Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 2:51 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182228954.642933.319...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, George > Chen <georgech...@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 > > argument 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. Life needs heat and water. Scientists believe algae could grow on Mars but it never had a chance to evolve there. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 3:04 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182230477.587030.78...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, George > > Chen <georgech...@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. So there are at least 504 fraudulent idiots in the world. So what? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 3:10 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182230648.471813.37...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, George > Chen <georgech...@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 do. > I feel sorry for all of the people that will go to hell instead of going > to heaven. You make me laugh. You really do. What is sad is that you actually believe this nonsense. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 3:15 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <uMudne2yVfu3_-rbnZ2dnUVZ_vein...@comcast.com>, John Popelish > <jpopel...@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, What he is saying is that if this paper had really gotten the same treatment as actual science papers then it would never have gotten published in the form that it did. Martin Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. You need to work on that persecution complex. When ID proponents do real science and find an actual flaw in the Theory of Evolution, they will be rewarded with Nobel prizes for correcting the knowledge base of the human race, just like anyone else is, when they prove a major error in scientific knowledge. The reason they are so petulant is that they have no intention of doing science (finding out how the universe really works). They have a preconceived conclusion and only want to find a way to force it upon others. That is not science. I think you also have some preconceived ideas you are trying to figure out how to persuade others to believe, rather than having an open mind about how the universe really works. That is why I.D. proponents seem reasonable to you. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 3:20 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182230164.715111.147...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, George > Chen <georgech...@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. You didn't answer the question. If a publisher refuses to publish a paper on the basis that there was no evidence supporting the author's conclusion then that is not bias, is it? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 3:29 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182229523.902724.128...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, George > > > > > > > > Chen <georgech...@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. Yes, but it is our hope that you will eventually get over your personal biases and see the light of reason. It might seem impossible now, but we figure nobody can possibly be as stupid as you pretend to be. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 3:34 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182227720.082934.291...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@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 concluding that it didn't happen. > He believed that the abiogenesis did NOT happen on this earth. That > concept is vastly different than what you believe. I don't believe anything and he doesn't believe anything: we are merely swayed by what the evidence tells us. The fact is that anaerobic organisms exist to this day: they will die if exposed to atmospheric oxygen. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaerobic_organism ) So despite Francis Crick's objection to the contrary, there is no reason to believe that life on Earth began in space. Doubting that it began on Earth is NOT the same as believing it began in space. You, meanwhile, have your beliefs supported only by your faith and no evidence to back it up. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 3:42 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182227659.150003.16...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@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. > 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. Oh boo hoo hoo. The people who lack any clue whatsoever about reality feel discriminated against by those who actually do understand reality. Too bad. Consider it a wake up call. When you got a F on a math test, did you complain that your teacher was discriminating against you because you didn't understand math? Then don't feel discriminated against simply because, to this day, you don't know a thing about science or history. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 19, 9:17 pm, gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > 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! > > I suspect that he learned to throw in an occasional "good point!" or > "excellent answer" in some Christian apologetics course and that they > are inserted pretty much at random. They certainly have had no effect > on his position. He probably says "Good point" or "Excellent answer" when he has no idea what the poster said but wants to be able to claim later that he did respond. Martin Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <5Hidi.1090$P8.601@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1606072200250001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>> source: National Geographic--Nov 2004--article: "Was Darwin Wrong" >> Since that appears to be the only NG that you have it appears that you >> purchased it based on the article "Was Darwin Wrong"? Of course we both know >> that the answer in the NG was a resounding NO! > > Yes, you are correct. I still enjoyed the article. Actually, the answer was: > No: the evidence for Evolution is overwhelming. If the article disagrees with your position, why do you insist on mentioning it? Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <dhia73p7j846pbim1ektn3h75dm58dro9p@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:50:26 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1606072150260001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>> In article <7c29735s3e2ff7nlm8mqtbeq7lnihmuej4@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> ... >>>> Belief is _never_ evidence under any circumstance. >>>> >>>> Do you comprehend that simple fact? >>> When I was called for jury duty, we all had to listen to the judge tell us >>> some of the same information that you mentioned in your post. >>> >> Yet your posts show a total disregard for justice. You have made it >> clear that you would rather hang an innocent man than not find anyone >> guilty of a crime. > > I would make the judgement based on the physical evidence and the > testimonies of the witnesses. I agree that I would be pro-prosecution but > would not want to be responsible for sending an innocent man to prison. > That is the reason I would listen to the testimony and examine the > physical evidence. What physical evidence? You already claimed you'd send the man to prison for life based on nothing more than 8 people saying "we heard him say 'I'll kill her' and then saw him walk into the room and fire a gun." Quote
Guest Jim Burns Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 Jason wrote: > > In [respose to] article > <1182230648.471813.37850@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > George Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> [...] > I feel sorry for all of the people that will go to hell > instead of going to heaven. How do you feel when you realize you are more compassionate, a BETTER PERSON, than the God you believe in, even as sinful as you are? Jason, a lot of people have told you that creationism is bad science, and it is. But, beyond that, you should be able to realize, even without a single science course, that biblical literalism is much worse theology than it is science. Jim Burns Quote
Guest cactus Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 Martin wrote: > On Jun 19, 9:17 pm, gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >> 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! >> I suspect that he learned to throw in an occasional "good point!" or >> "excellent answer" in some Christian apologetics course and that they >> are inserted pretty much at random. They certainly have had no effect >> on his position. > > He probably says "Good point" or "Excellent answer" when he has no > idea what the poster said but wants to be able to claim later that he > did respond. > > Martin > It's a standard JW ploy. Agree in meaningless terms while ignoring the substance of the answer. The only way to deal with this type of argument is to stick to the point relentlessly. Usually they then walk away, as Jason appears to have done with me. Sometimes the message sinks in. I may have caused a 6-year old to question the door-to-door proselytizing by asking his father how they could be so hateful and disrespectful of my religion. Six-year olds understand that, even if their parents have forgotten. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f53are$o4$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> I don't believe that you understood my point. It's probably because I done >>> a poor job of explaining my point. I'll try again. >> No, it's because your point was wrong. >> >>> Let's say (for the sake of discussion) a scientist (that is an advocated >>> of evolution and abiogenesis) makes this statement in an article or a >>> book: >>> >>> "We had a time when there was no life. We now have life. Thus, it is >>> logical to conclude that life naturally evolved from non-life." >> No reputable scientist would say such a thing so it's a meaningless >> question. >> >>> Would you conceed that most of the advocates of abiogenesis and evolution >>> theory agree with the above statement? >> No. >> >> If your answer is yes, this is the >>> problem: >>> >>> There are at least three possible causes of life evolving from non-life: >>> >>> 1. abiogenesis >> Get a clue. You've already admitted that abiogenesis happened. >> >> 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. >> >> #1 should be "natural causes." >> >>> 2. intelligent design >> OK, any evidence that a god exists to have done this designing? Also how >> did this god come about? >> >>> 3. ancient astronauts >> And who caused them to come to be? >> >>> The scientist (mentioned above) failed to take intelligent design or >>> ancient astronauts into consideration. He just assumed that "life >>> naturally evolved from non-life". >> And that's why he wouldn't have said what you tried to make him say. >> >>> I mentioned that many advocates of evolution and abiogenesis don't know >>> the difference between speculation and evidence. >> No, you've claimed that but you're only proving that YOU are the one who >> doesn't have a clue as to the difference. >> >>> This leads to another question: Is the statement of the above mentioned >>> scientist based on evidence or speculation that life naturally evolved >>> from non-life. >> Why do you come up with these fantasies and expect us to comment on >> them? It's about as useless as asking "who is faster, superman or the >> flash?" > > Thanks for your post. You explained your point of view very well. I'll try > to remember to stop stating, "Good Point" because that would cause people > to think that I agreed with every point. You need to stop saying "good point" or "excellent answer" altogether because we both know that you don't pay any attention at all to the point (otherwise you wouldn't come up with the same crap 5 minutes later that the point addressed.) Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 John Popelish wrote: > Jason wrote: > >> 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. > > You need to work on that persecution complex. When ID proponents do > real science and find an actual flaw in the Theory of Evolution, I think you meant "IF ID proponents do real science..." above. Your wording above implied that they'll definitely do so at some point in time and we know that'll be the same day that I have feathery bacon for breakfast and that I tie up the Hades snow-ski industry. they > will be rewarded with Nobel prizes for correcting the knowledge base of > the human race, just like anyone else is, when they prove a major error > in scientific knowledge. The reason they are so petulant is that they > have no intention of doing science (finding out how the universe really > works). > > They have a preconceived conclusion and only want to find a way to force > it upon others. That is not science. I think you also have some > preconceived ideas you are trying to figure out how to persuade others > to believe, rather than having an open mind about how the universe > really works. That is why I.D. proponents seem reasonable to you. Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 20, 12:31 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182261565.690686.247...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 19, 3:20 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1182230164.715111.147...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, George > > > Chen <georgech...@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. > > > You didn't answer the question. If a publisher refuses to publish a > > paper on the basis that there was no evidence supporting the author's > > conclusion then that is not bias, is it? > Yes, it is bias. The editors and the members of the peer review committees > should treat every article just the same. So they should allow papers on creationism even though creationism has been proven wrong? You'e a hopeless idiot. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 20, 12:31 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > The editors and the members of the peer review committees > should treat every article just the same. They do. Any scientist who publishes a paper without evidence gets rejected. > They should not discriminate > against any author. There are aspects of abiogenesis that are based on > speculation instead of evidence. Which ones, exactly? 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. > Even Francis Creek claims there are some > serious problems with some aspects of abiogenesis. He believes that life > never evolved from non-life on this planet. No, he doesn't. That is NOT what he said AT ALL. Will you please stop repeating that lie? I'm asking nicely and treating you with more respect than you deserve. (I probably should just tell you go go f ck yourself and leave it at that.) Martin Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 Mike wrote: > John Popelish wrote: >> Jason wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >> You need to work on that persecution complex. When ID proponents do >> real science and find an actual flaw in the Theory of Evolution, > > I think you meant "IF ID proponents do real science..." above. Your > wording above implied that they'll definitely do so at some point in > time and we know that'll be the same day that I have feathery bacon for > breakfast and that I tie up the Hades snow-ski industry. The scientific approach is to assume that all human knowledge is flawed and approximate. I can't say for certain that I.D. proponents will not ever prove the theory of evolution wrong, in some way, or that they will never prove that their hypothetical god exists by some clever experiment. The theory of evolution is respected as much as any other scientific theory, because, in principle, it is falsifiable. If, by some clever experiment, they could demonstrate the creation of new life forms by miraculous intervention, on command or request, or by whatever, they will have gone a long way in that direction. I wish them luck in their endeavors, except that they don't even try. Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 20, 12:34 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182258713.074819.221...@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > 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>, Ma= > > rtin > > > > > <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 wan= > > t to > > > > > marginalize the advocates of intelligent design. The main method of d= > > oing > > > > > 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=F8rselstegn - > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > And you should not accuse the editors of dishonest behavior without > > evidence, but you do anyway. > > I posted an article several days ago indicating that the proponents of > evolution are putting pressure on the editors of science journals to not > publish articles written by the advocates of creation science or ID. Do > you want me to try to find it on the web and post it again? Sure. Go ahead and spread more lies. That's what you've been doing from the beginning. Do you think anybody here believes your bullshit? No, because we know the truth. It's time you woke up to that fact. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 20, 12:36 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f58ka7$mi...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <f539gg$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. > > > 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. > > Thanks for your excellent post. It was helpful. Translation: "I have no clue what you said." Martin Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1806072337230001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. \ Oh, the irony. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1806072329270001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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 Try, "Evan Almighty" > > Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f53du2$4m0$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f51ago$cbb$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <981ck4-7cg.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >>>>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> [snips] >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:55:49 -0700, Jason wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> If it really did happen the way the advocates of abiogenesis claim > that it >>>>>>> happened, scientists should be able to design an experiment to make it >>>>>>> happen. Do you think that scientists will ever be able to perform > such an >>>>>>> experiment? >>>>>> So let's see if we have this right. >>>>>> >>>>>> Science demonstrates that, on a small scale, water causes erosion > of rock. >>>>>> We know water exists, we know rock exists, we know water can erode rock. >>>>>> >>>>>> By anyone else's standard, this would be sufficient to explain, oh, the >>>>>> formation of the Grand Canyon, as long as sufficient time is > available for >>>>>> the process to work. >>>>>> >>>>>> According to your standards, we cannot conclude this, as we have > all the >>>>>> requisite components but we haven't made an experiment that actually >>>>>> recreated the Grand Canyon - despite such an experiment requiring >>>>>> something on the order of a few million years to carry out. >>>>>> >>>>>> This, to you, is a sensible requirement is it? >>>>>> >>>>>> I suspect even you wouldn't think so... yet it is almost exactly what >>>>>> you're asking above. We have all the key elements, we have a pretty good >>>>>> idea - several, actually - of the steps to go from A to B... but we're >>>>>> also quite certain that in the best of cases, it would require > hellishly >>>>>> long times to duplicate the result. Yet you blithely expect it, as if >>>>>> such an expectation made any sense whatsoever. >>>>> I was told that a chemical process was what caused life to develop from >>>>> non-life. If that is correct, it seems to me that scientists should be >>>>> able to duplicate that process. >>>> The lottery balls coming up 2-26-34-39-61-62 are a simple matter of >>>> randomness. Now let's see how long it takes you to have the lottery >>>> machine run to generate those specific numbers. >>>> >>>> Clue-time: just because something can happen doesn't mean we can make it >>>> happen in a short period of time. >>>> >>>>> If scientists are not able to do it, it means that abiogenesis will >>>>> continue to be based more on speculation than on evidence. >>>> So if scientists can't make a sun, then how the sun works is "based more >>>> on speculation than on evidence"? >>> You changed the subject from chemistry experiments to the creation of > the sun. >> No, I used the sun as an extreme example of how not everything can be >> duplicated in a lab. >> >>> Chemistry experiments are easy to do. The creation of a sun is impossible. >>> There are thousands of colleges that have chemistry labs. Those chemistry >>> professors should consider conducting more experiments related to >>> abiogenesis. >> They are. >> >> Martin referred me to a website that mentioned various >>> chemistry experiments related to abiogenesis. >> And did you actually read any of them? Of course not. > > I speed read the detailed report. Did you actually COMPREHEND any of it? Let's do a little test. Go to one of the websites and summarize it for us. Don't worry about if you agree with it or not, just summarize what it says in a couple of paragraphs. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <1182261565.690686.247000@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 19, 3:20 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1182230164.715111.147...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, George > > Chen <georgech...@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. > > You didn't answer the question. If a publisher refuses to publish a > paper on the basis that there was no evidence supporting the author's > conclusion then that is not bias, is it? > > Martin Yes, it is bias. The editors and the members of the peer review committees should treat every article just the same. They should not discriminate against any author. There are aspects of abiogenesis that are based on speculation instead of evidence. Even Francis Creek claims there are some serious problems with some aspects of abiogenesis. He believes that life never evolved from non-life on this planet. For those reasons, should the editors of journals discriminate against the advocates of evolution--my answer--of course not. They should not discriminate against any authors. Jason 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.