Jump to content

Evolution is Just Junk Science


Recommended Posts

Guest Jason
Posted

In article <b01e73hss44edrjoko230mbu5163e2ovk6@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> 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.

 

I did not select my biology professor. My biology professor was an

advocate of evolution. We were not allowed to choose professors during the

first year. We were allowed to choose professors during the second year.

  • Replies 19.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Jason
Posted

In article <s21e735601fqvk6leab7pmsgcgin9jsoe6@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> 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?

 

I don't believe there are lies in the ICR newsletters.

Guest Jason
Posted

In article <bj1e7353rt356ni2l9k8i00t5kr45j30mm@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> 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.

 

I did not state that he is a creationist.

Guest Jason
Posted

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.

Guest Ralph
Posted

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

news:Jason-1806071741310001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> In article <A_KdnV1kkMdKjOrbnZ2dnUVZ_uPinZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish

> <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote:

>

>> 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.

>

> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508

>

> scroll down and click on

>

> READ MEYER'S ARTICLE

 

I skimmed it and it appears that the thrust of the entire article is

everything is so great and complex that only an intelligent force could have

designed life on earth. In other words noting of earthshaking consequences

there. I remember when this flap developed and while there is noting of

substance to Meyer's article I wish that it had been left alone to be blown

out of the water by real scientists.

>

Guest Ralph
Posted

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

news:Jason-1806071747360001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> In article <-bednXdsS_EeiOrbnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V."

> <spam@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

>> 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."

>

> Do you have evidence that any of the 500 people on the list that have Ph.D

> degrees do not have legitimate Ph.D degrees? If so, please make a list of

> those names.

 

The main thrust of his statement remains, just because they have a Ph.D.

doesn't give then credibility. Say Jason, you liar, you haven't commented on

the 800+ Steve's who support evolution. Whatsa matter, cat got your long

tongue? I'll repost the URL in the slight case that you forgot it :-).

Guest Ralph
Posted

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

news:Jason-1806071722060001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> In article <46770E03.4040100@worldnet.att.net>, John Siegel

> <JohnASiegel@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>

>> 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.

>

> Thanks for your post. I was not aware of that information.

 

Yeah he really appreciates it a lot. So much, in fact, that he will be

asking for it again with other posters. Nothing disingenuous about Jason

:-))).

Guest Ralph
Posted

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

news:Jason-1806071601430001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> 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.

 

Whoever taught you biology should be ashamed.

Guest Ralph
Posted

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

news:Jason-1806071648580001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> In article <b01e73hss44edrjoko230mbu5163e2ovk6@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>

>> 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.

>

> I did not select my biology professor. My biology professor was an

> advocate of evolution. We were not allowed to choose professors during the

> first year. We were allowed to choose professors during the second year.

 

Yes and you wanted a creationist professor so that you wouldn't have to

learn biology.

Guest Ralph
Posted

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

news:Jason-1806071650110001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> In article <s21e735601fqvk6leab7pmsgcgin9jsoe6@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>

>> 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?

>

> I don't believe there are lies in the ICR newsletters.

 

There are numerous lies in their newsletters. Every time they attempt to

show the age of the earth and universe at 10,000 years or less it is a damn

lie. Every time they deny evolution it is a lie.

Guest Ralph
Posted

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

news:Jason-1806071652140001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> In article <bj1e7353rt356ni2l9k8i00t5kr45j30mm@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>

>> 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.

>

> I did not state that he is a creationist.

 

He didn't say you did.

Guest Ralph
Posted

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

news: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.

 

Please give examples of Crick's research in abiogenesis.

Guest Ralph
Posted

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

news:Jason-1806071802170001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> In article <jXEdi.1981$C31.1050@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph"

> <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

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

>> news:Jason-1806071741310001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

>> > In article <A_KdnV1kkMdKjOrbnZ2dnUVZ_uPinZ2d@comcast.com>, John

>> > Popelish

>> > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote:

>> >

>> >> 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.

>> >

>> > http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508

>> >

>> > scroll down and click on

>> >

>> > READ MEYER'S ARTICLE

>>

>> I skimmed it and it appears that the thrust of the entire article is

>> everything is so great and complex that only an intelligent force could

>> have

>> designed life on earth. In other words noting of earthshaking

>> consequences

>> there. I remember when this flap developed and while there is noting of

>> substance to Meyer's article I wish that it had been left alone to be

>> blown

>> out of the water by real scientists.

>> >

>

> I also read the article. I seem to recall reading that the editor of the

> science journal that published the article was fired. Is that true?

 

Then what were your thoughts on the article, Is it a rehash of Paley or

does it not even rise to that level? Yes, if I remember correctly he was

fired.

 

Say Jason, now that I see you're on line I did some research on your buddy

Criswell. In the first place his Ph.D,. that you worship, is from Southern

Baptist Theological Seminar and he is a biblical inerrantist. Using a study

guide from him on the bible is like using a study guide from Duane Gish,

Ph.D., in biology, which means they aren't worth the paper they're written

on!

