-52-22-4.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. Yeah, I'm sure you are a real speed reader. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1706071139410001@66-52-22-4.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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? We just thought you might want to learn. All of us are familiar with the work of your creation scientists but most of us are more familiar with the work of real scientists who refute the weak arguments of the creationists. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news: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 That is true. Since the vast majority of creation 'scientists' work for one of the creation agencies it is generally assumed they all follow the same line. Of course a person who didn't work for one of these agencies wouldn't sign a pledge. What kind of question is that? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1706071205140001@66-52-22-4.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. Who gives a rat's ass whom you respect? No one of which I'm aware wants your respect? As to Behe, critiques of his new book have been made but I'm sure you didn't 'google' for them, now did ya Jason? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1706071215100001@66-52-22-4.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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 How would a dunce like you have a clue as to the evidence for abiogenesis? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1706071232190001@66-52-22-4.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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 Jason, what is your understanding of a creation scientist? What views do the people hold who call themselves creation scientists? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1706071248240001@66-52-22-4.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. It would be more informative if you did. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1706071354040001@66-52-22-4.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. In just what way?? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 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 Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 In article <la5b73pfm4m2cn5mlul1td4ckgivr0ncej@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > 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. > > ... I believe the North Carolina bar made the correct decision in relation to disbarring that prosecutor. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1706071401240001@66-52-22-4.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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 Such experiments are taking place as we speak and have been taking place. Doing science such as this takes a huge amount of money and this has been one of the primary roadblocks.Two or three years ago I read an article in a magazine about the attempts to create living organisms in a lab. Their focus was on RNA as the primary force in creating life. The living organisms that were first started on earth have long since vanished and it makes this process difficult but the researchers said that they thought three years would be enough time. For creationists like you who constantly invoke the 'god of the gaps', you might have one less gap in the next few months. Tell me Jason. what will you do then????? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1606072200250001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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" > > source: National Geographic--Nov 2004--article: "Was Darwin Wrong" Since that appears to be the only NG that you have it appears that you purchased it based on the article "Was Darwin Wrong"? Of course we both know that the answer in the NG was a resounding NO! Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1606071511330001@66-52-22-19.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <6kh873l6vd2dijsc4nfa7g46mf7kj89k6l@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 23:05:07 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1506072305070001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <hpk6731d9jbq59bsjeffaplv04tqotjdb3@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:59:20 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-1506071859200001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >In article <1v3673dt5lsaeeelj2sevnbsmorev24hhu@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:40:34 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> <Jason-1506071540340001@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >> >In article <1wCci.267$P8.79@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> >> >> ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> news:Jason-1506071200360001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> >> ... >> >> >> >> > We don't know. We are hoping that it will be soon. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Well read the damn verses Jason, they say it will be soon. Just >> >for your >> >> >> >> information, two thousand years isn't 'soon'. Before you go into >> >> >> >> a >> >> >'we don't >> >> >> >> know how soon it is in god's time' defense, read the verses and >> >> >> >> tell >> >> >me when >> >> >> >> you think Jesus said he would come. Just one more of literally >> >> >thousands of >> >> >> >> reasons to conclude that your god doesn't exist. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Some of the prophecies related to the last days did not come true >> >> >> >until >> >> >> >the past 10 to 20 years. Here is one of them: >> >> >> >2 Tim 4:3-5 >> >> >> > >> >> >> >For the time will come when [Christians] will not endure sound > doctrine; >> >> >> >but after their own lusts shall heap to themselves teachers [and >> >> >> >preachers]. Those [preachers] will teach them not what the truth >> >> >> >is but >> >> >> >instead what they want to hear >> >> >> > >> >> >> >My comment: That prophecy has come true in my life time. There is >> >> >> >one >> >> >> >church in California called Unity Fellowship. The preachers are > more like >> >> >> >psychologists than real preachers. There is a television show that >> >> >> >is >> >> >> >broadcast on Sunday morning called the "Hour of Power". The > preacher never >> >> >> >discusses Bible doctrines. He teaches messages related to > psychology and >> >> >> >sociology. I have never heard him preach messages from the Bible. >> >> >> >Jason >> >> >> >> >> >> Jason, Christians have been claiming that they were in the last >> >> >> days >> >> >> ever since Christianity began. Your ignorance of history betrays >> >> >> you and >> >> >> gives you the foolish idea that only recently have these 'signs' >> >> >> been >> >> >> fulfilled. Once again I have to wonder if you are really a >> >> >> Christian. >> >> > >> >> >My father (in the 1950's) believed that he was living in the last >> >> >days. >> >> >> >> Which is one example of your claim being wrong. >> >> >> >> >According to the Bible, the deciples of Jesus hoped Jesus would >> >> >return >> >> >during their life times. >> >> >> >> Another example. I see that you don't have the integrity to >> >> acknowledge >> >> your error or tell us that you will make an effort to not make this >> >> mistake again. >> >> >> >> >I have never claimed to be a Bible scholar. >> >> >> >> Yet you accept the claims of people you believe are Bible scholars, >> >> even >> >> when they are wrong. >> >> >> >> >I learn new things every time I listen to another sermon. >> >> >> >> No, I don't think you do. >> >> >> >> You would learn something if you followed up on the references that >> >> you >> >> have ignored here. Your ignorance would not be so breathtaking if you >> >> didn't insist on having opinions on so many subjects that you don't >> >> understand and refuse to learn about. >> > >> >Yes, prior generations believed they were living in the last days. They >> >were wrong. We could be right. I believe the rapture will happen in this >> >generation. >> >> Do you know that the overwhelming majority of Christians belong to >> churches that reject rapture doctrines? Of course those churches that >> believe in rapture can't agree on anything anyway. >> >> It's a silly doctrine, quite well suited to you. > > That means those Christians don't believe the Bible since the Rapture is > discussed in detail in 1 Thes. 4:13-18. There are man things in the bible on which people disagree. The rapture is one of them. