Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <1182260711.950438.259940@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 You answered my question--thanks. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1806072351570001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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? We don't know that it hasn't. >The Viking space mission did not discover any > signs of life on Mars. A little behind the times,are ya? We aren't sure yet what Mars has. We found no signs of life on the moon. Nor did we expect to. The moon is too small to hold an atmosphere. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f58j22$l19$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <A_KdnV1kkMdKjOrbnZ2dnUVZ_uPinZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish >>> <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>> >>>>> Upon you request, I'll post an article that was printed in a peer reviewed >>>>> science journal. I seem to recall that the editor of that science journal >>>>> was fired. >> You REALLY need to work on that memory of yours. >> >> <quote> >> "He didn't lose his job, he didn't get his pay cut, he still has his >> research privileges, he still has his office," Scott says. "You know, >> what's his complaint? People weren't nice to him. Well, life is not fair." >> </quote> >> >>>> I'm looking forward to seeing this. >>> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508 >>> >>> scroll down and click on >>> >>> READ MEYER'S ARTICLE >>> >>> > > It's my understanding that he lost his job as editor of the journal--is > that true? Damned, are you that illiterate? Re-re-re-re-read the above quoted paragraph (quoted from the very link you provided) until you understand what "He didn't lose his job, he didn't get his pay cut, he still has his research privileges, he still has his office" means. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1806072124500001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <z_Edi.1985$C31.837@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1806071747360001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <-bednXdsS_EeiOrbnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." >> > <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> > That at least 500 people that have Ph.D degrees agree that >> >> > life did not evolve from non-life. >> >> >> >> Another logical fallacy. Argumentum ad numerum is a very >> >> sophomoric argument. I doubt anyone here is stupid enough to fall >> >> for it and your assumption that we are is insulting. Your appeal >> >> to authority is another insulting argument. Just because they >> >> have a PhD does not automatically give them credibility. It is >> >> also well known that many creationists that claim to have degrees >> >> do not. They freely give each other degrees, get them from >> >> diploma mills or biblical "colleges." >> > >> > Do you have evidence that any of the 500 people on the list that have >> > Ph.D >> > degrees do not have legitimate Ph.D degrees? If so, please make a list >> > of >> > those names. >> >> The main thrust of his statement remains, just because they have a Ph.D. >> doesn't give then credibility. Say Jason, you liar, you haven't commented >> on >> the 800+ Steve's who support evolution. Whatsa matter, cat got your long >> tongue? I'll repost the URL in the slight case that you forgot it :-). > > Ok--so 800 people named Steve have Ph.D degrees and support evolution. > That is great. I wish them well. I see the point just flew over your head. I'm not at all surprised. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1182260610.432907.155110@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 19, 2:42 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <1182228233.943883.28...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Jun 19, 1:05 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> In article > <1182219544.874919.109...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>>>> <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Jun 19, 7:52 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>> In article <bj1e7353rt356ni2l9k8i00t5kr45j3...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>>>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:20:53 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>>>>> <Jason-1806071620540...@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>>>>>> In article <EKydnfhTRM1rSuvbnZ2dnUVZ_qupn...@sti.net>, "David V." >>>>>>>>> <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your post. The end goal of the person that > compiled >>>>>>>>>>> the list was to let people know that not every person that >>>>>>>>>>> has a Ph.D degree is an advocate of evolution. >>>>>>>>>> No, it was not. It was an attempt to claim that these "smart" >>>>>>>>>> people do not agree with science so science must be > wrong. It is >>>>>>>>>> an attempt to create a controversy where there is none. >>>>>>>>>>> This tread has been going on for a couple of weeks and > several >>>>>>>>>>> posters stated or at least implied that intelligent people >>>>>>>>>>> are advocates of evolution and only uneducated or stupid >>>>>>>>>>> people are advocates of creation science or ID. >>>>>>>>>> Anyone here will tell you that it is entirely possible, and >>>>>>>>>> probable, that some very intelligent people will be > fooled by the >>>>>>>>>> creationists attempts to debase evolution. >>>>>>>>> I doubt that people like Francis Crick