Guest David V.
Posted

Jason wrote:

>

> Do you have evidence that any of the 500 people on the list

> that have Ph.D degrees do not have legitimate Ph.D degrees?

 

Do you have evidence that they do? You posted the names so it is

up to you to provide proofs that back up their claims.

 

Here's some stuff to read:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html

http://www.durangobill.com/JasonGastrich.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/degrees.html

 

--

Dave

 

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

Guest Jason
Posted

In article <46770E03.4040100@worldnet.att.net>, John Siegel

<JohnASiegel@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> 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.

 

Thanks for your post. I was not aware of that information.

Guest Free Lunch
Posted

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 22:22:50 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

<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.

>

There were no dogs a billion years ago. The precursors of dogs came far

more recently.

Guest Jason
Posted

In article <A_KdnV1kkMdKjOrbnZ2dnUVZ_uPinZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish

<jpopelish@rica.net> wrote:

> 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.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508

 

scroll down and click on

 

READ MEYER'S ARTICLE

Guest Jason
Posted

In article <-bednXdsS_EeiOrbnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V."

<spam@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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."

 

Do you have evidence that any of the 500 people on the list that have Ph.D

degrees do not have legitimate Ph.D degrees? If so, please make a list of

those names.

Guest Free Lunch
Posted

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:48:58 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

<Jason-1806071648580001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>In article <b01e73hss44edrjoko230mbu5163e2ovk6@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>

>> 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>:

 

....

>> Since you have demonstrated a complete inability to understand biology,

>> I have absolutely no confidence in your ability to select a good biology

>> teacher.

>

>I did not select my biology professor. My biology professor was an

>advocate of evolution. We were not allowed to choose professors during the

>first year. We were allowed to choose professors during the second year.

>

Evolution is a fact. Any biology professor who denies it is failing in

his job. You prefer lies to truth, that doesn't change the fact that the

lies you prefer are lies.

Guest Jason
Posted

In article <jXEdi.1981$C31.1050@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph"

<mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:

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

> news:Jason-1806071741310001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> > In article <A_KdnV1kkMdKjOrbnZ2dnUVZ_uPinZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish

> > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote:

> >

> >> 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.

> >

> > http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508

> >

> > scroll down and click on

> >

> > READ MEYER'S ARTICLE

>

> I skimmed it and it appears that the thrust of the entire article is

> everything is so great and complex that only an intelligent force could have

> designed life on earth. In other words noting of earthshaking consequences

> there. I remember when this flap developed and while there is noting of

> substance to Meyer's article I wish that it had been left alone to be blown

> out of the water by real scientists.

> >

 

I also read the article. I seem to recall reading that the editor of the

science journal that published the article was fired. Is that true?

Guest Free Lunch
Posted

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:50:10 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

<Jason-1806071650110001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>In article <s21e735601fqvk6leab7pmsgcgin9jsoe6@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>

>> 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:

....

>> >> 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?

>

>I don't believe there are lies in the ICR newsletters.

>

They are lies. Your belief does not change that fact.

 

You like the lies they tell you so you refuse to acknowledge that they

are lies. That is your choice, but it reflects badly on you.

Guest John Popelish
Posted

Jason wrote:

> In article <A_KdnV1kkMdKjOrbnZ2dnUVZ_uPinZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish

> <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote:

>

>> 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.

>

> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508

>

> scroll down and click on

>

> READ MEYER'S ARTICLE

 

You recalled wrong about the editor losing his job.

 

From the article at this link:

 

(begin excerpt)

 

Eugenie Scott, the executive director of the National Center

for Science Education, says her group did consult with

Smithsonian officials and the museum's concerns were valid.

 

"Clearly people were annoyed, they were frustrated, they

were blowing off steam," Scott says. "Some probably did

speak intemperately. Their concern was that somehow the

Smithsonian would be associated with supporting the

creationist cause by being associated with this journal that

published a creationist paper."

 

Anyway, she says -- echoing the comments of a Smithsonian

official -- Sternberg did not really suffer.

 

"He didn't lose his job, he didn't get his pay cut, he still

has his research privileges, he still has his office," Scott

says. "You know, what's his complaint? People weren't nice

to him. Well, life is not fair."

 

(end excerpt)

 

Also, I don't study the references to find out who reviewed

this paper before it was approved for publication, but I

think they did a very poor job of criticizing its content.

 

The author uses many conclusion assuming words to describe

the arguments and questions leading up to his conclusions,

rather than neutral descriptive terms. For instance, in the

Cambrian Explosion section, he says,

 

"Can neo-Darwinism explain the discontinuous increase in CSI

that appears in the Cambrian explosion--either in the form

of new genetic information or in the form of hierarchically

organized systems of parts? We will now examine the two

parts of this question."

