Jump to content

Evolution is Just Junk Science


Recommended Posts

Guest Jason
Posted

In article <1182127852.310084.309330@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

<phippsmartin@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.

>

> Martin

 

Martin,

But in special labs--those conditions that you mentioned would be part of

the experiment.

  • Replies 19.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Jason
Posted

In article <1182125258.409052.162860@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@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 better hope it's not Allah then.

>

> Martin

 

It's not.

Guest Jason
Posted

In article

<4675cbba$0$1187$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>,

"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:

> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

> news:Jason-1706071108010001@66-52-22-4.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> > In article

> > <46753e27$0$1181$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>,

> > "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:

> >

> >> On Jun 16, 9:26 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> >> > I hope those Arabic Christians realize that the true God is very

> >> > different

> >> > than a false God.

> >>

> >> Just as you believe your god to be true and others false, everyone else

> >> believes their gods true and your god false. If you go by majority

> >> decision, EVERY god must be false :)

> >

> > Or--one of the Gods may be the true God.

>

> I said "if you go by majority" .. please read more carefully.

 

Yes, you did say that.

Guest Brian E. Clark
Posted

In article <Jason-1606071439470001@66-52-22-

19.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, Jason said...

> I could give other examples.

 

I doubt you can top your claim that creation

science was taught in the 1700s.

 

--

-----------

Brian E. Clark

Guest Jason
Posted

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

Guest David V.
Posted

Ralph wrote:

>

> Since that appears to be the only NG that you have it appears

> that you purchased it based on the article "Was Darwin Wrong"?

>

Nope. Never read it.

> Of course we both know that the answer in the NG was a

> resounding NO!

 

You mean that's all you heard. It appears that your hearing is

extremely selective.

--

Dave

 

"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.

Guest Jason
Posted

In article <1182127507.933282.87890@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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

 

Martin,

I doubt that you read the article that I posted several days ago. The

author of the article indicated that the propondents of evolution want to

marginalize the advocates of intelligent design. The main method of doing

this is by putting pressure on the editors of scientific journals to not

publish any articles written by the advocates of intelligent design. Upon

request, I'll post it again.

jason

Guest Jason
Posted

In article <1182126930.187720.194180@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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

 

I disagree with you. That professor that was an advocate of creation

science taught biology as well as the other professors.

Guest Tokay Pino Gris
Posted

Jason wrote:

> In article <f539gg$u7n$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>>> In article <brKdnS6w5O9iCenbnZ2dnUVZ_qfinZ2d@sti.net>, "David V."

>>> <spam@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Jason wrote:

>>>>> In order for lower life forms (living cells) to evolve into higher life

>>>>> forms (mammals)--major mutations would have been required.

>>>> No, it would not.

>>>>

>>>>> example: Hyracotherium evolving into Equus

>>>> Which is why a hyracotherium did not evolve into an equus.

>>>>

>>>> Evolution doesn't work that way.... and you know it.

>>> Did you want me to mention all of the steps:

>>>

>>> step 1: Hyracotherium--"vaguely horselike creature"

>>> step 2: Orohippus

>>> step 3: Epihippus

>>> step 4: Mesohippus

>>> step 5: Dinohippus

>>> step 6: Equus--"modern genus of horse"

>> And that right there shows that "a hyracotherium did not evolve into an

>> equus." In fact, there wasn't just those 6 steps. There was millions of

>> steps where a hyracotherium evolved into antother hyracotherium that was

>> just the tiniest bit different. Then that one evolved into another that

>> was a tiniest bit different, etc. Eventually these differences added up

>> enough to where we no longer called it a Hyracotherium but instead

>> called it a Orohippus. But there wasn't any point where some animal was

>> 2' tall and then all of a sudden its immediate offspring were 4' tall

>> like cretinists like to make it look.

>>

>> It didn't take a major mutation but simply required thousands or

>> millions of tiny ones.

>

> I understand your points. Is it possible that some of the mutations were

> major mutatations (eg related to size)? It's my understanding that the

> Hyracotherium was about the same size as a German shepard dog--is that

> true?

> jason

>

>

 

No idea about the size of that animal.

