Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Jun 18, 11:26 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <erob73dgmo89h1o3gf1t1uj7ursjd87...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:40:34 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-1706071940340...@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <1182126494.043693.273...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > >Phipps <martinphip...@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. > > > >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. There's a third possibility: gravitational pull. It's more than a possibility, actually: unlike your god, gravity actually exists. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Jun 18, 11:28 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182130694.713211.44...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmar...@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? > Yes As are billions of Christians. Martin Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 Martin Phipps 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 > I vote for Odin. (I just like this "not omniscient, not omnipotent, not benevolent" thing. And of course, nothing beats Valhalla) (Oh, maybe the beer vulcan and the stripper factory. And pasta.) 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) Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Jun 18, 11:36 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182130313.835974.83...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@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. > These were my words--I was discussing posts in this newsgroup. I never mentioned > websites in my post. Nevertheless, you were told that reviews of Behe's work existed and were available on the web. There was no "failure" on anybody's part to refute his lies. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Jun 18, 11:43 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <MPG.20dfb89df125c4b598a...@216.196.97.136>, Brian E. Clark > > <r...@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. So now the Bible is a scientific text? Martin Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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$61c65...@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>, >>> >>> "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>> On Jun 16, 9:26 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> I hope those Arabic Christians realize that the true God is very > different >>>>> than a false God. >>>> Just as you believe your god to be true and others false, everyone else >>>> believes their gods true and your god false. If you go by majority >>>> decision, EVERY god must be false >>> Or--one of the Gods may be the true God. >> You better hope it's not Allah then. >> >> Martin > > It's not. > > How do you know? I hate to say this AGAIN! Any evidence? Except your book, of course? Tokay -- Unlike science, social research never discovers anything. It only rediscovers what people were once told and need to be told again... Neil Postman, Technopoly, (1992) Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Jun 18, 12:46 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f54spi$kdh$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <f539gg$u7...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > > >>> 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" > > >> 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. > > 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? Did your creation-believing biology professor fail to tell you that dog breeds have developed over the past 10 000 years as a result of selective breeding by mankind? Some teacher, huh? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Jun 18, 12:48 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f54t8v$l7p$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > > > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <1182072308.567299.14...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > <phippsmar...@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. > > > 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. > > Size. No mutation would be required as every species has varieties in different sizes. (You mentioned dogs which are all one species, for example.) Selective pressures would have favoured larger animals, perhaps because they were faster and could better escape predators. Martin Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 "Martin Phipps" <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1182124816.466720.247460@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 17, 9:55 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> "Martin" <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1182071263.602369.18620@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On Jun 16, 2:13 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> I once talked to a >> >> biology professor that was an advocate of creation science. He knew as >> >> much about evolution as any of the other biology professors that >> >> worked >> >> at >> >> that college. >> >> > Obviously not. >> >> It is possible to believe in everything about evolution itself, and still >> believe there was some external creating entity that either created the >> universe initially and/or caused life to first emerge. Evolution really >> only kicks in once there is life and a process in place for selection and >> mutation to take place. >> >> So its not incompatible .. but not necessarily reasonable .. to believe >> in >> some sort of creator that did his job and then let nature (his creation) >> take its course (see deism). > > Except that advocates of creation "science" claim the Earth was > created in six days (according to the ICR site). It all depends on your particular belief. A biologist could agree with an initial creation of the universe by god and still say that life evolved as per evolution. its not all black-and-white. Creation 'science' is not necessarily a single literal fundamentalist view. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1706071822190001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <%4idi.1073$P8.505@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1706071232190001@66-52-22-4.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article >> > <46753d99$0$1182$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>, >> > "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Martin" <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1182071263.602369.18620@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On Jun 16, 2:13 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> I once talked to a >> >> >> biology professor that was an advocate of creation science. He knew >> >> >> as >> >> >> much about evolution as any of the other biology professors that >> >> >> worked >> >> >> at >> >> >> that college. >> >> > >> >> > Obviously not. >> >> >> >> It is possible to believe in everything about evolution itself, and >> >> still >> >> believe there was some external creating entity that either created >> >> the >> >> universe initially and/or caused life to first emerge. Evolution >> >> really >> >> only kicks in once there is life and a process in place for selection >> >> and >> >> mutation to take place. >> >> >> >> So its not incompatible .. but not necessarily reasonable .. to >> >> believe >> >> in >> >> some sort of creator that did his job and then let nature (his >> >> creation) >> >> take its course (see deism). >> > >> > I understand your point. That is the reason college biology teachers >> > that >> > are advocates of creation science can teach their students about >> > evolution >> > as well as college biology professors that are NOT advocates of >> > creation >> > science. >> > Jason >> >> Jason, what is your understanding of a creation scientist? What views do >> the >> people hold who call themselves creation scientists? > > It's my guess that they perform their jobs as well as scientists that are > advocates of evolution. Most of the advocates of creation science are also > advocates of Natural Selection. Many of them know as much about evolution > as the advocates of evolution. > > 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. > So .. why did god wait for an eternity (an infinite amount of time) before deciding to create the universe. What was god doing all that time .. where was he doing it . .what will he do for the eternity after the universe ceases to exist? Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f519hm$bea$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <760ck4-7cg.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> [snips] >>>> >>>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:50:27 -0700, Jason wrote: >>>> >>>>> Speculation is not evidence. The advocates of creation science have fossil >>>>> evidence. >>>> Sigh. Okay... your continuing science education. >>>> >>>> Here's a rock (find any handy one, the specific rock doesn't matter). Is >>>> it evidence of: >>>> >>>> 1) Me being the King of Spain >>>> 2) Me being the supreme creator of all things >>>> 3) Me being left-handed >>>> 4) Me causing rocks to form in your vicinity >>>> 5) None of the above >>>> >>>> Correct answer: 5. Here's the question: why is it not evidence of those >>>> things? >>>> >>>> The reason it's not evidence of those things is that there is no mechanism >>>> on the table which relates the rock in any way to those claims. There is >>>> no theory which predicts that if a rock is found, this supports my claim >>>> to the Spanish throne. There needs to be some sort of testable, >>>> falsifiable, causal link between the two things. >>>> >>>> So let's take fossils. Got lots of 'em. Not all of 'em, and while there >>>> are plenty of exemplars of transitional forms, these don't account for >>>> 100% of all cases we've got so far. All very good. >>>> >>>> Now, is that evidence that I'm the King of Spain? No, because there's no >>>> mechanism involved which explains the relation between those two ideas; I >>>> can say the fossils prove my claim, but my saying it doesn't make it so. >>>> >>>> You say the fossils somehow support creation science, yet, like my claim >>>> they support my ascension to the throne, you fail to demonstrate any >>>> actual link between the ideas. >>>> >>>> You might, for example, claim that the fossils represent subsequent waves >>>> of creation. Very good, except for one minor issue: you haven't shown >>>> the process of creation, so you can't say anything meaningful about how it >>>> works. This is about like me asserting the fossils are evidence of >>>> fairies; until I show how fairies explain the fossils, how fairies >>>> cause the fossils to come to be, and in the manner we find them, then I >>>> have no basis to assert that the fossils support my claim, as I've shown >>>> no manner in which they _can_ support my claim. I haven't shown the >>>> mechanism the fairies used, so I can't show the fossils are consistent >>>> with that mechanism. >>>> >>>> SO you say the fossils support creation science... well, okay, maybe they >>>> do. What is the mechanism of creation? Without it, we cannot make any >>>> predictions about what we should find in the fossil record, so we can't >>>> very well say the fossils match the predictions of the mechanism and thus >>>> support creation science. >>>> >>>> So, what is the mechanism of creation? You must have this, as you >>>> assert that the fossils support creation science, and this is what you'd >>>> need to make such an assertion. >>>> >>>> Feel free to trot out this mechanism, we'd all love to see it. >>> Kelsey, >>> Thank you for your well written report. I read the book entitled, >>> "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by D.T. Gish. As you know, my memory >>> is poor so I don't recall everything that I read