 

There is nothing in the evidence of life that implies a

discontinuous increase in information involved in any branch

of life. A miraculous intervention would be a discontinuous

event, but all that we see is a varying rate of genetic

complexity, not a discontinuous one. So he states the

question using a word that is answerable only with his

intended conclusion.

 

Also, his arguments assume that evolution is producing an

intended result, even though he is criticizing the

assumptions that it is an undirected process. For instance,

in the section talking about the improbability of creating

functional protein sequences, randomly, he doesn't work with

the concept that the end result is not intended, and that

many workable results might be comparable functional in some

way. No, he works through the estimates that a particular,

presently existing function will come about, randomly, not

that any functional living thing might somehow come about.

His bias toward intentionality is understandable, as is

the obstacle that we have no idea how to estimate how many

different ways a functional living thing may be made of

different parts.

 

If the reviewers approved the paper, and apparently they

did, I guess I can't fault the editor too much, though he

should have some input into the process. It is those

reviewers who botched their part of the process. This paper

could be used to design a training program for reviewers, to

show some of the many ways a paper can go wrong.

 

Unfortunately, you can be certain that any other attempts at

Intelligent Design papers will certainly reference this

turkey. Lets hope their reviewers do a better job.

Guest Martin Phipps
Posted

On Jun 19, 2:46 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1182168723.095379.294...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Phipps <martinphip...@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?!

> 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

 

That explains why there is so much crap playing at the box office

these days.

 

Martin

Guest Michael Gray
Posted

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:23:43 -0500, Don Kresch

<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:

- Refer: <8dqd731jtkebp0pda39adp7rcb1r97qem9@4ax.com>

>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.

 

That Jason is desperate.

 

--

Guest Martin Phipps
Posted

On Jun 19, 3:23 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <RFvdi.5882$kR2.5...@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph"

> <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:

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

> >news:Jason-1706071915140001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> > > In article <1182127852.310084.309...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

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

>

> > >> On Jun 18, 5:01 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > >> > In article <qrqa73denflmffls0ra83nn8q8pl3e3...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7

>

> > >> > <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

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

>

> > >> > > >In article <1182075020.267569.195...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,

> > > George

> > >> > > >Chen <georgech...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > >> > > <...>

>

> > >> > > >> As is the creation of a living cell from non-living base elements.

> > >> > > >> That is not how it happened. As you've been told already, the

> > >> > > >> proteins, RNA and lipid membranes all existed first (and all have

> > >> > > >> been

> > >> > > >> produced in laboratories). Even with all of these in existance,

> > >> > > >> it

> > >> > > >> apparently took millions of years for them to come together under

> > >> > > >> the

> > >> > > >> right conditions and form the first cell.

>

> > >> > > >It took millions of years for them to come together naturally. Would

> > >> > > >it

> > >> > > >take MUCH less time if everything that was needed came together as a

> > >> > > >result of scientific experiments?

>

> > >> > > Yes, it will take much less time for a living cell to be formed,

> > >> > > probably a few weeks for a multi-step process, including the various

> > >> > > reactions and isolation steps involved.

>

> > >> > Why have such experiments not been done?

>

> > >> What Jim has neglected to mention is that the exact conditions

> > >> required are not known. Most likely what would be needed would be an

> > >> oxygen free environment because oxygen would break down exposed

> > >> nucleic acids. Then there's the question of the exact concentrations

> > >> of each component would be required, what temperature would be ideal

> > >> and if some sort of substrate or catalyst would be required. "A few

> > >> weeks" is not a very conservative estimate.

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

> > > the experiment.

>

> > 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.

 

No, experiments are taking place. There's actually an entire journal

devoted to the subject.

 

http://www.springerlink.com/content/100107/

http://www.springer.com/east/home?SGWID=5-102-70-1034044-0&changeHeader=true&SHORTCUT=www.springer.com/239

 

"Journal of Molecular Evolution covers experimental and theoretical

work aimed at deciphering features of molecular evolution and the

processes bearing on these features, from the initial formation of

macromolecular systems onward. Topics addressed in the Journal include

the evolution of informational macromolecules and their relation to

more complex levels of biological organization, up to populations and

taxa. This coverage accommodates well such subfields as comparative

structural and functional genomics, population genetics, the molecular

evolution of development, the evolution of gene regulation and gene

interaction networks, and in vitro evolution of DNA and RNA."

 

Let's see what the May, 2007 issue deals with.

 

Variability of Nuclear SSU-rDNA Group Introns Within Septoria

Species: Incongruence with Host Sequence Phylogenies

DOI 10.1007/s00239-005-0309-7

Authors Nicolas Feau, Richard C. Hamelin and Louis Bernier

Subject Collection Biomedical and Life Sciences

Supplemental Material HTML

Text PDF (296 kb) HTML

Rightslink Request Permissions

489-499

 

The First Complete cDNA Sequence of the Hemocyanin from a Bivalve,

the Protobranch Nucula nucleus

DOI 10.1007/s00239-006-0036-8

Authors Sandra Bergmann, J

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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


×
×
  • Create New...