Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <1182230477.587030.78810@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, George Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. Those 500 people on that list that have obtained Ph.D degrees attended many different colleges and they came to the same conclusion that I came to. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <1182230648.471813.37850@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, George Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. Do you also feel sorry for the 1.9 billion other Christians in the world? I feel sorry for all of the people that will go to hell instead of going to heaven. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <uMudne2yVfu3_-rbnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > 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. I agree that those papers should be published. I also agree that they should get the normal critical treatment as other papers. Thanks for your post, jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <1182230164.715111.147810@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, George Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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? As others have told me--science works different than courts Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <1182229523.902724.128470@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, George Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. There is still a bias. I posted an article several days ago which indicated that the proponents of evolution are putting pressure on the editors of science journals to NOT publish any articles written by the advocates of creation science and intelligent design. Upon your request, I'll post it again. I agree that the editor made the correct decision when he published the article. jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <1182227720.082934.291730@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 He believed that the abiogenesis did NOT happen on this earth. That concept is vastly different than what you believe. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <1182227659.150003.16690@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 Tell all of those Steves that I hope they have a wonderful life. They should have a wonderful life since they are members of the evolution establishment. If any of them are college professors--tell those Steves not to worry--they will get their tenure when the time comes. Tell any of those Steves that are closet creationists to keep it a secret so that they will not become victims of discrimination by the evolution estabishment. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1182230164.715111.147810@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, George > Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> 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? > > As others have told me--science works different than courts SLAP Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <A_KdnV1kkMdKjOrbnZ2dnUVZ_uPinZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> >>> Upon you request, I'll post an article that was printed in a peer reviewed >>> science journal. I seem to recall that the editor of that science journal >>> was fired. You REALLY need to work on that memory of yours. <quote> "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." </quote> >> I'm looking forward to seeing this. > > http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508 > > scroll down and click on > > READ MEYER'S ARTICLE > > Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f539gg$u7n$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <brKdnS6w5O9iCenbnZ2dnUVZ_qfinZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." >>> <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In order for lower life forms (living cells) to evolve into higher life >>>>> forms (mammals)--major mutations would have been required. >>>> No, it would not. >>>> >>>>> example: Hyracotherium evolving into Equus >>>> Which is why a hyracotherium did not evolve into an equus. >>>> >>>> Evolution doesn't work that way.... and you know it. >>> Did you want me to mention all of the steps: >>> >>> step 1: Hyracotherium--"vaguely horselike creature" >>> step 2: Orohippus >>> step 3: Epihippus >>> step 4: Mesohippus >>> step 5: Dinohippus >>> step 6: Equus--"modern genus of horse" >> And that right there shows that "a hyracotherium did not evolve into an >> equus." In fact, there wasn't just those 6 steps. There was millions of >> steps where a hyracotherium evolved into antother hyracotherium that was >> just the tiniest bit different. Then that one evolved into another that >> was a tiniest bit different, etc. Eventually these differences added up >> enough to where we no longer called it a Hyracotherium but instead >> called it a Orohippus. But there wasn't any point where some animal was >> 2' tall and then all of a sudden its immediate offspring were 4' tall >> like cretinists like to make it look. >> >> It didn't take a major mutation but simply required thousands or >> millions of tiny ones. > > I understand your points. No, you don't. Otherwise, you wouldn't have asked the following: Is it possible that some of the mutations were > major mutatations (eg related to size)? Possible? Yes. Probable? No. It's my understanding that the > Hyracotherium was about the same size as a German shepard dog--is that > true? Yes, it was about 8-9 inches high at the shoulder. And it lived around 45-60 million years ago. Equus is the genus that a modern horse is in. A horse can be over 58 inches high at the shoulder. Now we have an animal growing from 8" to 58" in 45 million years. A generation of horses might be 3-5 years but let's say it was 45 years (to make things harder for evolution but a bit easier on the math.) So that means there was 1,000,000 generations between the 8" high animal to the 58" high animal or a growth of 50" in 1,000,000 generations. That is a growth rate of 0.00005" per generation. Now lets say the growth gene only mutated every 1000 generations. That's STILL only a difference of 0.05" that a mutation would need to cause. Hardly needs any "major mutation" happening all at once. Just a very TINY mutation every 1000 generations would allow for this type of growth given the time spans. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On 18 Jun., 21:23, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <RFvdi.5882$kR2.5...@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-1706071915140001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <1182127852.310084.309...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jun 18, 5:01 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> > In article <qrqa73denflmffls0ra83nn8q8pl3e3...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > > >> > <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > >> > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > > >> > > >In article <1182075020.267569.195...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > > > George > > >> > > >Chen <georgech...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> > > <...> > > > >> > > >> As is the creation of a living cell from non-living base elements. > > >> > > >> That is not how it happened. As you've been told already, the > > >> > > >> proteins, RNA and lipid membranes all existed first (and all have > > >> > > >> been > > >> > > >> produced in laboratories). Even with all of these in existance, > > >> > > >> it > > >> > > >> apparently took millions of years for them to come together under > > >> > > >> the > > >> > > >> right conditions and form the first cell. > > > >> > > >It took millions of years for them to come together naturally. Would > > >> > > >it > > >> > > >take MUCH less time if everything that was needed came together as a > > >> > > >result of scientific experiments? > > > >> > > Yes, it will take much less time for a living cell to be formed, > > >> > > probably a few weeks for a multi-step process, including the various > > >> > > reactions and isolation steps involved. > > > >> > Why have such experiments not been done? > > > >> What Jim has neglected to mention is that the exact conditions > > >> required are not known. Most likely what would be needed would be an > > >> oxygen free environment because oxygen would break down exposed > > >> nucleic acids. Then there's the question of the exact concentrations > > >> of each component would be required, what temperature would be ideal > > >> and if some sort of substrate or catalyst would be required. "A few > > >> weeks" is not a very conservative estimate. > > > >> Martin > > > > Martin, > > > But in special labs--those conditions that you mentioned would be part of > > > the experiment. > > > This is pitiful. Jason, can you read for comprehension? In Martin's first > > sentence he states that the exact conditions are not known. Let me reassure > > you that if the initial conditions were known it would only be a matter of > > weeks until the conditions of life would be replicated. > > You appear to be stating that since the exact conditions were not known, > that it would be fruitless to conduct any experiments related to > abiogenesis. My point was that scientists could experiment with various > scenarios until they get it right. You appear to believe that life > naturally evolved from non-life. Did you realize that some very > intelligent people disagree with you. Did you know that one of the > discoverers of the structure of DNA "expressed doubt that the origin of > life was possible on earth." > > I found the following information in a website: > > "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." > > Upon request, I'll post more information related to the above data and > tell you how to find the URL of the above site.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On 18 Jun., 21:30, 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? > > > >> 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. > > > 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- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On 18 Jun., 21:38, 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. > > > >> Martin > > > > Martin, > > > I doubt that you read the article that I posted several days ago. The > > > author of the article indicated that the propondents of evolution want to > > > marginalize the advocates of intelligent design. The main method of doing > > > this is by putting pressure on the editors of scientific journals to not > > > publish any articles written by the advocates of intelligent design. Upon > > > request, I'll post it again. > > > jason > > > It doesn't make any difference what the article says. The reason ID is > > published infrequently is because it isn't science. This was clearly > > established at Dover. > > There is another reason. The editors of science journals have a bias in > relation to articles written by advocates of ID and creation science. The > judges tell potential jury members that they should not be biased. The > editors of journals should not be biased. Proponents of evolution should > not put pressure on journal editors to not publish articles written by > advocates of ID or creation science. > Jason- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest Masked Avenger Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 Jason wrote: >>>>>> (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 > > He believed that the abiogenesis did NOT happen on this earth. That > concept is vastly different than what you believe. > so it happened on 'another' world ..... fact is ....... it STILL happened ........ abiogenesis is abiogenesis no matter where it happens ....... What are you trying to prove ? ...... that you are possibly one of the stupidest people on usenet ? ......... sorry ...... you've already proved that ....... long ago ....... -- MA ....Yoiks .... and away ..... Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity .............. and I'm not sure about the Universe .......... - A. Einstein Does Schr Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In alt.atheism On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:25:44 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <8dqd731jtkebp0pda39adp7rcb1r97qem9@4ax.com>, Don Kresch ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> In alt.atheism On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 00:22:41 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >I found this report on the internet: >> >> So what? >> >> Please tell us what this proves. >> >> >> Don >> > > >That at least 500 people that have Ph.D degrees agree that life did not >evolve from non-life. So what? Please tell us what that proves. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On 18 Jun., 21:33, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:Jason-1806071230430001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > > > > 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? > > >> >> 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. > > >> 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 > > Coming from you that doesn't mean crap!- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In alt.atheism On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 23:19:49 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >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 Wrong. Satan is a title, not a name. Read Num 22:20-26. Nor was the angel's name "Lucifer". Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 Jason wrote: > I found this report on the internet: > I deleted number 10 to 335. <long list of scientists who doubt evolution. > In no particular order... > > 1. Michael Behe, "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to > Evolution" (1996). Credentials? > 2. Robert W. Faid, American Nuclear Society, Nuclear Scientist, author of > A Scientific Approach to Christianity. Nuclear science has nothing to do with evolution. > 3. Michael Denton, medical doctor and molecular biologist, , "Evolution: A > Theory in Crisis" (1985). > > 4. Francis Hitching, "The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong" (1982). Credentials? > 5. Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Saunders, "Beyond Neo-Darwinism" (1984). Credentials? > 6. Soren Lovtrup, "Darwinism: Refutation of a Myth" (1987). Credentials? > 7. Milton R., "The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myth of Darwinism", > Fourth Estate, London, 1992. Credentials? > 8. Rodney Stark, Professor of Social Sciences at Baylor University, see > Fact, Fable, and Darwin. Socials science has nothing to do with evolution. > 9. Gordon Rattray Taylor, "The Great Evolution Mystery" (1983). Credentials? > 335. Terry Mortenson, Ph.D. in history of geology, Coventry University, > England. See his bio on Answers in Genesis website. Geology has nothing to do with evolution. > 336. John C. Whitcomb, Th.D. served as Professor of Theology and Old > Testament at Grace Theological Seminary, Winona Lake, IN, for 38 years. > See his bio on Answers in Genesis website. Theology has nothing to do with evolution. > 337. Prof. Vladimir Betina, PhD, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology. > Listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page. > > 338. Prof. Sung-Do Cha, PhD Physics. Listed on Answers in Genesis creation > scientists page. Physics has nothing to do with evolution. > 339. Choong-Kuk Chang, PhD, Genetics, Princeton University. Described in > Creation Science In Korea. > > 340. Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering, PhD. Listed on > Answers in Genesis creation scientists page. Aeronautical Engineering has nothing to do with evolution. > 341. Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education, PhD. Listed on Answers in > Genesis creation scientists page. > > 342. Bob Compton, Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (from Washington State > University), Ph.D. in Physiology (University of Wisconsin/Madison). See > his bio on Answers in Genesis website. > > 343. Lionel Dahmer, PhD Organic Chemistry. Listed on Answers in Genesis > creation scientists page and reported as technical review liason for Earth > and Planetary Science papers for the 4th International Conference on > Creationism. > > 344. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging, as > seen on his bio page. (see also this interesting Scientific American > article about him. Magnetic resonance imaging has nothing to do with evolution. > 345. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist, PhD. Listed on Answers in Genesis > creation scientists page or see his "Genes -- created but evolving". In > Concepts in Creationism, E.H. Andrews, W. Gitt, and W.J. Ouweneel (eds.), > pp. 241-266. Herts, England: Evangelical Press. > > 346. Douglas Dean, Ph.D. in Biology, as listed on Answers in Genesis > creation scientists page. > > 347. Stephen W. Deckard (Ed.D. Univesity of Sarasota), Assistant Professor > of Education. See his bio on the Answers in Genesis website. Professor of Education has nothing to do with evolution. > 348. Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics (Ed.D. Univesity of > Southern California). See his bio on the Answers in Genesis website. Geophysics has nothing to do with evolution. <snip rest> Just out of the above, we find that 2/3 of them either show no credentials at all or have training in fields that have diddly-squat to do with evolution. Even the ones who have training in any field that may be related to evolutionary theory still might not specialize in that particular part of the field. So your fallacious "argument from authority" failed yet again. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 2:25 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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. Again, obviously not. A person simply doesn't understand evolution if he can so easily dismiss it in favour of "God did it". Quite frankly, he would have to be a blithering idiot and a fraud. Just like you. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 2:27 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182219479.546834.100...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 19, 7:48 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > 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? > > I enjoyed attending Ferrum Junior College. I'm sure you did: you were able to obtain your degree without ever having learned a thing, nothing that you didn't forget afterwards anyway. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 2:29 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182216713.806298.155...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@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. > There is a new film about Noah's ark--I think the name of it is Bruce Almighty It's called Evan Almighty: it's a sequel to Bruce Almighty. And thanks for proving my point. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 2:32 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <6kae731sjmfoi1t07qgmgeqldu8b885...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:48:58 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-1806071648580...@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>: > > > ... > > >> 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. I have no problems with people going to church and socialising with people every Sunday. I do have problems with people telling lies and claiming that there is no evidence or empirical support for well established scientific principles. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 2:37 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <4pae73dujq21st0nto5fs1fb7dln5rh...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:50:10 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-1806071650110...@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >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: > > ... > > >> >> 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 are willing to tell lies and deny the well established truth. Just like you. Martin Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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? How do we know it hasn't? The Viking space mission did not discover any > signs of life on Mars. ....yet. > We found no signs of life on the moon. Life, in all likelihood, requires SOME form of an atmosphere or other means (such as immersion into a liquid) to prevent liquids from escaping, etc. There are other atmospheres than just "oxygen-rich" ones. The moon has no atmosphere or liquid water (that we know of) and thus (probably) no life. Mars has a very thin atmosphere and thus isn't as likely as the earth to have life. Also things like temperature, pressure, etc. come into play. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 2:42 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182228233.943883.28...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@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. > Do you doubt any of the aspects of abiogenesis? As you already know, abiogenesis is not a theory but the idea that there once was no life and there is now life. John Baker: Actually, Jason, abiogenesis is an absolute proven fact. Whether it came about through divine intervention or by purely natural means, at some point in the planet's history, life did arise from non-life. We both agree on that. We just disagree about how it happened. Jason: Excellent point. Martin 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.