were fooled by >>> creationists. He >>>>>>>>> continues to be an advocate of evolution but expressed > doubt that the >>>>>>>>> origin of life was possible on earth. He probably came to that >>> decision >>>>>>>>> after lots of research. >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> Crick is not a creationist nor do his questions help the > creationist >>>>>>>> liars who have conned you. >>>>>>> I did not state that he is a creationist. >>>>>> You implied it. >>>>> Re-read the above informaiton: One of the sentences is: "He continues to >>>>> be an advocate of evolution..." >>>>> Am I implying in that sentence that he is a creationist? >>>> Then why mention him at all? He is an advocate of evolution and >>>> doesn't believe in creationism so the mere fact that he had doubts as >>>> to abiogenesis doesn't support your false argument one whit. Doubt is >>>> an inherent part of the scientific method. Deal with it. >>> Do you doubt any of the aspects of abiogenesis? >> As you already know, abiogenesis is not a theory but the idea that >> there once was no life and there is now life. >> >> John Baker: Actually, Jason, abiogenesis is an absolute proven fact. >> Whether it came about through divine intervention or by purely >> natural >> means, at some point in the planet's history, life did arise from >> non-life. We both agree on that. We just disagree about how it >> happened. >> >> Jason: Excellent point. >> >> Martin > > John did make an excellent point but that does not mean that I believe > that life came about purely by natural means. I just re-read what John > stated and he summarized our various arguments very well. His main/initial point was "abiogenesis is an absolute proven fact." You responded "excellent point." If you didn't agree that "abiogenesis is an absolute proven fact" then what was so excellent about it? If you DO agree that "abiogenesis is an absolute proven fact" when why you keep coming up with such stupidity as "Do you doubt any of the aspects of abiogenesis?" Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f58luq$o5h$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> I found this report on the internet: >>> I deleted number 10 to 335. >> <long list of scientists who doubt evolution. >> >>> In no particular order... >>> >>> 1. Michael Behe, "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to >>> Evolution" (1996). >> Credentials? >> >>> 2. Robert W. Faid, American Nuclear Society, Nuclear Scientist, author of >>> A Scientific Approach to Christianity. >> Nuclear science has nothing to do with evolution. >> >>> 3. Michael Denton, medical doctor and molecular biologist, , "Evolution: A >>> Theory in Crisis" (1985). >>> >>> 4. Francis Hitching, "The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went > Wrong" (1982). >> Credentials? >> >>> 5. Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Saunders, "Beyond Neo-Darwinism" (1984). >> Credentials? >> >>> 6. Soren Lovtrup, "Darwinism: Refutation of a Myth" (1987). >> Credentials? >> >>> 7. Milton R., "The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myth of Darwinism", >>> Fourth Estate, London, 1992. >> Credentials? >> >>> 8. Rodney Stark, Professor of Social Sciences at Baylor University, see >>> Fact, Fable, and Darwin. >> Socials science has nothing to do with evolution. >> >>> 9. Gordon Rattray Taylor, "The Great Evolution Mystery" (1983). >> Credentials? >> >>> 335. Terry Mortenson, Ph.D. in history of geology, Coventry University, >>> England. See his bio on Answers in Genesis website. >> Geology has nothing to do with evolution. >> >>> 336. John C. Whitcomb, Th.D. served as Professor of Theology and Old >>> Testament at Grace Theological Seminary, Winona Lake, IN, for 38 years. >>> See his bio on Answers in Genesis website. >> Theology has nothing to do with evolution. >> >> >>> 337. Prof. Vladimir Betina, PhD, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology. >>> Listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page. >>> >>> 338. Prof. Sung-Do Cha, PhD Physics. Listed on Answers in Genesis creation >>> scientists page. >> Physics has nothing to do with evolution. >> >>> 339. Choong-Kuk Chang, PhD, Genetics, Princeton University. Described in >>> Creation Science In Korea. >>> >>> 340. Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering, PhD. Listed on >>> Answers in Genesis creation scientists page. >> Aeronautical Engineering has nothing to do with evolution. >> >>> 341. Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education, PhD. Listed on Answers in >>> Genesis creation scientists page. >>> >>> 342. Bob Compton, Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (from Washington State >>> University), Ph.D. in Physiology (University of Wisconsin/Madison). See >>> his bio on Answers in Genesis website. >>> >>> 343. Lionel Dahmer, PhD Organic Chemistry. Listed on Answers in Genesis >>> creation scientists page and reported as technical review liason for Earth >>> and Planetary Science papers for the 4th International Conference on >>> Creationism. >>> >>> 344. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging, as >>> seen on his bio page. (see also this interesting Scientific American >>> article about him. >> Magnetic resonance imaging has nothing to do with evolution. >> >>> 345. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist, PhD. Listed on Answers in Genesis >>> creation scientists page or see his "Genes -- created but evolving". In >>> Concepts in Creationism, E.H. Andrews, W. Gitt, and W.J. Ouweneel (eds.), >>> pp. 241-266. Herts, England: Evangelical Press. >>> >>> 346. Douglas Dean, Ph.D. in Biology, as listed on Answers in Genesis >>> creation scientists page. >>> >>> 347. Stephen W. Deckard (Ed.D. Univesity of Sarasota), Assistant Professor >>> of Education. See his bio on the Answers in Genesis website. >> Professor of Education has nothing to do with evolution. >> >>> 348. Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics (Ed.D. Univesity of >>> Southern California). See his bio on the Answers in Genesis website. >> Geophysics has nothing to do with evolution. >> >> <snip rest> >> >> Just out of the above, we find that 2/3 of them either show no >> credentials at all or have training in fields that have diddly-squat to >> do with evolution. Even the ones who have training in any field that may >> be related to evolutionary theory still might not specialize in that >> particular part of the field. >> >> So your fallacious "argument from authority" failed yet again. > > Please do some research on all of those Steves and tell me how many of > them show no credentials at all or have training in fields that have > diddly-squat to do with evolution. Please do some research on all of those Steves and tell me where I even mentioned them to begin with? Also check the list at http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp and you'll see that they all present the degrees that they have (at a quick glance, I didn't see a single one who didn't have a doctorate of some type.) Do they all hold degrees in biology or some other field that deals with evolution? No, and I don't think anyone claimed they did (but at least they're all scientists with real doctorates, unlike so many on your list.) The list was simply to show you how anyone can "make a list" but is no more authoritative than yours is. > > I understand your points. No, you don't. > All of those people do have Ph.D degrees. They do? Then why weren't they mentioned? Seems like many of them had no more credentials than "I wrote a book." Even > if all of them do not work in fields directly related to evolution, it > does not mean they have no interest in this issue. I disagree with one of > your points--Some of those people that you menitoned have jobs not > directed related to evolution but have jobs indirectly related to > evolution. These are three examples: > >>> 337. Prof. Vladimir Betina, PhD, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology. >>> Listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page. >>> >>> 338. Prof. Sung-Do Cha, PhD Physics. Listed on Answers in Genesis creation >>> scientists page. How is physics related to evolution? >>> 339. Choong-Kuk Chang, PhD, Genetics, Princeton University. Described in >>> Creation Science In Korea. >>> > > Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1806072138230001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1182220953.505863.148640@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 19, 8:47 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <-bednXdsS_EeiOrbnZ2dnUVZ_jOdn...@sti.net>, "David V." >> > >> > <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > Jason wrote: >> > > > That at least 500 people that have Ph.D degrees agree that >> > > > life did not evolve from non-life. >> > >> > > Another logical fallacy. Argumentum ad numerum is a very >> > > sophomoric argument. I doubt anyone here is stupid enough to fall >> > > for it and your assumption that we are is insulting. Your appeal >> > > to authority is another insulting argument. Just because they >> > > have a PhD does not automatically give them credibility. It is >> > > also well known that many creationists that claim to have degrees >> > > do not. They freely give each other degrees, get them from >> > > diploma mills or biblical "colleges." >> > >> > Do you have evidence that any of the 500 people on the list that have >> > Ph.D >> > degrees do not have legitimate Ph.D degrees? If so, please make a list >> > of >> > those names. >> >> Note that the list of people on > http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1207 >> doesn't say where they go their degrees from. The vast majority of >> them don't even have publications listed. How is it possible for a >> Ph.D. to not have any publications? >> >> Martin > > Martin, > There is an email address in the report so you may want to email the > person that compiled the list and ask him your questions. His main goal > was to list the names of the people. I doubt that he was concerned with > providing details about publications. I admire those 500 people. We both > know what happened to the professor that was an advocate of creation > science. He was denied tenure. Those 500 people are going against the > establishment. > Jason Within this list there are more than a few 'categories' of questions on which the 500 should agree. There are names that dissent from Darwinism. A dissent from Darwinism doesn't necessarily mean that they are against evolution or even against abiogenesis. I also note that poor old Dr. Colin Patterson is on this list. Dr. Patterson has been lied about and misquoted by ignorant creationists for years. There is one thing for sure, he doesn't agree with anything that the ID/Creationist movement supports and certainly shouldn't be on this list. Also there are only 480 nanes on this list and they all aren't Ph.D.'s. Then you need to subtract Patterson as a total supporter of evolution. I will review the list when I have more time to see how many more ringers there are. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1906070042160001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1182227659.150003.16690@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 19, 12:38 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1182220953.505863.148...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, >> > Martin >> > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > On Jun 19, 8:47 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > > In article <-bednXdsS_EeiOrbnZ2dnUVZ_jOdn...@sti.net>, "David V." >> > >> > > > <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > > > Jason wrote: >> > > > > > That at least 500 people that have Ph.D degrees agree that >> > > > > > life did not evolve from non-life. >> > >> > > > > Another logical fallacy. Argumentum ad numerum is a very >> > > > > sophomoric argument. I doubt anyone here is stupid enough to fall >> > > > > for it and your assumption that we are is insulting. Your appeal >> > > > > to authority is another insulting argument. Just because they >> > > > > have a PhD does not automatically give them credibility. It is >> > > > > also well known that many creationists that claim to have degrees >> > > > > do not. They freely give each other degrees, get them from >> > > > > diploma mills or biblical "colleges." >> > >> > > > Do you have evidence that any of the 500 people on the list that > have Ph.D >> > > > degrees do not have legitimate Ph.D degrees? If so, please make a > list of >> > > > those names. >> > >> > > Note that the list of people on >> > >> > http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1207 >> > >> > > doesn't say where they go their degrees from. The vast majority of >> > > them don't even have publications listed. How is it possible for a >> > > Ph.D. to not have any publications? >> >> > There is an email address in the report so you may want to email the >> > person that compiled the list and ask him your questions. His main goal >> > was to list the names of the people. I doubt that he was concerned with >> > providing details about publications. I admire those 500 people. We >> > both >> > know what happened to the professor that was an advocate of creation >> > science. He was denied tenure. Those 500 people are going against the >> > establishment. >> >> They aren't just against the establishment, Jason: they are against >> common sense. It was due to common sense that the establishment >> became the establishment and if you had any common sense yourself then >> you would already know that. >> >> Again, 800 scientists NAMED STEVE disagree with you. >> >> Martin > > Tell all of those Steves that I hope they have a wonderful life. They > should have a wonderful life since they are members of the evolution > establishment. There is no 'evolution' establishment. > If any of them are college professors-- Many are. >tell those Steves > not to worry--they will get their tenure when the time comes. Don't worry, most of them are the ones who grant tenure,not request it. >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. Since this list was totally voluntary I doubt that you will find any closet creationists. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1806072142430001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1182219303.920355.153730@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 19, 7:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <8dqd731jtkebp0pda39adp7rcb1r97q...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch >> > >> > <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> > > In alt.atheism On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 00:22:41 -0700, J...@nospam.com >> > > (Jason) let us all know that: >> > >> > > >I found this report on the internet: >> > >> > > So what? >> > >> > > Please tell us what this proves. >> >> > That at least 500 people that have Ph.D degrees agree that life did not >> > evolve from non-life. I learned from the report that Francis Crick >> > expressed doubt that the origin of life was possible on earth. >> >> Nothing wrong with doubt. It is faith that kills brain cells. >> >> Martin > > Francis Crick is still an advocate of evolution. He probably done lots of > research before coming to the conclusion that life did not originate on > this earth. It would be interesting to learn how he believes that life did > originate. He is a very intelligent person. > Jason That is easy Jason, he thinks life was sent here in a spaceship. Does that mean he is no longer intelligent? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <1182260610.432907.155110@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 19, 2:42 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1182228233.943883.28...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 19, 1:05 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <1182219544.874919.109...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 19, 7:52 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > In article <bj1e7353rt356ni2l9k8i00t5kr45j3...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:20:53 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > > > > > <Jason-1806071620540...@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > > > > >In article <EKydnfhTRM1rSuvbnZ2dnUVZ_qupn...