 

But how is a bigger size a major mutation? Apart from the fact that just

for size you don't even NEED mutation.

 

DNA is not a kind of blueprint of the result. DNA is a recipe to get the

result. So, within the normal span, you just always select the biggest

of the crowd and let it breed. Voila: You will end up with a bigger one.

No mutation needed.

 

Tokay

 

--

 

Unlike science, social research never discovers anything. It only

rediscovers what people were once told and need to be told again...

 

Neil Postman, Technopoly, (1992)

Guest Tokay Pino Gris
Posted

Jason wrote:

> In article <1182072308.567299.14820@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

>> On Jun 17, 3:02 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>> In article <8KadnTbDRc_Jd-7bnZ2dnUVZ_jidn...@sti.net>, "David V."

>>>

>>> <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>>> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

>>>>> What defines a "major" mutation? Of the 100-odd mutations

>>>>> each of us is walking around with, which are "major" ones,

>>>>> which are "minor"? How is "major" defined?

>>>> That's part of the problem with anti-evolutionists; when they use

>>>> the word "mutation" they always think of an extra leg, two heads,

>>>> or a catfish and a turtle mating to create a swamp monster.

>>> In order for lower life forms (living cells) to evolve into higher life

>>> forms (mammals)--major mutations would have been required.

>> Apparently not.

>>

>> Martin

>

> Martin,

> I disagree. I mentioned in another post the evolution of Hyracotherium (a

> vaguely horselike cerature) to Equus (the modern genus of horse). I left

> out 4 steps. Lots of major mutations would have had to happen.

 

Name one.

 

Even more

> major mutations would be needed before lower life forms (living cells)

> could have evolved into higher life forms (mammals).

 

No. Just tiny ones. Some might be rather unlikely in our sense of time,

but taken the millenia and put in perspective, sometimes an "unlikely"

becomes almost an "inevitable".

 

Lets give an example: you have three dice. How much would you bet on

three times six in one throw? Not much. How much would you bet on three

times six in as often as you can throw them in one hour? See?

So, while some changes in the phenotype might be unlikely, given the

timespan, they are almost inevitable.

Most of the time, except some occasions, it is rather like this:

You roll the dice, you keep the sixes. The rest of the dice you roll

again. Until you have your three sixes.

 

Tokay

 

 

--

 

Unlike science, social research never discovers anything. It only

rediscovers what people were once told and need to be told again...

 

Neil Postman, Technopoly, (1992)

Guest Jason
Posted

In article <1182128248.743777.102880@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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

 

Some of the people appeared to be unbiased. However, when the two lawyers

took turns asking certain questions, their biases would quickly be

revealed. For example, if an advocate of creation science was suspected of

killing an atheist professor, would you be more likely to find him guilty

or not guilty?

jason

Guest Jason
Posted

In article <ifnb73lua0eg6thsdngnunfdkmrljbu0uv@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> 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?

 

I enjoy reading the articles.

Guest Jason
Posted

In article <1182129149.875497.10520@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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

 

You are correct.

Guest Jason
Posted

In article <oinb731kfbqhj18s1coitm6sb01mu4vuh4@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> 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?

 

Because of my belief system.

Guest Jason
Posted

In article <erob73dgmo89h1o3gf1t1uj7ursjd875bv@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> 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.

 

The solar system either came about by intelligent design or by chance

Guest Jason
Posted

In article <1182130694.713211.44850@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin

<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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

 

Yes

Guest Jason
Posted

In article <1182130131.088747.118270@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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

 

Martin,

As far as I know, ICR does not pay anyone (except their employees) money

for the articles that are published in the newsletter. Therefore, those

people are not employees of ICR so would not have to sign a pledge.

jason

Guest Jason
Posted

In article <1182130313.835974.83490@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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

 

Martin,

These were my words--I was discussing posts in this newsgroup. I never mentioned

websites in my post.

> > > 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.

>

Guest Jason
Posted

In article <MPG.20dfb89df125c4b598a630@216.196.97.136>, Brian E. Clark

<reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:

> In article <Jason-1606071439470001@66-52-22-

> 19.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, Jason said...

>

> > I could give other examples.

