Guest Jason Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 "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. > Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 "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 :-). Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 "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 :-))). Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 "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. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 "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. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 "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. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 "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. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 "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. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 "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! Quote
Guest David V. Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 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 Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 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? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 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. Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 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 Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 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. -- Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 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 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.