Guest Jason Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 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." Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1706072146150001@66-52-22-98.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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? What a stupid question. Let's look at how man angels can dance on the head of a pin. After we resolve that we can return to Jason's intelligent question. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1706072043250001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <MPG.20dfb89df125c4b598a630@216.196.97.136>, Brian E. Clark > <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote: > >> In article <Jason-1606071439470001@66-52-22- >> 19.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, Jason said... >> >> > I could give other examples. >> >> I doubt you can top your claim that creation >> science was taught in the 1700s. > > It was not called creation science in those days. The basics of creation > science is in the first two chapters of the Bible. The information that is > in the first two chapters of the Bible was taught in the 1700's. > jason That information was taught for three thousand years, and it is as wrong today as it was for the last three thousand years. Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 In alt.atheism On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 00:22:41 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >I found this report on the internet: So what? Please tell us what this proves. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 In alt.atheism On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:14:49 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <6i6873dant6i7r2qt7olb2557ds9oan3nq@4ax.com>, Don Kresch ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> In alt.atheism On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:06:24 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >In article <1iv573117ivs5agfgk2di9kjs5qim6jsqn@4ax.com>, Don Kresch >> ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> > >> >> In alt.atheism On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:12:37 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >> >> >In article <pue373hcaj30bj1jcgp9lfvpf27cuklsab@4ax.com>, Don Kresch >> >> ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> In alt.atheism On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:44:42 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> >> >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <k9h273p8806sfnq9i3hevsje8qufrapnca@4ax.com>, Don Kresch >> >> >> ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> In alt.atheism On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:24:58 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> >> >> >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <eig17358isldvc4vhf9pg2rromvhsrn7q2@4ax.com>, Don Kresch >> >> >> >> ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> In alt.atheism On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:22:05 -0700, >Jason@nospam.com >> >> >> >> >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <46n0735npa5v05vudinp6rpte4i50rr7p3@4ax.com>, >Don Kresch >> >> >> >> >> ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> In alt.atheism On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:03:30 -0700, >> >Jason@nospam.com >> >> >> >> >> >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <f4pa1r$vpv$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> >> >> >> >> >> ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > In article <opc3k4-7or.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey >> >> >Bjarnason >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> [snips] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:42:26 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Yes, that is true. If I provided physical evidence which >> >> >> >> >indicated that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> her leg bone grew 2 inches--how would you explain how it >> >> >> >happened? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Honestly, by stating the cause - if any, you haven't >> >validated >> >> >> >> >> >even this >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> much yet - simply isn't known yet. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "I don't know" is not the same as "Yes, there really >> >is a super >> >> >> >> >> >being who, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> of all the thousands of such beings described, just >> >happens to >> >> >> >> >> >match this >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> particular one and he really does heal people, but >does it >> >> >> >magically >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> without leaving any evidence he did it - or even that he >> >> >exists." >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You see how those differ? Maybe, some day, you'll let it >> >> >sink in. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Have you considered that God is giving you evidence >that he >> >> >> >exists by >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > healing people? Maybe, some day, you'll let it sink in. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Are all the people that aren't healed evidence that there is >> >> >no god? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> BTW, if I went to a doctor that had as bad of a healing rate >> >> >as your >> >> >> >> >> >> >> god, I'd sue him for malpractice. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >The people (like Cheryl Prewitt) that are healed by God >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> She was healed by god because you say so. That >> >doesn't fly. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >Cheryl Prewitt told me that she was healed by God. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> So what? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> And I reposted my responses to your 20 questions. Are you >> >> >> >> >> going to address them? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Thank you for answering the questions. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> When will you address them? Here: let me repost them >AGAIN. In >> >> >> >> fact, every response to you from now on will include those answers. >> >> >> >> Every. Single. Response. From. Me. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 20 Questions for Evolutionists >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > 1. Where has macro evolution ever been observed? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > What's the mechanism >> >> >> >> >for getting new complexity such as new vital organs? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Mutation. Natural selection >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >How, for example, >> >> >> >> >could a caterpillar evolve into a butterfly? