Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <1182258713.074819.221690@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@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? Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <f58ka7$mi0$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f539gg$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. Thanks for your excellent post. It was helpful. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <f58ol9$qse$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <5Hidi.1090$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? There was some information in the article that I had not seen before and I had some questions about those issues. The experiments re: abiogenesis seemed to me to support creation science instead of supporting evolution. The advocates of creation science claim that evolution does take place but only within "kinds". For example, a horses may evolve (or change) but they continue to be horses. Fruit flies may evolve into a new species of fruit flies but they will not evolve into another type or "kind" of insect. The advocates of creation science usually call it adaption instead of evolution. The author of the article mentioned the results of hundreds (or perhaps thousands) of experiments that had been done on fruit flies and bacteria. The end result of all of those experiments was that the fruit flies continues to be fruit flies and the bacteria continued to be bacteria. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <f58p6o$rfp$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <dhia73p7j846pbim1ektn3h75dm58dro9p@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:50:26 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-1606072150260001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >>> In article <7c29735s3e2ff7nlm8mqtbeq7lnihmuej4@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> ... > >>>> Belief is _never_ evidence under any circumstance. > >>>> > >>>> Do you comprehend that simple fact? > >>> When I was called for jury duty, we all had to listen to the judge tell us > >>> some of the same information that you mentioned in your post. > >>> > >> Yet your posts show a total disregard for justice. You have made it > >> clear that you would rather hang an innocent man than not find anyone > >> guilty of a crime. > > > > I would make the judgement based on the physical evidence and the > > testimonies of the witnesses. I agree that I would be pro-prosecution but > > would not want to be responsible for sending an innocent man to prison. > > That is the reason I would listen to the testimony and examine the > > physical evidence. > > What physical evidence? You already claimed you'd send the man to prison > for life based on nothing more than 8 people saying "we heard him say > 'I'll kill her' and then saw him walk into the room and fire a gun." In that case, there would have been NO physical evidence to examine. In the above post, the question appeared to me to be unrelated to the scenario that I mentioned in another post. In most cases, physical evidence is involved. Yes, I would have voted to convict the husband of that murder. jason Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f58mf7$one$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> 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? Answer? >> >> The Viking space mission did not discover any >>> signs of life on Mars. >> ...yet. Response? >> >>> 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. > > The earth is at an excellent location from the sun. You believe it > happened by chance. I believe that it happened as a result of intelligent > design. Total non sequiter. As usual, you ignore the points made and try throwing out those red herrings. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 John Popelish wrote: > 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. My whole point (in a half-heated joking manner) was your choice of "when" (implying that it'll definitely happen at some point and it's just a matter of time) instead of "if" (meaning that there's a chance (and actually a very LARGE one) that it won't happen at all.) Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f58q2b$scn$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> You need to stop saying "good point" or "excellent answer" altogether >> because we both know that you don't pay any attention at all to the >> point (otherwise you wouldn't come up with the same crap 5 minutes later >> that the point addressed.) > > I get accused of not responding to posts if I don't write something. I do > read every post unless derogatory language is used. Responding "I don't agree" would be far more honest of you. Still wrong but at least honest. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <4677E977.686033AC@osu.edu>, Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > > > In [respose to] article > > <1182230648.471813.37850@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > George Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> > [...] > > I feel sorry for all of the people that will go to hell > > instead of going to heaven. > > How do you feel when you realize you are more compassionate, > a BETTER PERSON, than the God you believe in, even as > sinful as you are? > > > Jason, a lot of people have told you that creationism is > bad science, and it is. But, beyond that, you should be > able to realize, even without a single science course, > that biblical literalism is much worse theology than > it is science. > > Jim Burns Jim, I understand your point but disagree with you. God does not want people to go to hell (John 3:16). If people go to hell, it is NOT God's fault. Instead, it is the fault of the people that turned their backs on God. Would atheists be happy in heaven? I doubt it. Heaven is for people that enjoy worshipping God. I doubt that atheists would enjoy worshipping God or following his rules. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <f58q2b$scn$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f53are$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.) I get accused of not responding to posts if I don't write something. I do read every post unless derogatory language is used. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <1182260039.411850.93610@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Martin, I disagree. The most important aspect of evolution is Natural Selection. Most advocates of creation science support Natural Selection. Therefore, the professor would have no problem teaching Natural Selection. When discussing the primordial pond (which was discussed in our biology text book), he probably explained the aspects of the primordial pond but (unlike the other professors) made it clear that there was no evidence to indicate that life evolved from non-life in the primordial pond. When my professor discussed the primordial pond, he seemed to believe that it was how life came to be on this planet. Jason Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1906071011210001@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <f58q2b$scn$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <f53are$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.) > > I get accused of not responding to posts if I don't write something. I do > read every post unless derogatory language is used. Answering you almost mandates derogatory language. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <1182261263.411483.211720@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Galileo and Copernicus had to face the establishment without the help of anyone. At least, we have at least 500 people fighting against the evolution establishment. I don't blame the proponents of evolution for putting pressure on the editors of science journals to not publish articles written by advocates of creation science and intelligent design. They are worried about the competition. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <lmlf731t5uqq30q5nh5th8hmscbafmr64p@4ax.com>, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > 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 Don, It proves that at least 500 people that have Ph.D degrees realize there are some serious problems with aspects of evolution theory. Galilio and Copernicus had to fight the establishment alone. We have 500 people fighting the evolution establishment in our behalf. Jason Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1906070020020001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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 Science requires evidence. When the creationist/ID crowd start providing evidence then they will be listened to. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1806072242110001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1182217881.318600.209010@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 19, 3:38 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <nqvdi.5876$kR2.1...@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> > >news:Jason-1706071952180001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > > > In article <1182127507.933282.87...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > Martin >> > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > >> On Jun 18, 4:54 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > >> > > >> > The audience of the staff members employed by ICR is not >> > > >> > atheists. >> > >> > > >> Science is for everybody, Jason. Apparently religion is just for >> > > >> those who already believe. That's good to know because it means >> > > >> that >> > > >> when people get a clue then religious people should give up on >> > > >> them >> > > >> and the eventual trend will be for religion to one day disappear >> > > >> altogether. >> >> > > > I doubt that you read the article that I posted several days ago. >> > > > The >> > > > author of the article indicated that the propondents of evolution > want to >> > > > marginalize the advocates of intelligent design. The main method > of doing >> > > > this is by putting pressure on the editors of scientific journals >> > > > to not >> > > > publish any articles written by the advocates of intelligent > design. Upon >> > > > request, I'll post it again. >> > >> > > It doesn't make any difference what the article says. The reason ID >> > > is >> > > published infrequently is because it isn't science. This was clearly >> > > established at Dover. >> > >> > There is another reason. The editors of science journals have a bias in >> > relation to articles written by advocates of ID and creation >> >> They have a bias towards research that is actually supported by >> evidence and against hypotheses for which no evidence exists, yes. >> >> Martin > > Have you read about Copernicus and Galileo? Back in those days the > establishment was the Roman Catolic Church. Copernicus and Galileo were > fighting against the establishment. The new establishment is Evolution. > Those 500 people on the list that I published are (like Copernicus and > Galileo) fighting against the establishment. The editor of the journal > that published an article written by an advocate of ID was also fighting > the establishment. The professor that was denied tenune was fighting the > establishment. Even Francis Crick is fighting the establishment. > > How does it feel to be part of the establishment? How does it feel to be able to ask such stupid questions? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1806072230030001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <odFdi.1995$C31.208@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1806071802170001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <jXEdi.1981$C31.1050@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:Jason-1806071741310001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> > In article <A_KdnV1kkMdKjOrbnZ2dnUVZ_uPinZ2d@comcast.com>, John >> >> > Popelish >> >> > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > Upon you request, I'll post an article that was printed in a peer >> >> >> > reviewed >> >> >> > science journal. I seem to recall that the editor of that science >> >> >> > journal >> >> >> > was fired. >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm looking forward to seeing this. >> >> > >> >> > http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508 >> >> > >> >> > scroll down and click on >> >> > >> >> > READ MEYER'S ARTICLE >> >> >> >> I skimmed it and it appears that the thrust of the entire article is >> >> everything is so great and complex that only an intelligent force >> >> could >> >> have >> >> designed life on earth. In other words noting of earthshaking >> >> consequences >> >> there. I remember when this flap developed and while there is noting >> >> of >> >> substance to Meyer's article I wish that it had been left alone to be >> >> blown >> >> out of the water by real scientists. >> >> > >> > >> > I also read the article. I seem to recall reading that the editor of >> > the >> > science journal that published the article was fired. Is that true? >> >> Then what were your thoughts on the article, Is it a rehash of Paley or >> does it not even rise to that level? Yes, if I remember correctly he was >> fired. >> >> Say Jason, now that I see you're on line I did some research on your >> buddy >> Criswell. In the first place his Ph.D,. that you worship, is from >> Southern >> Baptist Theological Seminar and he is a biblical inerrantist. Using a >> study >> guide from him on the bible is like using a study guide from Duane Gish, >> Ph.D., in biology, which means they aren't worth the paper they're >> written >> on! > > I respect Dr. Criswell. I saw him preach a sermon on television about a > dozen years ago. Is he still alive? He's dead. I guess he is in heaven, wherever that may be, playing tiddlywinks with god. The game will probably last for 10^50 years and then someone else will play with god. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1806072231190001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1182221224.581834.111580@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 19, 9:02 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <jXEdi.1981$C31.1...@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> > >news:Jason-1806071741310001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > > > In article <A_KdnV1kkMdKjOrbnZ2dnUVZ_uPin...@comcast.com>, John >> > > > Popelish >> > > > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: >> > >> > > >> Jason wrote: >> > >> > > >> > Upon you request, I'll post an article that was printed in a >> > > >> > peer >> > > >> > reviewed >> > > >> > science journal. I seem to recall that the editor of that >> > > >> > science >> > > >> > journal >> > > >> > was fired. >> > >> > > >> I'm looking forward to seeing this. >> > >> > > >http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508 >> > >> > > > scroll down and click on >> > >> > > > READ MEYER'S ARTICLE >> > >> > > I skimmed it and it appears that the thrust of the entire article is >> > > everything is so great and complex that only an intelligent force > could have >> > > designed life on earth. In other words noting of earthshaking >> > > consequences >> > > there. I remember when this flap developed and while there is noting >> > > of >> > > substance to Meyer's article I wish that it had been left alone to > be blown >> > > out of the water by real scientists. >> > >> > I also read the article. I seem to recall reading that the editor of >> > the >> > science journal that published the article was fired. Is that true? >> >> Your dishonesty sickens me. >> >> "He didn't lose his job, he didn't get his pay cut, he still has his >> research privileges, he still has his office," Scott says. "You know, >> what's his complaint? People weren't nice to him. Well, life is not >> fair." >> >> Martin > > Should he have been removed from his job as the editor of the journal? He > fought the establishment by publishing an article that was written by an > advocate of Intelligent Design. He was treated better than Galileo was > treated. Perhaps he should have been forced to say in a news conference: > "Evolution is the Establishment and I am sorry for fighting against the > establishment" Or alternatively he could have said, "there was no evidence supporting ID in the article which I allowed to be published, and I am sorry for wasting everyone's time". Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <NuWdnbF_S-B9ferbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> 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, 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. I had the college professor in mind that was denied tenure because he was an advocate of creation science when I mentioned one of my points about "closet creationists" in the above post. Your made some good point in your post. ID proponents do need to do more real science. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1906070029470001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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 A wild-eyed creationist like you would support the decision. Persons with only a smattering of the knowledge of how science works would not support it. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <1182262384.036425.205300@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 Martin, Do you believe the college professor that was denied tenure felt discriminated against? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1806072251380001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <GvWdnakHpKUSturbnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <A_KdnV1kkMdKjOrbnZ2dnUVZ_uPinZ2d@comcast.com>, John >> > Popelish >> > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> >> >>> Upon you request, I'll post an article that was printed in a peer >> >>> reviewed >> >>> science journal. I seem to recall that the editor of that science >> >>> journal >> >>> was fired. >> >> I'm looking forward to seeing this. >> > >> > http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508 >> > >> > scroll down and click on >> > >> > READ MEYER'S ARTICLE >> >> You recalled wrong about the editor losing his job. >> >> From the article at this link: >> >> (begin excerpt) >> >> Eugenie Scott, the executive director of the National Center >> for Science Education, says her group did consult with >> Smithsonian officials and the museum's concerns were valid. >> >> "Clearly people were annoyed, they were frustrated, they >> were blowing off steam," Scott says. "Some probably did >> speak intemperately. Their concern was that somehow the >> Smithsonian would be associated with supporting the >> creationist cause by being associated with this journal that >> published a creationist paper." >> >> Anyway, she says -- echoing the comments of a Smithsonian >> official -- Sternberg did not really suffer. >> >> "He didn't lose his job, he didn't get his pay cut, he still >> has his research privileges, he still has his office," Scott >> says. "You know, what's his complaint? People weren't nice >> to him. Well, life is not fair." >> >> (end excerpt) >> >> Also, I don't study the references to find out who reviewed >> this paper before it was approved for publication, but I >> think they did a very poor job of criticizing its content. >> >> The author uses many conclusion assuming words to describe >> the arguments and questions leading up to his conclusions, >> rather than neutral descriptive terms. For instance, in the >> Cambrian Explosion section, he says, >> >> "Can neo-Darwinism explain the discontinuous increase in CSI >> that appears in the Cambrian explosion--either in the form >> of new genetic information or in the form of hierarchically >> organized systems of parts? We will now examine the two >> parts of this question." >> >> There is nothing in the evidence of life that implies a >> discontinuous increase in information involved in any branch >> of life. A miraculous intervention would be a discontinuous >> event, but all that we see is a varying rate of genetic >> complexity, not a discontinuous one. So he states the >> question using a word that is answerable only with his >> intended conclusion. >> >> Also, his arguments assume that evolution is producing an >> intended result, even though he is criticizing the >> assumptions that it is an undirected process. For instance, >> in the section talking about the improbability of creating >> functional protein sequences, randomly, he doesn't work with >> the concept that the end result is not intended, and that >> many workable results might be comparable functional in some >> way. No, he works through the estimates that a particular, >> presently existing function will come about, randomly, not >> that any functional living thing might somehow come about. >> His bias toward intentionality is understandable, as is >> the obstacle that we have no idea how to estimate how many >> different ways a functional living thing may be made of >> different parts. >> >> If the reviewers approved the paper, and apparently they >> did, I guess I can't fault the editor too much, though he >> should have some input into the process. It is those >> reviewers who botched their part of the process. This paper >> could be used to design a training program for reviewers, to >> show some of the many ways a paper can go wrong. >> >> Unfortunately, you can be certain that any other attempts at >> Intelligent Design papers will certainly reference this >> turkey. Lets hope their reviewers do a better job. > > Thanks for your post. I posted an article a couple of days ago which > indicated that the proponents of evolution are encouraging the editors of > science journals to not publish any articles that are written by the > advocates of creation science or intelligent design. Upon your request, > I'll post it again if I can find it. > Jason Quite frankly they shouldn't have to be encouraged. If there is no science there should be no article. Tell me Jason. what are the main tenets of ID and how do we test them? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1906070015300001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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 Someone dropped the ball when they didn't reject the papers. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1806072342430001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1182228233.943883.28960@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 19, 1:05 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1182219544.874919.109...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, >> > Martin >> > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > On Jun 19, 7:52 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > > In article <bj1e7353rt356ni2l9k8i00t5kr45j3...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > > > > On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:20:53 -0700, in alt.atheism >> > > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> > > > > <Jason-1806071620540...@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> > > > > >In article <EKydnfhTRM1rSuvbnZ2dnUVZ_qupn...@sti.net>, "David >> > > > > >V." >> > > > > ><s...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > > > >> Jason wrote: >> > >> > > > > >> > Thanks for your post. The end goal of the person that >> > > > > >> > compiled >> > > > > >> > the list was to let people know that not every person that >> > > > > >> > has a Ph.D degree is an advocate of evolution. >> > >> > > > > >> No, it was not. It was an attempt to claim that these "smart" >> > > > > >> people do not agree with science so science must be wrong. It >> > > > > >> is >> > > > > >> an attempt to create a controversy where there is none. >> > >> > > > > >> > This tread has been going on for a couple of weeks and >> > > > > >> > several >> > > > > >> > posters stated or at least implied that intelligent people >> > > > > >> > are advocates of evolution and only uneducated or stupid >> > > > > >> > people are advocates of creation science or ID. >> > >> > > > > >> Anyone here will tell you that it is entirely possible, and >> > > > > >> probable, that some very intelligent people will be fooled by >> > > > > >> the >> > > > > >> creationists attempts to debase evolution. >> > >> > > > > >I doubt that people like Francis Crick were fooled by > creationists. He >> > > > > >continues to be an advocate of evolution but expressed doubt >> > > > > >that the >> > > > > >origin of life was possible on earth. He probably came to that > decision >> > > > > >after lots of research. >> > >> > > > > ... >> > >> > > > > Crick is not a creationist nor do his questions help the >> > > > > creationist >> > > > > liars who have conned you. >> > >> > > > I did not state that he is a creationist. >> > >> > > You implied it. >> >> > Re-read the above informaiton: One of the sentences is: "He continues >> > to >> > be an advocate of evolution..." >> > >> > Am I implying in that sentence that he is a creationist? >> >> Then why mention him at all? He is an advocate of evolution and >> doesn't believe in creationism so the mere fact that he had doubts as >> to abiogenesis doesn't support your false argument one whit. Doubt is >> an inherent part of the scientific method. Deal with it. >> >> Martin > > Do you doubt any of the aspects of abiogenesis? I know that there are many things we don't know about abiogenesis, including how it started. I also know that god doesn't exist, so he couldn't have done it. Of course by reading his book we definitely know it wasn't done the way it was described in his book. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <f58mf7$one$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > 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. The earth is at an excellent location from the sun. You believe it happened by chance. I believe that it happened as a result of intelligent design. Jason Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1806072219310001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <_5Fdi.1993$C31.1140@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1806071620540001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <EKydnfhTRM1rSuvbnZ2dnUVZ_qupnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." >> > <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Thanks for your post. The end goal of the person that compiled >> >> > the list was to let people know that not every person that >> >> > has a Ph.D degree is an advocate of evolution. >> >> >> >> No, it was not. It was an attempt to claim that these "smart" >> >> people do not agree with science so science must be wrong. It is >> >> an attempt to create a controversy where there is none. >> >> >> >> >> >> > This tread has been going on for a couple of weeks and several >> >> > posters stated or at least implied that intelligent people >> >> > are advocates of evolution and only uneducated or stupid >> >> > people are advocates of creation science or ID. >> >> >> >> Anyone here will tell you that it is entirely possible, and >> >> probable, that some very intelligent people will be fooled by the >> >> creationists attempts to debase evolution. >> > >> > I doubt that people like Francis Crick were fooled by creationists. He >> > continues to be an advocate of evolution but expressed doubt that the >> > origin of life was possible on earth. He probably came to that decision >> > after lots of research. >> >> Please give examples of Crick's research in abiogenesis. > > I have not read his book which is entitled: "Life Itself: Its Origin and > Nature" > (1981) > > I don't know what sort of research that Francis Crick has done in recent > years--perhaps it was related to reading lots of science journals and > learning the results of various experiments. I am guessing. Let me give you a small lesson in science. In the field of abiogenesis, 1981 was eons ago. Of course this is true of most science books. When I purchase a book for my library I won't but a book that is older than five years. You should also be extremely wary of old science quotes. 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.