in his book. If you read >>> the first chapter of the Bible, you will know the basics of creation >>> science. I summarize it this way: God created mankind; some plants and >>> some animals. After the creation process was finished, Natural Selection >>> kicked in. D.T. Gish had all of the above information in mind when he >>> wrote his fossil book. After discussing lots of different fossils, his >>> conclusion was that the fossil evidence indicated that abiogenesis was not >>> how life came to be. >> Now that you've shown ON YOUR OWN where he was wrong, are you going to >> quit quoting him? >> >> "Oh, but I didn't show him to be wrong!" you say? >> >> Sure you did. >> >> You stated that he claimed that "abiogenesis was not how life came to >> be." But you also wrote the following about 10 hours EARLIER yesterday: >> >> John Baker: Actually, Jason, abiogenesis is an absolute proven fact. >> Whether it came about through divine intervention or by purely natural >> means, at some point in the planet's history, life did arise from >> non-life. We both agree on that. We just disagree about how it happened. >> >> You: Excellent point >> >> So if John has an excellent point (that abiogenesis happened even if ti >> was god that caused it to happen) then Gish's point (that abiogenesis >> didn't happen) is bogus. >> >> >> His other conclusion was that the fossil evidence >>> indicated that intelligent design was how life came to be on this planet. >>> I have never conducted any research related to fossils. I agree with at >>> least one of your points: I don't believe the fossil evidence reveals what >>> you call the "mechanism of creation." D.T. Gish does believe the fossils >>> supports creation science. >> So why quote him if you don't agree with him? > > When I stated, "good point", it does not mean that I agree with every word > of a post. For example, if you explained an aspect of abigenesis really > well--I would conceed that you made some good points. That would not mean > that I agreed that abiogenesis was how life came to be on this planet. Ah. Ok. Thanks. I now can stop writing anything to you. You say "good point", but actually mean "I can't answer that (or didn't understand it), so I'll ignore it. I'll just go on believing as I did before". So, further explanations are futile. > > When I use the term "abiogenesis" in my posts, I define it differently > than John defines it. NARF. You don't have to define it. It is a well defined word. I define it the same way that the advocates of > abiogenesis Who? Oh, you mean scientists that actually do experiments as compared to the "advocates of creation science" who might be scientists (but in another totally unrelated field, like maths, f.e.) and do absolutely no experiements and don't even have a valid theory. Those guys? define it--when means that God was not involved in relation to > abiogenesis. If I am referring to God creating life--I use the term > creation science or intelligent design. Like I said: Further explanations are futile. You see, this in no discussion. No debate. And most of all, no scientific debate. We make "good points" but then you ignore them. Most likely because they don't fit your belief. You see, if this was an actual scientific discussion, we'd have beaten you fair and square (about a month ago, actually), because you absolutely failed to provide any evidence or even a theory (goddidit and bible quotes are neither evidence nor a valid theory). So, you don't even have anything you could defend in a discussion or debate. 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) Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <qgvbk4-7cg.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:34:42 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >>> I don't want to be argumentative re: to the Big Bang. >> Yes, you do; you demonstrate it regularly. >> >>> However, I >>> continue to believe that it is speculation that the big bang was the >>> beginning of time. Do you believe that it is speculation or a fact? >> I think you need to ponder what the very concept of "time" actually means, >> and how it is defined. You seem to think it is some sort of magic thing >> which exists independent of everything around us. >> >> What's even stranger is, you seem to think that time is some sort of >> absolute - that regardless of any other factors, it marches steadily on >> anyhow, unaffected by space, motion and the like. Yet we know this is >> simply not true, that time is, in fact, variable - and is, in fact, >> impacted by motion. >> >>> That leads to another question: >>> Is a mathematical model evidence or speculation? >> Mathematics can describe; it cannot prescribe. Or, put another way, >> someone creating a mathematical model of something can show us that it is >> valid mathematically without it ever having any basis in describing the >> real world. >> >> As an example of this, there's an odd little bit of math I once read >> about that says if you cut up an orange just right, then re-assemble the >> parts, the results could be larger than the sun - yet contain no holes. >> Perhaps, in mathematics, this would be true, but it is based on the >> concept of infinite divisibility and infinitely small spaces - and that >> is something which simply does not apply to the real world. >> >> Such a model needs to actually be compared to the real world to see if it >> is, in fact, a correct modeling of the world, or simply a nice little >> mathematical puzzle. > > Let's say that a mathematician develops a mathematical model. Several > years later, another mathematician develops a new mathematical model that > disproves the first mathematical model. Is that possible? No. You can't disprove a mathematical model. It is just that: A mathematical model. It doesn't need to have anything to do with the real world. If your answer > is yes, does not mean that mathematical model should never become a > theory? No. You mixed up "mathematical model" and "scientific theory". Again. 