Guest Martin Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Jun 18, 8:57 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1%hdi.1069$P8....@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-1706071153140001@66-52-22-4.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > 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. > > > >> 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. Reference was made specifically to employees of ICR. If you are getting paid by ICR then you are an employee, even if it is only part time and only for one article. They would not publish an article that disagreed with their tenets. Note that real scientific journals do not have such restrictions: all they ask is that you support your findings with evidence. Martin Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 17:57:05 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <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. > You get things wrong quite regularly. You got this one wrong, as well. The ICR refuses to publish any science that shows that their scam is based on lies and their employees are expected to subscribe to the tenets that I pointed you to. If they mistakenly tell the truth about science, they will be fired from ICR. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:05:23 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <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. > Too bad for you. They are people who write falsehoods for a living. Their goal is to get credulous people like you to give them money. The fact that you are so poorly educated that you don't laugh at their lies is a problem for you and for America, but it's very good for them. Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Jun 18, 9:31 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <QMidi.1095$P8.1...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-1606071519300001@66-52-22-19.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > 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. > > > Because that is what you want to believe. > > It's related to our belief system. ie fantasies. Also known as "delusions". Martin Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:11:46 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1706071911460001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1182125415.442137.252240@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> 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 > >Martin, >I am retired from work. I don't work for ICR but do subscribe to their >newsletter. >Jason > Why do you subscribe to their newsletter when it is full of lies and make Christians look bad? -- "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 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. They probably hold this view: God created mankind; some plants and some animals. After the creation process was finished, natural selection kicked in. Many scientists have jobs that are not related to issues related to 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. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 18:54:32 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1706071854320001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <5Hidi.1090$P8.601@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "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! > >Yes, you are correct. I still enjoyed the article. Actually, the answer was: >No: the evidence for Evolution is overwhelming. > So why do you ignore the evidence and subscribe to the lies of the ICR? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 17:57:28 -0700, in alt.atheism Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in <1182128248.743777.102880@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>: >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? That may be the case in Metropolis, but we have religious 'believers' who can be conned into believing anything in the rest of American. Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Jun 18, 10:01 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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. You apparently ran out of intelligent things to say before you even started posting here. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Jun 18, 10:07 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182125688.359423.53...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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. > > If you submitted an article to a scientific journal and it was published > in that journal--would it mean that you was an employee of that journal? If I was getting paid by them then I would be working for them, yes. Real science journals do not pay authors for submissions, by the way: the fact that they were published goes on their resume and it can result in an increase in their rank at the institution where they work and, hence, a higher salary. The ICR newsletter is not a recognized journal. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Jun 18, 10:08 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182125885.709185.268...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@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? > I don't use that sort of language. You're a liar. In alt.atheism On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 21:14:26 -0700, J...@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <12pm63dcjnuunio4aknb4i84ruo5v05...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch ><ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> In alt.atheism On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 13:05:09 -0700, J...@nospam.com >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >I will tell you the reason I mentioned the 12 percent figure in several >posts. >> >People (in various posts) were attempting to marginalize me. People in >> >various posts stated or at least implied that most people believed that >> >mankind evolved from lower life forms without involvement from God. I knew >> >that was not true but had no data to back it up. When I found out that >> >only 12 percent of Americans believed that mankind evolved from lower life >> >forms without involvement from God, I decided to post the figure everytime >> >someone else attempted to marginalize me and by opinions related to >> >abiogenesis. >> That's just means that 12% of the people are fucking morons. >Don, >I agree with you. >Jason Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 In article <QMidi.1095$P8.1001@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "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. It's related to our belief system. Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Jun 18, 10:09 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182126144.886116.266...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@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." > > I was referring to posts in this newsgroup. You said that people had "failed" to write a well written review. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Jun 18, 10:11 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182125415.442137.252...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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? > I am retired from work. I don't work for ICR but do subscribe to their > newsletter. And this is how you want to spend your final days? Lying to people who know better? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Jun 18, 10:15 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182127852.310084.309...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > 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. > But in special labs--those conditions that you mentioned would be part of > the experiment. un Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Jun 18, 10:15 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182125258.409052.162...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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'd better hope it's not Allah then. > > It's not. How can you be sure? Are billions of muslims wrong? Martin Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:40:34 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1706071940340001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1182126494.043693.273550@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> 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 > >1.9 billion people are Christians. I find it hard to believe that so many >people do not believe in God. I find it hard to believe about the number >of people that believe that life could evolve from non-life. How did the >energy that expanded during the Big Bang come to be? Intelligent Design >makes more sense than a theory that indicates that everything came about >by the rules of chance. A 747 Jet is much less complex than the Solar >System. A 747 Jet is the result of intelligent design but people like >yourself believe the solar system came about by chance. Could a 747 jet >come about by chance? NO Could the solar system come about by chance? NO >Jason > No one claims that the solar system or life on earth came about by chance. That characterization is a lie told by anti-science creationists. The solar system and life on earth came about a result of consistent natural processes. Learn to use words correctly and stop listening to the liars at the ICR. -- "... There's glory for you." "I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiles contemptuously. "Of course you don't--till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'" "But glory doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument," Alice objected. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's all." Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 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 Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 In article <5Hidi.1090$P8.601@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-1606072200250001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <brKdnS6w5O9iCenbnZ2dnUVZ_qfinZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." > > <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >> > In order for lower life forms (living cells) to evolve into higher life > >> > forms (mammals)--major mutations would have been required. > >> > >> No, it would not. > >> > >> > example: Hyracotherium evolving into Equus > >> > >> Which is why a hyracotherium did not evolve into an equus. > >> > >> Evolution doesn't work that way.... and you know it. > > > > Did you want me to mention all of the steps: > > > > step 1: Hyracotherium--"vaguely horselike creature" > > step 2: Orohippus > > step 3: Epihippus > > step 4: Mesohippus > > step 5: Dinohippus > > step 6: Equus--"modern genus of horse" > > > > source: National Geographic--Nov 2004--article: "Was Darwin Wrong" > > Since that appears to be the only NG that you have it appears that you > purchased it based on the article "Was Darwin Wrong"? Of course we both know > that the answer in the NG was a resounding NO! Yes, you are correct. I still enjoyed the article. Actually, the answer was: No: the evidence for Evolution is overwhelming. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 In article <wmkdi.1122$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. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 In article <1182125688.359423.53990@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 If you submitted an article to a scientific journal and it was published in that journal--would it mean that you was an employee of that journal? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 In article <1182125415.442137.252240@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Martin, I am retired from work. I don't work for ICR but do subscribe to their newsletter. Jason 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.