Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 3:30 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <%svdi.5877$kR2.1...@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-1706072222500001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <1182140066.278306.60...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jun 18, 12:46 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> > In article <f54spi$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? > > > You failed to answer my hypothethcal question. Let's say the dogs were NOT > > > minature schnauzers but were the same size of minature schnauzers. > > > You ask too many hypothetical questions. The size has nothing to do with the > > ability to evolve into a larger animal as most animals on earth did. > > Excellent answer I'm glad you were never one of my teachers: you asked me for a number (of years) and I gave you one! Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 3:38 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <nqvdi.5876$kR2.1...@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-1706071952180001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <1182127507.933282.87...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > <phippsmar...@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. > > > 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. > > > It doesn't make any difference what the article says. The reason ID is > > published infrequently is because it isn't science. This was clearly > > established at Dover. > > There is another reason. The editors of science journals have a bias in > relation to articles written by advocates of ID and creation They have a bias towards research that is actually supported by evidence and against hypotheses for which no evidence exists, yes. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 3:53 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <DOSdnUx-mdYuEuvbnZ2dnUVZ_vyun...@sti.net>, "David V." > > > > > > <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > I found this report on the internet: I deleted number 10 to > > > 335. If you want to see the entire list, google this term: > > > > List of Intellectual Doubters of Darwinism > > > So? 500 out of hundreds of thousands of real scientists around > > the world is an insignificant number. A quick glance of the list > > showed a good number of those anti-evolutionists were not > > scientists or were not in the field of biology. > > > They can doubt all they want and it's great they do because > > that's the way science works. It's part of the self correcting > > mechanism that religions lack. All they need to do is provide > > proof that evolution is wrong. So far they have not done so. The > > instant they do it will be big news and it will be in every > > journal that has anything to do with biology. Their lack of such > > proof speaks volumes. > > Thanks for your post. The end goal of the person that compiled the list > was to let people know that not every person that has a Ph.D degree is an > advocate of evolution. This tread has been going on for a couple of weeks > and several posters stated or at least implied that intelligent people are > advocates of evolution and only uneducated or stupid people are advocates > of creation science or ID. At the very least, that was my impression of > their opinions. I found it shocking that these famous people do not > believe that life evolved from non-life on this earth: > > Francis Crick was one of the discoverers of DNA > > Taken from the above mentioned report: > > "It should be noted that there are other scientists who are committed > evolutionists, but have yet expressed doubt about various mainstream > theories on the origin and diversification of life. For example, Francis > Crick wrote "Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature" (1981) in which he > expressed doubt that the origin of life was possible on earth. Similarly, > Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe have sharply critiqued the origin of > life on earth in favor of evolution from space (see "Evolution from > Space") Robert Shapiro in his "Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation > of Life on Earth" (1986) also gave a similar critique although he did not > postulate that life came from space." You don't understand how science works: science progresses because we doubt existing theories. Meanwhile, religion stagnates and will eventually disappear because your beliefs can no longer be reconciled with the known facts. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 3:01 am, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > > There is another reason. The editors of science journals have > > a bias in relation to articles written by advocates of ID and > > creation science. > > And it is a well deserved bias. The creationists (ID is just > creationism in a pretty package for resale) have no scientific > basis for their arguments. Every one of them is a perversion of > what evolution actually is. > > > The judges tell potential jury members that they should not be > > biased. They also tell jury members to consider the evidence. When a case lacks any evidence, it is automatically thrown out of court. Is that bias? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 3:48 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-1806070044420001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > There was a war in heaven between the angels. God won the battle and the > > angel that started the war (and the angels that fought on his side) were > > cast down to the earth. The angel was re-named Satan and his followers > > were re-named demons. God may have created another planet and sun (similar > > to our planet and our sun). He may also have created people to live on > > that planet; some plants and some animals. Of course, I am only guessing. > > That doesn't even qualify as a guess. The omnipotent, omniscient god > couldn't defeat Satin. Another strike against the existence of the big guy. For that matter, does it not occur to anyone that Satan is working FOR God in this story? I mean, the people who presumably disobey God are presumably sent to Hell which is presumably run by Satan who then goes ahead and makes life miserable for the people sent there. Is there some logical reason why Satan would do this? Satan is just a version of the boogieman, except these are supposed adults who believe in him. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 7:01 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <vmBdi.3308$nQ5.3...@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-1706072247350001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > 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. > > > Where did you go to school, Jason? > > I took the biology class at Ferrum College. in Ferrem, Virginia? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 7:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <8dqd731jtkebp0pda39adp7rcb1r97q...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > > <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > In alt.atheism On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 00:22:41 -0700, J...@nospam.com > > (Jason) let us all know that: > > > >I found this report on the internet: > > > So what? > > > Please tell us what this proves. > That at least 500 people that have Ph.D degrees agree that life did not > evolve from non-life. I learned from the report that Francis Crick > expressed doubt that the origin of life was possible on earth. Nothing wrong with doubt. It is faith that kills brain cells. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 7:48 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <b01e73hss44edrjoko230mbu5163e2o...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:46:03 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-1806071146030...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >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?! > > > >> 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. In other words, you'd rather have a professor that had no clue what he was talking about rather than one who actually did. Not that you learned anything either way. Some place that Ferrum College, eh? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 7:50 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <s21e735601fqvk6leab7pmsgcgin9js...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:21:20 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-1706072021200...@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <ifnb73lua0eg6thsdngnunfdkmrljbu...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:11:46 -0700, in alt.atheism > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> <Jason-1706071911460...@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> >In article <1182125415.442137.252...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > >> >Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> >> On Jun 18, 2:22 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > >> >> > It's very possible that ICR requires their employees to sign a > pledge. I > > >> >> > have read that Microsoft programmers are required to sign some sort of > > >> >> > pledge or agreement stating that will not share the computer > codes with > > >> >> > other companies. Some employees of Coca Cola have to sign pledges or > > >> >> > agreements stating they will not share the formulae for Coke > with other > > >> >> > companies. ICR would NOT require non-employees to sign a pledge. > Even if > > >> >> > they wanted to do it, non-employess would just refuse to sign > the pledge. > > >> >> > If they asked me to sign the pledge, I would not sign it. > > > >> >> Okay, Jason, be honest (for once). Why are you here, day after day, > > >> >> promoting their website if you're not working for them? Do you think > > >> >> lying about science is going to get you into your imaginary heaven? > > > >> >> 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. That's because you are naive and stupid. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 7:52 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <bj1e7353rt356ni2l9k8i00t5kr45j3...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:20:53 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-1806071620540...@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <EKydnfhTRM1rSuvbnZ2dnUVZ_qupn...@sti.net>, "David V." > > ><s...@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. You implied it. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 8:41 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <A_KdnV1kkMdKjOrbnZ2dnUVZ_uPin...@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > <jpopel...@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 "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." > scroll down and click on > > READ MEYER'S ARTICLE I speed read it. Is that enough? Complexity is not evidence of a "designer". Patterns occur naturally in nature beginning with very little information. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal ) If anything, the existance of the genetic code proves that no designer was necessary: we're not dealing with any kind of magic here. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 8:47 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <-bednXdsS_EeiOrbnZ2dnUVZ_jOdn...@sti.net>, "David V." > > <s...@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. Note that the list of people on http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1207 doesn't say where they go their degrees from. The vast majority of them don't even have publications listed. How is it possible for a Ph.D. to not have any publications? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 9:02 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <jXEdi.1981$C31.1...@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-1806071741310001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <A_KdnV1kkMdKjOrbnZ2dnUVZ_uPin...@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > > <jpopel...@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? Your dishonesty sickens me. "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." Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 8:02 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:Jason-1806071648580001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <b01e73hss44edrjoko230mbu5163e2o...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > >> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:46:03 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-1806071146030...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >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--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. He apparently made it through without learning a thing as it is. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 8:06 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:Jason-1806071620540001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <EKydnfhTRM1rSuvbnZ2dnUVZ_qupn...@sti.net>, "David V." > > <s...@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. Actually, doubting current theories is the first step. The second step is designing an experiment to test your objections. Creationists never seem to be able to make it to the second step. Martin Quote
Guest David V. Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 Jason wrote: > > There is an email address in the report so you may want to > email the person that compiled the list and ask him your > questions. His main goal was to list the names of the people. That was not his main goal, and you know that. His main goal was to deceive people into believing there is a scientific controversy over evolution. > I doubt that he was concerned with providing details about > publications. Of course not. He was not concerned with anything but creating a list. I wonder how many of those names he just made up? > I admire those 500 people. Does it really make sense to admire people because they tell the same lies as you do? -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <z_Edi.1985$C31.837@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "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 :-). Ok--so 800 people named Steve have Ph.D degrees and support evolution. That is great. I wish them well. Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 12:38 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182220953.505863.148...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 19, 8:47 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <-bednXdsS_EeiOrbnZ2dnUVZ_jOdn...@sti.net>, "David V." > > > > <s...@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. > > > Note that the list of people on > > http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1207 > > > doesn't say where they go their degrees from. The vast majority of > > them don't even have publications listed. How is it possible for a > > Ph.D. to not have any publications? > There is an email address in the report so you may want to email the > person that compiled the list and ask him your questions. His main goal > was to list the names of the people. I doubt that he was concerned with > providing details about publications. I admire those 500 people. We both > know what happened to the professor that was an advocate of creation > science. He was denied tenure. Those 500 people are going against the > establishment. They aren't just against the establishment, Jason: they are against common sense. It was due to common sense that the establishment became the establishment and if you had any common sense yourself then you would already know that. Again, 800 scientists NAMED STEVE disagree with you. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 12:42 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182219303.920355.153...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 19, 7:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <8dqd731jtkebp0pda39adp7rcb1r97q...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > > > > <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > > > In alt.atheism On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 00:22:41 -0700, J...@nospam.com > > > > (Jason) let us all know that: > > > > > >I found this report on the internet: > > > > > So what? > > > > > Please tell us what this proves. > > > > That at least 500 people that have Ph.D degrees agree that life did not > > > evolve from non-life. I learned from the report that Francis Crick > > > expressed doubt that the origin of life was possible on earth. > > > Nothing wrong with doubt. It is faith that kills brain cells. > Francis Crick is still an advocate of evolution. He probably done lots of > research before coming to the conclusion that life did not originate on > this earth. It would be interesting to learn how he believes that life did > originate. He is a very intelligent person. Intelligent enough to know that doubting abiogenesis is not the same as conclusding that it didn't happen. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <1182220953.505863.148640@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 19, 8:47 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <-bednXdsS_EeiOrbnZ2dnUVZ_jOdn...@sti.net>, "David V." > > > > <s...@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. > > Note that the list of people on http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1207 > doesn't say where they go their degrees from. The vast majority of > them don't even have publications listed. How is it possible for a > Ph.D. to not have any publications? > > Martin Martin, There is an email address in the report so you may want to email the person that compiled the list and ask him your questions. His main goal was to list the names of the people. I doubt that he was concerned with providing details about publications. I admire those 500 people. We both know what happened to the professor that was an advocate of creation science. He was denied tenure. Those 500 people are going against the establishment. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <1182219303.920355.153730@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 19, 7:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <8dqd731jtkebp0pda39adp7rcb1r97q...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > > > > <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > > In alt.atheism On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 00:22:41 -0700, J...@nospam.com > > > (Jason) let us all know that: > > > > > >I found this report on the internet: > > > > > So what? > > > > > Please tell us what this proves. > > > That at least 500 people that have Ph.D degrees agree that life did not > > evolve from non-life. I learned from the report that Francis Crick > > expressed doubt that the origin of life was possible on earth. > > Nothing wrong with doubt. It is faith that kills brain cells. > > Martin Francis Crick is still an advocate of evolution. He probably done lots of research before coming to the conclusion that life did not originate on this earth. It would be interesting to learn how he believes that life did originate. He is a very intelligent person. Jason Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 1:05 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182219544.874919.109...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 19, 7:52 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <bj1e7353rt356ni2l9k8i00t5kr45j3...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:20:53 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > > <Jason-1806071620540...@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > >In article <EKydnfhTRM1rSuvbnZ2dnUVZ_qupn...@sti.net>, "David V." > > > > ><s...@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. > > > You implied it. > Re-read the above informaiton: One of the sentences is: "He continues to > be an advocate of evolution..." > > Am I implying in that sentence that he is a creationist? Then why mention him at all? He is an advocate of evolution and doesn't believe in creationism so the mere fact that he had doubts as to abiogenesis doesn't support your false argument one whit. Doubt is an inherent part of the scientific method. Deal with it. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <1182217786.519692.82000@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 19, 3:30 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <%svdi.5877$kR2.1...@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > >news:Jason-1706072222500001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > In article <1182140066.278306.60...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > >> On Jun 18, 12:46 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > >> > In article <f54spi$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? > > > > > You failed to answer my hypothethcal question. Let's say the dogs were NOT > > > > minature schnauzers but were the same size of minature schnauzers. > > > > > You ask too many hypothetical questions. The size has nothing to do with the > > > ability to evolve into a larger animal as most animals on earth did. > > > > Excellent answer > > I'm glad you were never one of my teachers: you asked me for a number > (of years) and I gave you one! > > Martin thanks Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <5j8e73hj9cu6m5h2r2m91f5nssdq298b17@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > 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. With leads to another question: What was the precursor of dogs? Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 1:30 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <odFdi.1995$C31....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-1806071802170001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <jXEdi.1981$C31.1...@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > >>news:Jason-1806071741310001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > >> > In article <A_KdnV1kkMdKjOrbnZ2dnUVZ_uPin...@comcast.com>, John > > >> > Popelish > > >> > <jpopel...@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! > > I respect Dr. Criswell. You have a reputation already for respecting liars. 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.