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) Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 In article <f54spi$kdh$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f539gg$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. 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? > > 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 Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 In article <f54t8v$l7p$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > 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. Size. > > 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 Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 In article <1182140066.278306.60300@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 18, 12:46 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <f54spi$kdh$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > Jason wrote: > > > > In article <f539gg$u7...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Jason wrote: > > > >>> 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" > > > >> 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. > > > > 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? > > Did your creation-believing biology professor fail to tell you that > dog breeds have developed over the past 10 000 years as a result of > selective breeding by mankind? Some teacher, huh? > > Martin You failed to answer my hypothethcal question. Let's say the dogs were NOT minature schnauzers but were the same size of minature schnauzers. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 In article <3sOdnbBzB_DpmevbnZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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? The Hyracotherium (a vaguely horselike creature) eventually (after 4 steps) evolved into Equus (the modern genus of horse). The Hyracotherium (according to my high school biology teacher) was about the size of a german shepard dog. That led me to wander if a dog that was the size of a minature schnauzer could also evolve into a canine that was the size of a Saint Bernard. As of yet, I have not received an answer. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 In article <1182139677.747090.320640@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 18, 11:26 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <erob73dgmo89h1o3gf1t1uj7ursjd87...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:40:34 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > <Jason-1706071940340...@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > >In article <1182126494.043693.273...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > >Phipps <martinphip...@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. > > > > > >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. > > There's a third possibility: gravitational pull. > > It's more than a possibility, actually: unlike your god, gravity > actually exists. > > Martin How did the energy that expanded during the Big Bang come to be? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 In article <1182139867.548778.155150@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 18, 11:43 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <MPG.20dfb89df125c4b598a...@216.196.97.136>, Brian E. Clark > > > > <r...@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. > > So now the Bible is a scientific text? > > Martin I never stated that the Bible is a scientific text. However, there is scientific information in the first two chapters of the Bible. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 In article <f54vvd$l7p$02$2@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > 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 Yes, the ideal would be to have 12 unbiased people on the jury. In reality, most people have biases. Even judges can have biases. In which country do you live? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 In article <1182139338.508689.267620@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 He was not my biology professor. However, I did set in on one of his classes as per his request since we were friends and he invited me to one of his classes. I wanted to take his class but the class was full. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 In article <1182139543.678330.149260@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 That would be a good idea. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 In article <1182139397.061372.258680@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Yes, I would look at the evidence. I would not want to send an innocent man to prison. That would be the wrong thing to do. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >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 > IMO you are being intellectually dishonest by not replying to the issues raised by Martin, and instead raising, as new, an argument from incredulity and the old 747 argument. So, for you, plonk. Sorry, but you have earned it. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:21:23 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: - Refer: <ifnb73lua0eg6thsdngnunfdkmrljbu0uv@4ax.com> >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? He wants to learn some new lies. His old ones are getting very limp. -- Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 I found this report on the internet: I deleted number 10 to 335. If you want to see the entire list, google this term: List of Intellectual Doubters of Darwinism Preface: 10/24/00: Please note, though much time and research has gone into this page, it is always possible that there are some inconsistencies and false information on it. It is not intended to be taken as necessarily 100% accurate, although in my unofficial opinion, it is fairly close to it. Regardless, I have done my best to make it as accurate as I could, and if you know that any information on it