Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Jun 18, 2:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182075339.439694.204...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, George > Chen <georgech...@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? That's our point: you are completely uninterested in learning the truth about reality so why should we further indulge your lies and fantasies? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Jun 18, 2:53 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182070783.958231.241...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@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. > 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. You'd be guessing wrong. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Jun 18, 3:05 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182070937.259254.309...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@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. > I never called anyone that name. You're on record as having said that: google records all your posts. So that makes you a liar as well as an idiot. Not that we didn't already know that. Now explain to me why I should continue to treat you with any respect at all when you disregard us all so casually? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Jun 18, 3:05 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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. You never stop lying, do you? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html "In 1996, the Free Press published a book by Lehigh University biochemist and intelligent design advocate Michael Behe called Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. The book's central thesis is that many biological systems are "irreducibly complex" at the molecular level. Behe gives the following definition of irreducible complexity: "'By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. (p. 39)' "Although the argument from irreducible complexity is essentially a rehash of the famously flawed watchmaker argument advanced by William Paley at the start of the 19th century, Behe's book has attracted a great deal of attention from creationists and non-creationists alike. The articles collected here address the claims made by Behe in his book." Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Jun 18, 3:22 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182076039.822522.86...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, George > Chen <georgech...@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. In a previous post, you said the doctors "probably" had to remove two inches of bone. Now you're claiming to know for certain. > The doctor used pins put together the two sections. I > have a friend that lost about 4 inches of leg bone in an accident. For young people, the bones will naturally heal. For older people, the process is much slower and daily wear and tear may prevent healing. > He > wears a platform shoe on one foot and walks with a limp. Cheryl walked > with a limp before God God doesn't exist. You know full well that he doesn't: the fact that there are no gods in existance has been proven to you often enough already. I find it hard to believe anybody can be this thick. Martin Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1706071757050001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1%hdi.1069$P8.996@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "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? > > Someone stated or at least implied that all scientists that are advocates > of creation science had to sign a ICR pledge. I was letting them know in > my above post that was not true. Well now you know little man. What do you say about the ones who agree before hand that the bible is correct regardless of what science says? Do you agree with them? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1706071751530001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <vYhdi.1065$P8.540@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1706071139410001@66-52-22-4.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <1182075339.439694.204490@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, >> > George >> > Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Jun 17, 5:05 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > In article <ZqWci.644$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. > > Thanks for your concern. I take interest in the fact that you are not answering any posts which might be troublesome for you to answer. I think we need to put you on a trace schedule and see which posts you ignore. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >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 The field is quite young. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Jun 18, 3:32 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article > <46753d99$0$1182$61c65...@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>, > "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). > > 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. You can't teach using the scientific method and still believe in religious fantasies. It's not good enough for the teacher to say "This is what you need to know for the exam." Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Jun 18, 3:43 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182072589.110570.285...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > <phippsmar...@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. > 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 not, because God doesn't exist. But this "evidence" doesn't exist either, does it, Jason? You've admitted yourself that you didn't even have to see any evidence because you already believed her. It is not WE who are close minded. Martin Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Jun 18, 3:48 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182076891.543736.111...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, George > Chen <georgech...@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. Fine, it tells us that they are naive morons. Now go ahead and accuse me of disparaging Christians. I'm only telling you the truth. If you don't like the truth, well then that's just too bad, isn't it? Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Jun 18, 4:54 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > The audience of the staff members employed by ICR is not atheists. Science is for everybody, Jason. Apparently religion is just for those who already believe. That's good to know because it means that when people get a clue then religious people should give up on them and the eventual trend will be for religion to one day disappear altogether. Martin Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1706071822190001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <%4idi.1073$P8.505@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "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? > It's my guess that they perform their jobs as well as scientists that are > advocates of evolution. Most of the advocates of creation science are also > advocates of Natural Selection. Many of them know as much about evolution > as the advocates of evolution. Then you would guess wrong. I know of no creation scientist who believes in natural selection and there certainly aren't any creation scientists who can hold a candle to people like Miller, Eldridge or any of the 800+ Steve's who believe that evolution is the guiding force of life. To say that they know as much as 'evolution scientists is laughable and I do laugh in your face. > They probably hold this view: God created mankind; some plants and some > animals. After the creation process was finished, natural selection kicked > in. Almost no one believes this crap. What crap site gave this to you? Your cognitive powers must be slipping. > Many scientists have jobs that are not related to issues related to > abiogenesis. The vast majority of scientists don't work in the area of abiogenesis. > For example, David F. Coppedge works in the Cassini program > at the Jet Propolsion Laboratory. He is an advocate of creation science. I > doubt if the scientists that work at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory ever > conduct any experiments related to abiogenesis. I'm sure they didn't. I'm also sure that Coppedge doesn't have a job that requires a knowledge of biology. I think I have directed to you the list of scientists named Steve who support a statement on evolution. Go here: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp Review the list and note the schools that these scientists attended, their degrees and where they presently work. Then you can trot out your creation 'scientists', assuming you learn the definition. Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Jun 18, 5:01 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <qrqa73denflmffls0ra83nn8q8pl3e3...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > > > > > <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > > >In article <1182075020.267569.195...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, George > > >Chen <georgech...@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. > > >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? What Jim has neglected to mention is that the exact conditions required are not known. Most likely what would be needed would be an oxygen free environment because oxygen would break down exposed nucleic acids. Then there's the question of the exact concentrations of each component would be required, what temperature would be ideal and if some sort of substrate or catalyst would be required. "A few weeks" is not a very conservative estimate. Martin Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1706071849500001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <W7idi.1076$P8.219@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "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?? > > ICR believes the earth is only about 6000 years old. I disagree with that > number but they believe it. The advocates of Intelligent Design (as far as > I know) use the same figure that the advocate of evolution uses. John > Morris is of the opinion that the rapid recovery of the Mount St. Helens > area is proof that the earth (after the creation process was finished) > quickly (within a thousand years) become habitated with plantlife and > various types of animals. > Jason Well buddy, John Morris is wrong! How did good old John handle the great heat in the core of the earth or the heat caused by the coalescing of the planet? John Morris is a damn fool! Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 In article <vYhdi.1065$P8.540@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-1706071139410001@66-52-22-4.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <1182075339.439694.204490@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, George > > Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jun 17, 5:05 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > In article <ZqWci.644$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. Thanks for your concern. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 In article <1%hdi.1069$P8.996@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "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? Someone stated or at least implied that all scientists that are advocates of creation science had to sign a ICR pledge. I was letting them know in my above post that was not true. Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Jun 18, 6:06 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <pu4b73pn6q0p6vv5kv0qsetk95tsfia...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:57:01 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-1706071257010...@66-52-22-4.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <dhia73p7j846pbim1ektn3h75dm58dr...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:50:26 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> <Jason-1606072150260...@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> >In article <7c29735s3e2ff7nlm8mqtbeq7lnihmu...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > >> ><l...@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. Why can't people be in favour of truth and justice? It's supposed to be the American way? Martin Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1706071901190001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <wmkdi.1122$P8.139@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1706071751530001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <vYhdi.1065$P8.540@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:Jason-1706071139410001@66-52-22-4.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> > In article <1182075339.439694.204490@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, >> >> > George >> >> > Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Jun 17, 5:05 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> > In article <ZqWci.644$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. >> > >> > Thanks for your concern. >> >> I take interest in the fact that you are not answering any posts which >> might >> be troublesome for you to answer. I think we need to put you on a trace >> schedule and see which posts you ignore. > > Also note that I rarely respond to posts where the poster makes use of > derogatory language or insults. I once heard a professor of a class > related to public speaking tell the class that when someone in a debate > makes use of derogatory language or name calling that it meant the debater > had run out of intelligent things to say. I agree with that professor. I really don't care much about with what you agree. Your thoughts mean absolutely nothing to me nor nay of the posters in this NG. As far as what your prof said, it has no basis in fact at all. Basically it would be categorized as an old wives tale. Do you know the background of your good friend Davis Coppedge? Here it is: David Coppedge is Jet Propulsion Laboratories' Systems and Network Administration Team Lead for the CASSINI-HUYGENS mission to Saturn. He is former President of the San Fernando Valley Bible Science Association. He also runs one of the most prolific one-man Creation ministries on the web. And, in his spare time [ha!], David leads Creation Safaris, treks into natural surroundings where participants witness first hand the wonder and majesty of God's Creation So you can see his bible affiliation already negates what he says. In addition to that, the man is at best, a mathematician. What is his specialty in biology? Nothing, not one thing. So this fellow tells us that evolution isn't so and we should believe him....why? Evolution is a complicated subject and if you don't believe it, pick up an introductory text to evolutionary biology and see! Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1706071908450001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1182125885.709185.268920@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 18, 3:05 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1182070937.259254.309...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, >> > Martin >> > <phippsmar...@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. >> >> > I never called anyone that name. >> >> You're on record as having said that: google records all your posts. >> So that makes you a liar as well as an idiot. Not that we didn't >> already know that. >> >> Now explain to me why I should continue to treat you with any respect >> at all when you disregard us all so casually? >> >> Martin > > I don't use that sort of language. Snow White complex. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1706071909500001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1182126144.886116.266810@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 18, 3:05 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > 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. >> >> You never stop lying, do you? >> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html >> >> "In 1996, the Free Press published a book by Lehigh University >> biochemist and intelligent design advocate Michael Behe called >> Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. The book's >> central thesis is that many biological systems are "irreducibly >> complex" at the molecular level. Behe gives the following definition >> of irreducible complexity: >> >> "'By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several >> well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, >> wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to >> effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be >> produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial >> function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, >> successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor >> to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by >> definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if >> there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian >> evolution. (p. 39)' >> >> "Although the argument from irreducible complexity is essentially a >> rehash of the famously flawed watchmaker argument advanced by William >> Paley at the start of the 19th century, Behe's book has attracted a >> great deal of attention from creationists and non-creationists alike. >> The articles collected here address the claims made by Behe in his >> book." >> >> Martin > > I was referring to posts in this newsgroup. Then it was stupid to do that and to expect anyone else to do that in a forum such as this. Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Jun 18, 6:35 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:Jason-1606072200250001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <brKdnS6w5O9iCenbnZ2dnUVZ_qfin...@sti.net>, "David V." > > <s...@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! Those people at National Geographic are smart: they know they will sell more magazines with an article entitled "Was Darwin Wrong?" than with an article entitled "Darwin was right!" Martin Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1706071905230001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <Dkkdi.1121$P8.316@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1706071757050001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <1%hdi.1069$P8.996@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "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? >> > >> > Someone stated or at least implied that all scientists that are >> > advocates >> > of creation science had to sign a ICR pledge. I was letting them know >> > in >> > my above post that was not true. >> >> Well now you know little man. What do you say about the ones who agree >> before hand that the bible is correct regardless of what science says? Do >> you agree with them? > > I read all of articles in the ICR newsletter. In most cases, I agree with > the conclusions of the authors. Then you do have a serious flaw in your thought process. Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Jun 18, 8:51 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <vYhdi.1065$P8....@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-1706071139410001@66-52-22-4.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <1182075339.439694.204...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, George > > > Chen <georgech...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jun 17, 5:05 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> > In article <ZqWci.644$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. > > Thanks for your concern. Are you now going to take our advice and actually (for once in your life) go out and learn something or are you just being condescending (as usual)? Martin Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:01:18 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1706071901190001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <wmkdi.1122$P8.139@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1706071751530001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <vYhdi.1065$P8.540@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "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. >> > >> > Thanks for your concern. >> >> I take interest in the fact that you are not answering any posts which might >> be troublesome for you to answer. I think we need to put you on a trace >> schedule and see which posts you ignore. > >Also note that I rarely respond to posts where the poster makes use of >derogatory language or insults. I once heard a professor of a class >related to public speaking tell the class that when someone in a debate >makes use of derogatory language or name calling that it meant the debater >had run out of intelligent things to say. I agree with that professor. > Your decision not to respond when you are caught lying is evidence not only that you knew you were lying but that you intend to do so again. Our experience with your posting bears this out. You have already lost the debate. Now, you're just trying to see how bad you can make Christians in general look. Still, I have no reason at all to accept your claim that you are a Christian. Your works here tell us that you are not a Christian. 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.