Guest Ralph Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1706071915140001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. This is pitiful. Jason, can you read for comprehension? In Martin's first sentence he states that the exact conditions are not known. Let me reassure you that if the initial conditions were known it would only be a matter of weeks until the conditions of life would be replicated. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1706072026420001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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 No Jason, the system was guided by physical laws. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1706072028080001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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 Gotta love that religious certainty. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1706072036130001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. Did you have a point with that garbage? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1706072233140001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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? And the circle repeats itself. This has been answered for this bastard more times than I care to count. It seems that this is his favorite ploy, when he begins to get cornered he goes in his circle! Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1706072241430001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. What scientific evidence? Where? You're full of it, Jason. Show us some 'scientific' information. Quote
Guest David V. Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <3sOdnbBzB_DpmevbnZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d@sti.net>, "David > V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> 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.... I could not care less about a hyracotherium. The fact of evolution is not based on the hyracotherium. Evolution is the change in species over time. That that has happened is a fact. What one single species did is irrelevant to the whole of evolution. Care to answer my other question? -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest David V. Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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 So? 500 out of hundreds of thousands of real scientists around the world is an insignificant number. A quick glance of the list showed a good number of those anti-evolutionists were not scientists or were not in the field of biology. They can doubt all they want and it's great they do because that's the way science works. It's part of the self correcting mechanism that religions lack. All they need to do is provide proof that evolution is wrong. So far they have not done so. The instant they do it will be big news and it will be in every journal that has anything to do with biology. Their lack of such proof speaks volumes. -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 In article <1182168723.095379.294370@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 18, 1:47 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1182139338.508689.267...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@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? > > > 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. > > And on that basis you decided he was as good a teacher as professors > who actually had a clue what they were talking about?! > > Martin Martin, In much the same way that critics can watch a movie or new Broadway play and gain an understanding about whether or not it's a good movie or play--I can set in on one lecture and gain an understanding of whether or not he is a good professor. For example, professors in charge of student teachers do not have to set in on every class that is taught by the student teachers but only one class. Jason Quote
Guest David V. Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 Jason wrote: > > There is another reason. The editors of science journals have > a bias in relation to articles written by advocates of ID and > creation science. And it is a well deserved bias. The creationists (ID is just creationism in a pretty package for resale) have no scientific basis for their arguments. Every one of them is a perversion of what evolution actually is. > The judges tell potential jury members that they should not be > biased. This isn't a court of a law. > The editors of journals should not be biased. Proponents of > evolution should not put pressure on journal editors to not > publish articles written by advocates of ID or creation > science. They don't. What has a rational, scientific, basis gets published. Strawman arguments don't. -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest David V. Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 Jason wrote: > > Thanks for your post. The end goal of the person that compiled > the list was to let people know that not every person that > has a Ph.D degree is an advocate of evolution. No, it was not. It was an attempt to claim that these "smart" people do not agree with science so science must be wrong. It is an attempt to create a controversy where there is none. > This tread has been going on for a couple of weeks and several > posters stated or at least implied that intelligent people > are advocates of evolution and only uneducated or stupid > people are advocates of creation science or ID. Anyone here will tell you that it is entirely possible, and probable, that some very intelligent people will be fooled by the creationists attempts to debase evolution. > At the very least, that was my impression of their opinions. I > found it shocking that these famous people do not believe > that life evolved from non-life on this earth: > > Francis Crick..... Nice name but the fact of evolution does not rest upon anything he says. Your appeal to authority is a logical fallacy that isn't going to work around here. -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 In article <RFvdi.5882$kR2.5569@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-1706071915140001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > 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. > > This is pitiful. Jason, can you read for comprehension? In Martin's first > sentence he states that the exact conditions are not known. Let me reassure > you that if the initial conditions were known it would only be a matter of > weeks until the conditions of life would be replicated. You appear to be stating that since the exact conditions were not known, that it would be fruitless to conduct any experiments related to abiogenesis. My point was that scientists could experiment with various scenarios until they get it right. You appear to believe that life naturally evolved from non-life. Did you realize that some very intelligent people disagree with you. Did you know that one of the discoverers of the structure of DNA "expressed doubt that the origin of life was possible on earth." I found the following information in a website: "Francis Crick wrote "Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature" (1981) in which he expressed doubt that the origin of life was possible on earth. Similarly, Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe have sharply critiqued the origin of life on earth in favor of evolution from space (see "Evolution from Space") Robert Shapiro in his "Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth" (1986) also gave a similar critique although he did not postulate that life came from space." Upon request, I'll post more information related to the above data and tell you how to find the URL of the above site. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1806071238450001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <nqvdi.5876$kR2.1166@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1706071952180001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > 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 >> >> It doesn't make any difference what the article says. The reason ID is >> published infrequently is because it isn't science. This was clearly >> established at Dover. > > There is another reason. The editors of science journals have a bias in > relation to articles written by advocates of ID and creation science. The > judges tell potential jury members that they should not be biased. The > editors of journals should not be biased. Proponents of evolution should > not put pressure on journal editors to not publish articles written by > advocates of ID or creation science. > Jason No Jason, there isn't another reason!! When ID advocates have a scientific theory then they will be published. As long as they run around saying wow, look at it all, it is so complex that a designer must have done it. That's all there is Jason, they won't even attempt to name or study the designer. Now, what kind of scientific theory is that? Many years ago in the Little Rock trial the creationists were spouting the same crap. Judge Overland asked them to present evidence where they had been denied publication in a journal because the articles were about creationism. Guess what Jason, they couldn't produce the first example. As long as there is no science in ID and creation 'science', they won't be published. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 In article <%svdi.5877$kR2.1746@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-1706072222500001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > 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. > > You ask too many hypothetical questions. The size has nothing to do with the > ability to evolve into a larger animal as most animals on earth did. Excellent answer Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1806071253560001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <DOSdnUx-mdYuEuvbnZ2dnUVZ_vyunZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." > <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > 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 >> >> So? 500 out of hundreds of thousands of real scientists around >> the world is an insignificant number. A quick glance of the list >> showed a good number of those anti-evolutionists were not >> scientists or were not in the field of biology. >> >> They can doubt all they want and it's great they do because >> that's the way science works. It's part of the self correcting >> mechanism that religions lack. All they need to do is provide >> proof that evolution is wrong. So far they have not done so. The >> instant they do it will be big news and it will be in every >> journal that has anything to do with biology. Their lack of such >> proof speaks volumes. > > Thanks for your post. The end goal of the person that compiled the list > was to let people know that not every person that has a Ph.D degree is an > advocate of evolution. This tread has been going on for a couple of weeks > and several posters stated or at least implied that intelligent people are > advocates of evolution and only uneducated or stupid people are advocates > of creation science or ID. At the very least, that was my impression of > their opinions. I found it shocking that these famous people do not > believe that life evolved from non-life on this earth: > > Francis Crick was one of the discoverers of DNA > > Taken from the above mentioned report: > > "It should be noted that there are other scientists who are committed > evolutionists, but have yet expressed doubt about various mainstream > theories on the origin and diversification of life. For example, Francis > Crick wrote "Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature" (1981) in which he > expressed doubt that the origin of life was possible on earth. Similarly, > Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe have sharply critiqued the origin of > life on earth in favor of evolution from space (see "Evolution from > Space") Robert Shapiro in his "Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation > of Life on Earth" (1986) also gave a similar critique although he did not > postulate that life came from space." Jason, you're a damn liar. No one has even suggested that every person that has a Ph.D. is an advocate of evolution. The vast majority are but there are thousands of Ph.D.'s that don't give a rip about science. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1806071230430001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <%svdi.5877$kR2.1746@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1706072222500001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <1182140066.278306.60300@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >> > Martin >> > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Jun 18, 12:46 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > In article <f54spi$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. >> >> You ask too many hypothetical questions. The size has nothing to do with >> the >> ability to evolve into a larger animal as most animals on earth did. > > Excellent answer Coming from you that doesn't mean crap! Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1806071223240001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <RFvdi.5882$kR2.5569@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1706071915140001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > 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. >> >> This is pitiful. Jason, can you read for comprehension? In Martin's first >> sentence he states that the exact conditions are not known. Let me >> reassure >> you that if the initial conditions were known it would only be a matter >> of >> weeks until the conditions of life would be replicated. > > You appear to be stating that since the exact conditions were not known, > that it would be fruitless to conduct any experiments related to > abiogenesis. My point was that scientists could experiment with various > scenarios until they get it right. You appear to believe that life > naturally evolved from non-life. Did you realize that some very > intelligent people disagree with you. Did you know that one of the > discoverers of the structure of DNA "expressed doubt that the origin of > life was possible on earth." <snip web site shit not relevant to opinion stated> I am stating that the initial conditions are not known. I don't APPEAR to be saying a damn thing that I didn't say. In another post, you lying bastard, I gave you the status of some of the current research and you as usual passed right over it. The reason you did was because it rattled your cage a little too much. Any time now, Jason, self-replicating molecules will push your god of the gaps into the darkest corners of knowledge, right where it rightfully belongs. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 In article <nqvdi.5876$kR2.1166@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-1706071952180001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > 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 > > It doesn't make any difference what the article says. The reason ID is > published infrequently is because it isn't science. This was clearly > established at Dover. There is another reason. The editors of science journals have a bias in relation to articles written by advocates of ID and creation science. The judges tell potential jury members that they should not be biased. The editors of journals should not be biased. Proponents of evolution should not put pressure on journal editors to not publish articles written by advocates of ID or creation science. Jason Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1806071146030001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1182168723.095379.294370@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 18, 1:47 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1182139338.508689.267...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >> > Martin >> > >> > Phipps <martinphip...@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? >> >> > 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. >> >> And on that basis you decided he was as good a teacher as professors >> who actually had a clue what they were talking about?! >> >> Martin > > Martin, > In much the same way that critics can watch a movie or new Broadway play > and gain an understanding about whether or not it's a good movie or > play--I can set in on one lecture and gain an understanding of whether or > not he is a good professor. For example, professors in charge of student > teachers do not have to set in on every class that is taught by the > student teachers but only one class. > Jason Well bully for you. I don't believe that for an instant, but bully for you. Or would that be bullshit for you. When a professor is evaluated on visit by other faculty or staff it is a small part of the evaluation process. I know of no institution that would base anything on one visit. You're more full of bullshit than a Christmas turkey! Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1806070052520001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <f550vg$l7p$02$4@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> 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$61c65...@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>, >> >>> >> >>> "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> >>>> On Jun 16, 9:26 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >>>>> I hope those Arabic Christians realize that the true God is very >> > different >> >>>>> than a false God. >> >>>> Just as you believe your god to be true and others false, everyone >> >>>> else >> >>>> believes their gods true and your god false. If you go by majority >> >>>> decision, EVERY god must be false >> >>> Or--one of the Gods may be the true God. >> >> You better hope it's not Allah then. >> >> >> >> Martin >> > >> > It's not. >> > >> > >> >> How do you know? >> >> I hate to say this AGAIN! >> >> Any evidence? Except your book, of course? >> >> Tokay > > My belief system Certainly not a Christian belief system. In fact, not any system that requires even a modicum of honesty. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1806070051060001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <f55286$t78$02$2@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> 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 > > Can a mathematical model become a theory? It can become part if a theory. But again, you lying sack of shit, you have been told this. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1806070044420001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article > <46760992$0$1189$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>, > "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1706071822190001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <%4idi.1073$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? > > Such questions are difficult for me to answer. I can only provide a guess. > There was a war in heaven between the angels. God won the battle and the > angel that started the war (and the angels that fought on his side) were > cast down to the earth. The angel was re-named Satan and his followers > were re-named demons. God may have created another planet and sun (similar > to our planet and our sun). He may also have created people to live on > that planet; some plants and some animals. Of course, I am only guessing. That doesn't even qualify as a guess. The omnipotent, omniscient god couldn't defeat Satin. Another strike against the existence of the big guy. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1706072256410001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. Wll then do it, damn you. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1706072247350001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. Where did you go to school, Jason? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1706072231000001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. Of course you have. You probably weren't able to comprehend it but your question has been answered. 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.