is false, please feel free to contact us immediately at "info@ideacenter.org" as it is certainly not our intention to misprepresent anyone on this page. Thanks for your time. Introduction: The claim is often made that few or no legitimate scientists or academics have any real doubts about the validity of Darwinism, naturalistic theories of the origins of life, or believe in the real scientific possiblity of intelligent design of life or the universe. The purpose of this document is to list individuals of high academic training who have publicly expressed serious doubts about Darwinism, other naturalistic theories of life's origin, or have expressed support for intelligent design theory, either in scientific journals, books, web-documents, letters, or other public statements. Our criteria for this page is that each individual must either 1) have a PhD, 2) be a professor at a university or 3) be moderately published in scientific journals, or 4) is a member of a mainstream scientific society. As elaborated in the UCSD IDEA Club's Thoughts on "Project Steve?", this list is not posted because we are trying to make some ridiculous claim that there are more ID or creationist scientists than evolutionist scientists (there simply aren't), or because we think that should believe as we do because there are supposedly more creationists than evolutionists (belief should be determined by evidence, not popularity). We merely create this list to refute the notion that no intelligent people question naturalistic theories of origins, and to combat such arguments, as Stephen Weinberg makes, that because evolution is the consensus, evolution, "should be presented to students as the consensus view of science, without any alternatives being presented ("http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2003/081.html, emphasis added). The consensus it may be, but when enough intelligent individuals of high academic accomplishments find reason to question evolution, surely there must be more to the story than the one-sided view that most students are taught in school. We hope the reader would not get the impression that this list tells of all the scientists and other intellectuals who doubt Darwinism. These are only the ones who have been so bold as to risk their academic careers and reputations by publicly expressing doubt. A visit to a simple undergradute evolution class shows that behind the scenes, there are many intellectuals who doubt Darwinism or privately acknowledge problems with naturalistic theories of origins. There may be many others who ought to be on this list, and if you know of others, please do feel free to e-mail us at "info@ideacenter.org". Thanks for reading! In no particular order... 1. Michael Behe, "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" (1996). 2. Robert W. Faid, American Nuclear Society, Nuclear Scientist, author of A Scientific Approach to Christianity. 3. Michael Denton, medical doctor and molecular biologist, , "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" (1985). 4. Francis Hitching, "The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong" (1982). 5. Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Saunders, "Beyond Neo-Darwinism" (1984). 6. Soren Lovtrup, "Darwinism: Refutation of a Myth" (1987). 7. Milton R., "The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myth of Darwinism", Fourth Estate, London, 1992. 8. Rodney Stark, Professor of Social Sciences at Baylor University, see Fact, Fable, and Darwin. 9. Gordon Rattray Taylor, "The Great Evolution Mystery" (1983). 335. Terry Mortenson, Ph.D. in history of geology, Coventry University, England. See his bio on Answers in Genesis website. 336. John C. Whitcomb, Th.D. served as Professor of Theology and Old Testament at Grace Theological Seminary, Winona Lake, IN, for 38 years. See his bio on Answers in Genesis website. 337. Prof. Vladimir Betina, PhD, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology. Listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page. 338. Prof. Sung-Do Cha, PhD Physics. Listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page. 339. Choong-Kuk Chang, PhD, Genetics, Princeton University. Described in Creation Science In Korea. 340. Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering, PhD. Listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page. 341. Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education, PhD. Listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page. 342. Bob Compton, Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (from Washington State University), Ph.D. in Physiology (University of Wisconsin/Madison). See his bio on Answers in Genesis website. 343. Lionel Dahmer, PhD Organic Chemistry. Listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page and reported as technical review liason for Earth and Planetary Science papers for the 4th International Conference on Creationism. 344. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging, as seen on his bio page. (see also this interesting Scientific American article about him. 345. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist, PhD. Listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page or see his "Genes -- created but evolving". In Concepts in Creationism, E.H. Andrews, W. Gitt, and W.J. Ouweneel (eds.), pp. 241-266. Herts, England: Evangelical Press. 346. Douglas Dean, Ph.D. in Biology, as listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page. 347. Stephen W. Deckard (Ed.D. Univesity of Sarasota), Assistant Professor of Education. See his bio on the Answers in Genesis website. 348. Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics (Ed.D. Univesity of Southern California). See his bio on the Answers in Genesis website. 349. Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist (Ph.D. (1981), University of Western Australia in the field of organometallic chemistry of optically active metal complexes), Adjunct Professor of Chemistry at an Australian University. Member of Royal Australian Chemical Institute and American Chemical Society. See his bio on the Answers in Genesis website. 350. Barry Harker, PhD., Philosopher. Listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page. 351. Charles W. Harrison, Ph.D. Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics. Listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page. 352. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist, Ph.D. (air pollution meteorology from Macquarie University). See his bio on ChristianAnswers.net. 353. Margaret Helder, Botanist, PhD. See her bio page on the Answers in Genesis website or find some of her articles on the Creation Science Association of Alberta website. 354. Jonathan Henry, PhD Astronomy, See his "The Astronomy Book." a book about our solar system, galaxy and universe from a biblical creationist perspective. Also listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page. 355. Jonathan W. Jones, M.D. Listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page. 356. Raymond Jones, Creationist Agricultural Scientist, receiver of CSIRO Gold Medal for Research Excellence. See his bio or interview on the Answers in Genesis website. 357. Valery Karpounin, PhD (a Mathematical Science). Listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page. 358. Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology. Listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page. 359. Harriet Kim, Ph.D. Biochemistry (University of Wisconsin). Currently at Seoul National University, as described on Creation Science In Korea. 360. Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry. Listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page. 361. Jung-Han Kim (Professor Yonse University) Ph.D. Organic Chemistry (University of Houston). See Creation Science In Korea. 362. Jung-Wook Kim, Ph.D. Environmental Science (Professor at Seoul National University) as seen at Creation Science in Korea and listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page. 363. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Ph.D. Analytical Chemistry. Listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page. 364. Young-Gil Kim, Ph.D. Materials Science (Rensselaer Polytechnical Institute), currently at Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology; former research scientist at NASA-Lewis Research Center and visiting professor at UCLA. See Creation Science in Korea. 365. Young In Kim, Ph.D. Engineering. Listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page. 366. Dr John W. Klotz, Ph.D Biology (University of Pittsburgh), former Professor of Biology and Chairman of the Division of Natural Science, Concordia. See his Biographical information page on Christiananswers.net. 367. Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Ph.D. Cytology/Cell Pathology, currently with Institute for Carcinogenesis Research, Russian National Cancer Research Center, Moscow, Russia. See his The Principle of Preformism as a Creationist Approach in Immunology and Gerontology. 368. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., professor of Genetics at Yale University, head of molecular biology laboratory at Russian Academy of Sciences. See his biographical information. 369. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Ph.D. Physics. Listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page. 370. Myung-Sang Kwon, Ph.D. Immunology. Listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page. 371. John Lennox, Ph.D. Mathematics (Emmanuel College, Cambridge), research fellow in Mathematics at Green College, Oxford, and senior fellow of Whitfield Institute. See his article Evolution - a theory in crisis? or a short biography of him. 372. John Leslie, Philosopher, Professor of philosophy University of Guelph. See The Prerequisites of Life in Our Universe . 373. John Burgeson, retired physicist, member American Scientific Affiliation (OEC, ~YEC). See his website, http://www.burgy.50megs.com/. 374. Dr Alan Love, Ph.D. Chemistry. Listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page. 375. David W. Snoke, Ph.D. (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign), Associate Professor Dept Physics and Astronomy (University of Pittsburgh). See his, "In Favor of God-of-the-gaps reasoning. 376. Luke Randall, PhD (a biological science). See his bio on his website, wasdarwinwright.com. 377. Dr John Mann, Agriculturist, former director of Director of Alan Fletcher Research Station. See Interview with creationist biological control expert, Dr John Mann, M.B.E.. 378. Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist, listed on Answers in Genesis Creation Scientist's page. 379. Glenn Jackson, EdD Science Education (University of Virginia), MS Environmental Biology (George Mason University). See his bio on his pro-creationits website, "Points of Origins. 380. Robert Lattimer, PhD, research scientist (physical/analytical chemist) in private industry. He is a member and past Chairman and Councilor the Akron Section, American Chemical Society. He is also a member of the pro-Intelligent Design Science Excellence for All Ohioans Speakers Bureau. 381. Walter L. Starkey, PhD. (Ohio State University), mechanical engineering professor at Ohio State for about 32 years. He is also a member of the pro-Intelligent Design Science Excellence for All Ohioans Speakers Bureau. 382. Bernard d'Abrera, world renouned butterfly expert and graduate of the University of New South Wales. See his The Concise Atlas of Butterflies of the World. 383. Michael Heisig, Ph.D. Molecular Biology (University of Freiburg). See his "Protein Families: chance or design?" (Technical Journal 15(3) 2001). 384. Royal Truman, Ph.D. Organic Chemistry (Michigan State University). See his "Protein Families: chance or design?" (Technical Journal 15(3) 2001). 385. Roland S 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.