@sti.net>, "David V." > > > > > > > ><s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Jason wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > Thanks for your post. The end goal of the person that compiled > > > > > > > >> > the list was to let people know that not every person that > > > > > > > >> > has a Ph.D degree is an advocate of evolution. > > > > > > > > > >> No, it was not. It was an attempt to claim that these "smart" > > > > > > > >> people do not agree with science so science must be wrong. It is > > > > > > > >> an attempt to create a controversy where there is none. > > > > > > > > > >> > This tread has been going on for a couple of weeks and several > > > > > > > >> > posters stated or at least implied that intelligent people > > > > > > > >> > are advocates of evolution and only uneducated or stupid > > > > > > > >> > people are advocates of creation science or ID. > > > > > > > > > >> Anyone here will tell you that it is entirely possible, and > > > > > > > >> probable, that some very intelligent people will be fooled by the > > > > > > > >> creationists attempts to debase evolution. > > > > > > > > > >I doubt that people like Francis Crick were fooled by > > creationists. He > > > > > > > >continues to be an advocate of evolution but expressed doubt that the > > > > > > > >origin of life was possible on earth. He probably came to that > > decision > > > > > > > >after lots of research. > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > Crick is not a creationist nor do his questions help the creationist > > > > > > > liars who have conned you. > > > > > > > > I did not state that he is a creationist. > > > > > > > You implied it. > > > > > > Re-read the above informaiton: One of the sentences is: "He continues to > > > > be an advocate of evolution..." > > > > > > Am I implying in that sentence that he is a creationist? > > > > > Then why mention him at all? He is an advocate of evolution and > > > doesn't believe in creationism so the mere fact that he had doubts as > > > to abiogenesis doesn't support your false argument one whit. Doubt is > > > an inherent part of the scientific method. Deal with it. > > > Do you doubt any of the aspects of abiogenesis? > > As you already know, abiogenesis is not a theory but the idea that > there once was no life and there is now life. > > John Baker: Actually, Jason, abiogenesis is an absolute proven fact. > Whether it came about through divine intervention or by purely > natural > means, at some point in the planet's history, life did arise from > non-life. We both agree on that. We just disagree about how it > happened. > > Jason: Excellent point. > > Martin John did make an excellent point but that does not mean that I believe that life came about purely by natural means. I just re-read what John stated and he summarized our various arguments very well. Jason Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1906070034060001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1182227720.082934.291730@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 19, 12:42 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1182219303.920355.153...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, >> > Martin >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > On Jun 19, 7:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > > In article <8dqd731jtkebp0pda39adp7rcb1r97q...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch >> > >> > > > <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> > > > > In alt.atheism On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 00:22:41 -0700, >> > > > > J...@nospam.com >> > > > > (Jason) let us all know that: >> > >> > > > > >I found this report on the internet: >> > >> > > > > So what? >> > >> > > > > Please tell us what this proves. >> > >> > > > That at least 500 people that have Ph.D degrees agree that life did >> > > > not >> > > > evolve from non-life. I learned from the report that Francis Crick >> > > > expressed doubt that the origin of life was possible on earth. >> > >> > > Nothing wrong with doubt. It is faith that kills brain cells. >> >> > Francis Crick is still an advocate of evolution. He probably done lots >> > of >> > research before coming to the conclusion that life did not originate on >> > this earth. It would be interesting to learn how he believes that life >> > did >> > originate. He is a very intelligent person. >> >> Intelligent enough to know that doubting abiogenesis is not the same >> as conclusding that it didn't happen. >> >> Martin > > He believed that the abiogenesis did NOT happen on this earth. That > concept is vastly different than what you believe. The end result is the same and it doesn't include your god. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1806072146120001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <5j8e73hj9cu6m5h2r2m91f5nssdq298b17@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 22:22:50 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1706072222500001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <1182140066.278306.60300@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >> >Martin >> >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Jun 18, 12:46 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > In article <f54spi$kdh$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >> >> > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: >> >> > > Jason wrote: >> >> > > > In article <f539gg$u7...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> >> > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > >> