Guest George Chen Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 1:12 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182217986.803825.125...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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. > > Interesting point--According to the info. posted above--it states that > Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe have sharply critiqued the origin of > life on earth in favor of evolution from space..." What do they mean? It > this a rehash of Erik von Dannkan's concepts re: ancient astronauts? No, not at all. The argument is that an oxygen atmosphere would have been toxic to early life so perhaps life originated in comets or on asteroids. It has been suggested that the earth's atmosphere only became rich in oxygen gas after plant life formed and converted carbon dioxide into carbon and oxygen (through photosynthesis). This is the argunent that most scientists favour because the idea of life dropping down from space seems awfully far fetched, although not as far fetched as ancient astronauts or some omnipotent fairy in the sky creating everything. Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 Jason wrote: > Thanks for your post. I posted an article a couple of days ago which > indicated that the proponents of evolution are encouraging the editors of > science journals to not publish any articles that are written by the > advocates of creation science or intelligent design. Upon your request, > I'll post it again if I can find it. I have no problem with papers by ID proponents being published in science journals, as long as they get the normal critical treatment that any science paper is supposed to get, to weed out their errors in fact and logic. This one should never have passes through that process in this sad shape. The reviewers should be ashamed. Their missing criticism might have taught the author something about science. Of course, it is possible that science is not what interests him. Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 1:31 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182221224.581834.111...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > 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." > Should he have been removed from his job as the editor of the journal? He > fought the establishment by publishing an article that was written by an > advocate of Intelligent Design. He was treated better than Galileo was > treated. Perhaps he should have been forced to say in a news conference: > "Evolution is the Establishment and I am sorry for fighting against the > establishment" He wasn't fighting against the establishment. "Why publish it?" Sternberg says. "Because evolutionary biologists are thinking about this. So I thought that by putting this on the table, there could be some reasoned discourse. That's what I thought, and I was dead wrong." For what it's worth, I don't think he was wrong to publish the article: the onus would have been on the person responsible for peer review to tone down the article and make it more scientific and less preachy. For all we know the peer reviewer did that and thus did his job: I can't tell without seeing the original article. Real scientists in the field were understandably upset with Sternberg because he was presumably giving credence to creationists but at least creationists can not claim that creationist authors have never had their work published. This should put an end to that argument. There is no conspiracy against creationists: it is only the lack of evidence supporting their claims that holds them back. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <1182219544.874919.109530@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@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. > > Martin 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? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <1182217986.803825.125640@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Interesting point--According to the info. posted above--it states that Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe have sharply critiqued the origin of life on earth in favor of evolution from space..." What do they mean? It this a rehash of Erik von Dannkan's concepts re: ancient astronauts? Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 1:42 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182217881.318600.209...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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. > > Have you read about Copernicus and Galileo? Back in those days the > establishment was the Roman Catolic Church. Copernicus and Galileo were > fighting against the establishment. The new establishment is Evolution. And in 1925, the establishment was creationism and John Thomas Scopes was bravely facing up against the kind of kooks that you represent. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial > Those 500 people on the list that I published are (like Copernicus and > Galileo) fighting against the establishment. Those 500 people are all frauds. Every last one of them. > The editor of the journal > that published an article written by an advocate of ID was also fighting > the establishment. You're a liar. "I'm not an evangelical, I'm not a fundamentalist, I'm not a young earth creationist, I'm not a theistic evolutionist," said Richard Sternberg > The professor that was denied tenune was fighting the > establishment. That professor was a fraud who should never have been hired. Unless you follow the scientific method then you are not a scientist and it would be fraudulent to say you are. >Even Francis Crick is fighting the establishment. That's not true at all. You have shown no understanding of science whatsoever: doubt is an inherent part of the scientific method. We now realize that early life would have been anoerobic. > How does it feel to be part of the establishment? It's good to see reason prevailing at last. Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 1:43 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182218071.284270.86...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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? > > No. Then the requirement that creationists should offer evidence to back up their claims is not bias, is it? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <_5Fdi.1993$C31.1140@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "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. I have not read his book which is entitled: "Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature" (1981) I don't know what sort of research that Francis Crick has done in recent years--perhaps it was related to reading lots of science journals and learning the results of various experiments. I am guessing. Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 1:53 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182218813.834333.90...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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 Ferrum, Virginia? > > Yes, when I attended the college it was a junior college but it is now a > four year college. It is a Christian college. That explains everything. Had you gone to a better college you might have actually gotten an education and you wouldn't be here now asking ridiculous questions. You'd also be able to see through all the lies that Gish, Morris and Criswell tell you. Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 2:19 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182218594.682691.83...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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. > > The book of Job (Job 1:5-12) discusses how Satan made a return visit to > heaven to talk to God about Job. Satan was a former arch angel (one of the > head angels). As a result, God had a good relationship with Satan--prior > to the war. Satan became very obsessed with power and wanted to take over > heaven but he lost that war. Actually, Hell was not created for people. It > was created for Satan and his demons. It was eventually used for evil > people such as the rich man (Luke 16: 19-31). Whether or not God and Satan > worked out some sort of agreement about those subjects discussed in your > post is not known Actually it is known: it is known that God, Satan, Heaven and Hell do not exist and that they are just fantasies that idiots believe in. >--since such an agreement is not discussed in the Bible. > God will eventually destoy Satan and his demons--as well as every person > that is in hell (Rev 20:1-15)--it's referred to as the "second death". And you are looking forward to that, aren't you? I feel sorry for you. I really do. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <odFdi.1995$C31.208@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "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! I respect Dr. Criswell. I saw him preach a sermon on television about a dozen years ago. Is he still alive? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <1182221224.581834.111580@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 Should he have been removed from his job as the editor of the journal? He fought the establishment by publishing an article that was written by an advocate of Intelligent Design. He was treated better than Galileo was treated. Perhaps he should have been forced to say in a news conference: "Evolution is the Establishment and I am sorry for fighting against the establishment" Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <1182220569.136164.96490@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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? That's funny. > > 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 Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <1182217881.318600.209010@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Have you read about Copernicus and Galileo? Back in those days the establishment was the Roman Catolic Church. Copernicus and Galileo were fighting against the establishment. The new establishment is Evolution. Those 500 people on the list that I published are (like Copernicus and Galileo) fighting against the establishment. The editor of the journal that published an article written by an advocate of ID was also fighting the establishment. The professor that was denied tenune was fighting the establishment. Even Francis Crick is fighting the establishment. How does it feel to be part of the establishment? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <1182218071.284270.86400@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 No Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <GvWdnakHpKUSturbnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > 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. Thanks for your post. I posted an article a couple of days ago which indicated that the proponents of evolution are encouraging the editors of science journals to not publish any articles that are written by the advocates of creation science or intelligent design. Upon your request, I'll post it again if I can find it. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <1182218813.834333.90560@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Yes, when I attended the college it was a junior college but it is now a four year college. It is a Christian college. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <1182218594.682691.83350@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 The book of Job (Job 1:5-12) discusses how Satan made a return visit to heaven to talk to God about Job. Satan was a former arch angel (one of the head angels). As a result, God had a good relationship with Satan--prior to the war. Satan became very obsessed with power and wanted to take over heaven but he lost that war. Actually, Hell was not created for people. It was created for Satan and his demons. It was eventually used for evil people such as the rich man (Luke 16: 19-31). Whether or not God and Satan worked out some sort of agreement about those subjects discussed in your post is not known--since such an agreement is not discussed in the Bible. God will eventually destoy Satan and his demons--as well as every person that is in hell (Rev 20:1-15)--it's referred to as the "second death". Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <L2Fdi.1989$C31.1332@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "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. That is not true. All of the Ferrum biology professors followed the same curriculum. The professor that was an advocate of creation science followed the curriculum. He knew as much about evolution as the other professors. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <1182219479.546834.100610@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 I enjoyed attending Ferrum Junior College. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <1182216713.806298.155730@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 There is a new film about Noah's ark--I think the name of it is Bruce Almighty Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <6kae731sjmfoi1t07qgmgeqldu8b885iqa@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > 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. I had no problems with Natural Selection which is the most important aspect of Evolution. I did have problems with abiogenesis and common descent due to the lack of evidence and successful experiments. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <4pae73dujq21st0nto5fs1fb7dln5rhq7s@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > 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. I admire the 500 people on that list that I posted. They are willing to fight the Evolution establishment. They remind me of Copernicus and Galileo since they were also willing to fight the establishment. How does it feel to be a willing member of the Evolution establishment? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <1182228233.943883.28960@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 Do you doubt any of the aspects of abiogenesis? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <1182228954.642933.319920@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, George Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 19, 1:12 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1182217986.803825.125...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Interesting point--According to the info. posted above--it states that > > Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe have sharply critiqued the origin of > > life on earth in favor of evolution from space..." What do they mean? It > > this a rehash of Erik von Dannkan's concepts re: ancient astronauts? > > No, not at all. The argument is that an oxygen atmosphere would have > been toxic to early life so perhaps life originated in comets or on > asteroids. It has been suggested that the earth's atmosphere only > became rich in oxygen gas after plant life formed and converted carbon > dioxide into carbon and oxygen (through photosynthesis). This is the > argunent that most scientists favour because the idea of life dropping > down from space seems awfully far fetched, although not as far fetched > as ancient astronauts or some omnipotent fairy in the sky creating > everything. Thanks for your post. It's an interesting concept. Since an oxygen atmosphere is toxic to early life--how come life has not evolved on planets that have no oxygen? The Viking space mission did not discover any signs of life on Mars. We found no signs of life on the moon. 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.