>

> I doubt you can top your claim that creation

> science was taught in the 1700s.

 

It was not called creation science in those days. The basics of creation

science is in the first two chapters of the Bible. The information that is

in the first two chapters of the Bible was taught in the 1700's.

jason

Guest Tokay Pino Gris
Posted

Jason wrote:

> In article <bra873tuptej1b6nio0c4q9amov1e7lc57@4ax.com>, Jim07D7

> <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote:

>

>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said:

>>

>> <...>

>>> I disagree. In my scenario, there was NO physical evidence. However, there

>>> were 8 witnesses that heard him say, "I'm going to kill that woman." They

>>> observed him take a gun in the apartment and heard a gunshot. They found

>>> the man's dead wife. I would have believed the testimony of the witnesses.

>>> I would have found him guilty.

>>>

>> I recommend the movie "12 Angry Men".

>

> Juries make mistakes. I believe O.J's jury made a major mistake. I would

> have found O.J. guilty.

>

> Dozens (or perhaps hundreds) of convicts have been released from prison as

> a direct result of DNA tests that confirmed they were not guilty. That

> means that lots of juries made incorrect decisions.

>

> When I serve on jury duty, my concern is justice for the victim. That is

> the reason I would find the husband guilty.

>

>

 

Then you would not be doing your job. Your concern should be justice as

a whole and especially justice for the accused. Did he do it without a

shred of doubt? THAT is the job.

 

And, btw, the reason why we don't have this funny "jury"-system here.

 

Tokay

 

--

 

Unlike science, social research never discovers anything. It only

rediscovers what people were once told and need to be told again...

 

Neil Postman, Technopoly, (1992)

Guest Martin Phipps
Posted

On Jun 18, 10:59 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1182126930.187720.194...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > 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."

>

> I disagree with you. That professor that was an advocate of creation

> science taught biology as well as the other professors.

 

If he taught YOU biology then he didn't teach very well, did he?

 

Martin

Guest Martin Phipps
Posted

On Jun 18, 11:09 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1182128248.743777.102...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > 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?

> Some of the people appeared to be unbiased. However, when the two lawyers

> took turns asking certain questions, their biases would quickly be

> revealed. For example, if an advocate of creation science was suspected of

> killing an atheist professor, would you be more likely to find him guilty

> or not guilty?

 

I'd look at the evidence. Which is what you should do.

 

Martin

Guest David V.
Posted

Jason wrote:

>

> In relation to size, for the sake of discussion, let's say the

> the only canines that were in the world 1 billion years a ago

> were 10 pairs of minature schnauzers. How long would it take

> for them to be the size of Saint Bernards?

 

Why are you making the false assumption that they would get

bigger, or smaller, or even change at all? What if only one of

those 10 males was in a condition to produce viable offspring,

and that males was shorter than normal? And then add to that the

only female that could reproduce had longer than average wool.

Then add to that a climate that is getting warmer. They're going

to die out, not get bigger.

 

The question that needs to be answered, honestly, is why do you

so desperately need to debase evolution? It's been shown to you

many times that your objections are not based on anything that

has to do with evolution and every thing to do with blindly

following a religious stance. Why can't you accept the fact of

evolution?

--

Dave

 

"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.

Guest Martin Phipps
Posted

On Jun 18, 11:21 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <ifnb73lua0eg6thsdngnunfdkmrljbu...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

>

>

>

>

>

> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> > On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:11:46 -0700, in alt.atheism

> > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> > <Jason-1706071911460...@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> > >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.

> > >Jason

>

> > Why do you subscribe to their newsletter when it is full of lies and

> > make Christians look bad?

>

> I enjoy reading the articles.

 

Too bad you don't enjoy reading actual science journals. You could

then learn something.

 

Martin

Guest Martin Phipps
Posted

On Jun 18, 11:24 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <oinb731kfbqhj18s1coitm6sb01mu4v...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> > On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 18:54:32 -0700, in alt.atheism

> > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> > <Jason-1706071854320...@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> > >In article <5Hidi.1090$P8....@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "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!

>

> > >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?

>

> Because of my belief system.

 

At least you can now admit to it. That's a start.

 

Martin

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...