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It transforms, dumbshit. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > 2. Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should >> >be there >> >> >> >> >if your theory is right? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 3. Who are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC220_1.html >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 4. What evidence is there that information, such as that in >> >DNA, could >> >> >> >> >ever assemble itself? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF003.html >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 5. How could organs as complicated as the eye >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > or the ear >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB302.html >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > or the brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or >natural >> >> >> >processes? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB303.html >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > How could a bacterial motor evolve? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > 6. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin >> >backwards? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Oh for fucks sake, Hovind: this has nothing to do with >> >> >> >> evolution. 7 and 8 have nothing to do with evolution, either. That is >> >> >> >> in the field of COSMOLOGY and ASTROPHYSICS, moron. Stop >believing Kent >> >> >> >> Hovind. He's a liar and a con-artist. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 9. How did sexual reproduction evolve? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/dec98.html >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > 10. If the big bang occurred, where did all the information >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It's not information. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 11. Why do so many of the earth's ancient cultures have flood >> >legends? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Because the started near rivers. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > 12. Where did matter come from? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Where did god come from? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > What about space, time, energy, and even the laws of physics? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > 13. How did the first living cell begin? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> No one really knows, but it's not a miracle. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> How did god begin? Yes, god began. No, god didn't not begin. >> >> >> >> Yes, god began. No, god didn't not begin. I'll keep repeating that >> >> >> >> until you understand that you can't special plead. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 14. Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen >> >or did >> >> >> >> >it not have oxygen? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Didn't. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > 15. Why aren't meteorites found in supposedly old rocks? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> We do find them there in their remnants. Search for "iridium >> >> >> >> layer" in google. You'll find something interesting. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > 16. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why >> >doesn't it take >> >> >> >> >vastly more intelligence to create a human? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Why doesn't it take vastly more intelligence than that to >> >> >> >> create god? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Do you really believe that >> >> >> >> >hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Only if you want to strawman evolution, which clearly you do. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > 17. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by >DNA--which can >> >> >> >> >only be produced by DNA? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > 18. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got >> >> >> >> >there >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/moon/moon_formation.html >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >--any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data? Why aren't >> >> >> >> >students told the scientific reasons for rejecting all the >evolutionary >> >> >> >> >theories for the moon's origin? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> There AREN'T any evolutionary theories for it because >IT'S NOT >> >> >> >> PART OF EVOLUTION, YOU IGNORANT FUCK. IT'S PART OF >> >> >> >> ASTROPHYSICS/COSMOLOGY, YOU IGNORANT FUCK. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 19. Why won't qualified evolutionists enter into a written, >> >scientific >> >> >> >> >debate? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Because they don't want to dirty themselves with the >laughable >> >> >> >> bullshit of creationists. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > 20. Would you like to explain the origin of any of the following >> >> >> >> >twenty-one features of the earth: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> No. I've humored you enough >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > If so, I will point out some obvious problems with your >> >> >> >> >explanation >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> No, you won't. You will just point us to a place that closes >> >> >> >> its eyes and screams "gawddidit" over and over. >> >> >> >> >> >> >thanks for your answers--you get a grade of A. >> >> >> >> >> >> That's nice. Now respond to my answers. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Did your teachers in high school and professors in college respond to >> >> >every answer you gave on every test or exam? >> >> >> >> Yes. Now respond to my answers. >> >Do you want me to >> >> respond to the questions like you said you would when you said >> you'd "point out some obvious problems with [your] explanation", yes. > >I saw no problems with your explanations. IOW: you're trapped and you're trying to take the easy way out. Won't work. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 22:41:42 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <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. Once again you prove your ignorance with your false claims. If you actually think there is scientific information in the first chapters of Genesis, please point them out so we can help you understand why you are completely wrong. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 00:52:52 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <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 > You know that your belief system is not evidence. He asked for evidence, you avoided the question. You must really hate God to make Him look so bad. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:46:03 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <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 > Since you have demonstrated a complete inability to understand biology, I have absolutely no confidence in your ability to select a good biology teacher. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:21:20 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1706072021200001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <ifnb73lua0eg6thsdngnunfdkmrljbu0uv@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:11:46 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1706071911460001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <1182125415.442137.252240@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Jun 18, 2:22 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> >> > It's very possible that ICR requires their employees to sign a pledge. I >> >> > have read that Microsoft programmers are required to sign some sort of >> >> > pledge or agreement stating that will not share the computer codes with >> >> > other companies. Some employees of Coca Cola have to sign pledges or >> >> > agreements stating they will not share the formulae for Coke with other >> >> > companies. ICR would NOT require non-employees to sign a pledge. Even if >> >> > they wanted to do it, non-employess would just refuse to sign the pledge. >> >> > If they asked me to sign the pledge, I would not sign it. >> >> >> >> Okay, Jason, be honest (for once). Why are you here, day after day, >> >> promoting their website if you're not working for them? Do you think >> >> lying about science is going to get you into your imaginary heaven? >> >> >> >> Martin >> > >> >Martin, >> >I am retired from work. I don't work for ICR but do subscribe to their >> >newsletter. >> >Jason >> > >> Why do you subscribe to their newsletter when it is full of lies and >> make Christians look bad? > >I enjoy reading the articles. > Why do you like being lied to? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 22:44:55 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1706072244550001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >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. You do understand that it is a crime for a juror to let his biases sway his vote or for a judge to make rulings based on his biases, yet you said you would vote to convict, even if the prosecutor hadn't proven his claim beyond a reasonable doubt. >In which country do you live? > One that has smarter, more honest people than you, apparently. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:24:10 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1706072024100001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <oinb731kfbqhj18s1coitm6sb01mu4vuh4@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 18:54:32 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1706071854320001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <5Hidi.1090$P8.601@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:Jason-1606072200250001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> > In article <brKdnS6w5O9iCenbnZ2dnUVZ_qfinZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." >> >> > <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> >> > In order for lower life forms (living cells) to evolve into >higher life >> >> >> > forms (mammals)--major mutations would have been required. >> >> >> >> >> >> No, it would not. >> >> >> >> >> >> > example: Hyracotherium evolving into Equus >> >> >> >> >> >> Which is why a hyracotherium did not evolve into an equus. >> >> >> >> >> >> Evolution doesn't work that way.... and you know it. >> >> > >> >> > Did you want me to mention all of the steps: >> >> > >> >> > step 1: Hyracotherium--"vaguely horselike creature" >> >> > step 2: Orohippus >> >> > step 3: Epihippus >> >> > step 4: Mesohippus >> >> > step 5: Dinohippus >> >> > step 6: Equus--"modern genus of horse" >> >> > >> >> > source: National Geographic--Nov 2004--article: "Was Darwin Wrong" >> >> >> >> Since that appears to be the only NG that you have it appears that you >> >> purchased it based on the article "Was Darwin Wrong"? Of course we >both know >> >> that the answer in the NG was a resounding NO! >> > >> >Yes, you are correct. I still enjoyed the article. Actually, the answer was: >> >No: the evidence for Evolution is overwhelming. >> > >> So why do you ignore the evidence and subscribe to the lies of the ICR? > >Because of my belief system. > You believe that it is good to be lied to. How foolish. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:59:18 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1706071959180001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1182126930.187720.194180@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 18, 3:32 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article >> > <46753d99$0$1182$61c65...@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>, >> > "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> > > "Martin" <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > >news:1182071263.602369.18620@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> > > > On Jun 16, 2:13 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > >> I once talked to a >> > > >> biology professor that was an advocate of creation science. He knew as >> > > >> much about evolution as any of the other biology professors that worked >> > > >> at >> > > >> that college. >> > >> > > > Obviously not. >> > >> > > It is possible to believe in everything about evolution itself, and still >> > > believe there was some external creating entity that either created the >> > > universe initially and/or caused life to first emerge. Evolution really >> > > only kicks in once there is life and a process in place for selection and >> > > mutation to take place. >> > >> > > So its not incompatible .. but not necessarily reasonable .. to believe in >> > > some sort of creator that did his job and then let nature (his creation) >> > > take its course (see deism). >> > >> > I understand your point. That is the reason college biology teachers that >> > are advocates of creation science can teach their students about evolution >> > as well as college biology professors that are NOT advocates of creation >> > science. >> >> You can't teach using the scientific method and still believe in >> religious fantasies. It's not good enough for the teacher to say >> "This is what you need to know for the exam." >> >> Martin > >I disagree with you. That professor that was an advocate of creation >science taught biology as well as the other professors. > You cannot possibly know if that statement is true since you have demonstrated a complete failure to understand biology. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:20:53 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1806071620540001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <EKydnfhTRM1rSuvbnZ2dnUVZ_qupnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." ><spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> 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. > >I doubt that people like Francis Crick were fooled by creationists. He >continues to be an advocate of evolution but expressed doubt that the >origin of life was possible on earth. He probably came to that decision >after lots of research. .... Crick is not a creationist nor do his questions help the creationist liars who have conned you. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:52:18 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <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 > Clearly you don't want to understand the problem. The proponents of 'intelligent design' are not doing any science at all. That is why their fantasy stories aren't in scientific journals. Learn. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:38:44 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <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. You have just defamed the editors of science journals even though you know that you have absolutely no evidence at all to back up your lie. You are morally repugnant, a stench to the heavens. >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. They aren't biased. Learn that fact. Every time you say otherwise it is because you are intentionally defaming every scientist, including the ones whose discoveries allowed you to spread your lies throughout the world. If there were a God, He would strike you dead for the lies you tell in His name. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:01:22 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism "David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in <evGdnbQ4S5MZS-vbnZ2dnUVZ_vGinZ2d@sti.net>: >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. Jason is implying an unfair bias, not merely that scientists have integrity and he's just a worthless ol' liar. Jason cannot point to a single pro-intelligent design article that was presented for peer review that was unjustly rejected. He likes to lie. >> 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. Quote
Guest John Siegel Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. > > A recent issue of Science had an article describing how the expression of one gene in canines was responsible for most (all?) size differences. So a very minor genetic difference is responsible for a very large range of sizes. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 In article <vmBdi.3308$nQ5.3118@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "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? I took the biology class at Ferrum College. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1806071654350001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <pk1e735f7bnka1s6stea4pf52tudc5k3du@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:52:18 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <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 >> > >> Clearly you don't want to understand the problem. The proponents of >> 'intelligent design' are not doing any science at all. That is why their >> fantasy stories aren't in scientific journals. >> >> Learn. > > Upon you request, I'll post an article that was printed in a peer reviewed > science journal. I seem to recall that the editor of that science journal > was fired. I don't see where anyone requested anything from you. When the ID advocates do what I said they need to do, then they will be published. Science journals don't publish bullshit. Please keep that in mind as you attempt to disparage the journals. Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 Jason wrote: > Upon you request, I'll post an article that was printed in a peer reviewed > science journal. I seem to recall that the editor of that science journal > was fired. I'm looking forward to seeing this. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 In article <EKydnfhTRM1rSuvbnZ2dnUVZ_qupnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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. I doubt that people like Francis Crick were fooled by creationists. He continues to be an advocate of evolution but expressed doubt that the origin of life was possible on earth. He probably came to that decision after lots of research. > > > 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. Quote
Guest David V. Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 Jason wrote: > > I doubt that people like Francis Crick were fooled by > creationists. He has been fooled by no one, but many have been fooled by disingenuous interpretations of his writings. > He continues to be an advocate of evolution but expressed > doubt that the origin of life was possible on earth. He > probably came to that decision after lots of research. No, he never came to such a decision. He was speculating on how evolution could be falsified. So far no one has falsified evolution. It has so far withstood all challenges. -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 In article <8dqd731jtkebp0pda39adp7rcb1r97qem9@4ax.com>, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > In alt.atheism On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 00:22:41 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > (Jason) let us all know that: > > >I found this report on the internet: > > So what? > > Please tell us what this proves. > > > Don > That at least 500 people that have Ph.D degrees agree that life did not evolve from non-life. I learned from the report that Francis Crick expressed doubt that the origin of life was possible on earth. Quote
Guest David V. Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 Jason wrote: > That at least 500 people that have Ph.D degrees agree that > life did not evolve from non-life. Another logical fallacy. Argumentum ad numerum is a very sophomoric argument. I doubt anyone here is stupid enough to fall for it and your assumption that we are is insulting. Your appeal to authority is another insulting argument. Just because they have a PhD does not automatically give them credibility. It is also well known that many creationists that claim to have degrees do not. They freely give each other degrees, get them from diploma mills or biblical "colleges." -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest David V. Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 Free Lunch wrote: > Jason is implying an unfair bias, not merely that scientists > have integrity and he's just a worthless ol' liar. Jason > cannot point to a single pro-intelligent design article that > was presented for peer review that was unjustly rejected. He > likes to lie. Of course he lies. That's what creationists do. If he didn't lie I'd think something was wrong. -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. 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.