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1606071504490001@66-52-22-19.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <c5tdk4-ama.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:44:27 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> > No, I don't think that Christians or yourself needs medication. >> > Perhaps, >> > some of the advocates of evolution do need medication since they seem >> > to >> > get really angry when someone attacks their precious theory. >> >> Which theory? Punk Eek? Saltation? >> >> > It's my >> > opinion that some of the advocates of evolution treat evolution as more >> > of >> > a religion than as a theory. >> >> You did not just call evolution a theory . You couldn't >> have. After all this time, you still haven't learned the simplest, most >> basic facts of the matter, despite endless repetition of it? >> >> >> You have in fact just demonstrated you are absolutely ineducable. You >> are >> constitutionally incapable of learning or of actual thought. You are, in >> short, an ambulatory Jell-O, and I for once have already had my dessert. >> >> I wash my hands of this moron; may the rest of you fare as well. I'll >> stick to more profitable things than trying to educate him... teaching >> rocks to sing, perhaps. > > Evolution is a theory. I just looked up the word evolution and it states: > > "Evolution: A theory first proposed in 19th century by Carles Darwin...." You don't understand evolution. Yes, evolution is a theory, and it carries many hypothesis under its umbrella. Get used to it! Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1606071519300001@66-52-22-19.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <2di873lbeeshm9r2u5i2dp4c1q3cv5padi@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > >> Jason@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. Because that is what you want to believe. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1606071247550001@66-52-22-31.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. > > When I use the term "abiogenesis" in my posts, I define it differently > than John defines it. I define it the same way that the advocates of > abiogenesis define it--when means that God was not involved in relation to > abiogenesis. If I am referring to God creating life--I use the term > creation science or intelligent design. Then you need to refine your terms. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 In article <d79b73hese0hccohsr4ioe2h8jq0t7n5rs@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > 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. Yes, that is true that the judge told us to be unbiased. The two lawyers took turns asking us various questions to determine if any of us has a bias. For example, the prosecutor asked this question to each potential jury member: If you were driving your car 70 miles per hour and the speed limit was 50 miles per hour, and a police officer stopped your car--do you believe the police officer should give you a ticket or not give you a ticket? It's my guess that the prosecutor wanted to have on the jury anyone that answered that question: "YES, the police officer should give me a ticket for violating the speed limit". Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Jun 17, 9:55 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > "Martin" <phippsmar...@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). Except that advocates of creation "science" claim the Earth was created in six days (according to the ICR site). Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Jun 17, 10:42 pm, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > 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. You'd think so. Martin Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1706071108010001@66-52-22-4.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article > <46753e27$0$1181$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>, > "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 16, 9:26 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > I hope those Arabic Christians realize that the true God is very >> > different >> > than a false God. >> >> Just as you believe your god to be true and others false, everyone else >> believes their gods true and your god false. If you go by majority >> decision, EVERY god must be false > > Or--one of the Gods may be the true God. I said "if you go by majority" .. please read more carefully. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Jun 17, 10:59 pm, John Baker <n...@bizniz.net> wrote: > On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 09:54:35 -0000, George Chen > <georgech...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >On Jun 17, 3:12 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > >>news:Jason-1506071852300001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > >> > In article <844673l3qbgm6b42m59ps8l29e1ah3o...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > >> >> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 11:46:45 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> <Jason-1506071146450...@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> >In article <fHyci.169$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> In all fairness, he makes a complete and utter fool of himself. He doesn't even need our help. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Jun 18, 2:06 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182075020.267569.195...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, George > Chen <georgech...@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. > 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? They might be able to cut off a few million years, yes. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Jun 18, 2:08 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article > <46753e27$0$1181$61c65...@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>, > > "Jeckyl" <n...@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. You better hope it's not Allah then. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Jun 18, 2:22 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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. Okay, Jason, be honest (for once). Why are you here, day after day, promoting their website if you're not working for them? Do you think lying about science is going to get you into your imaginary heaven? Martin 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.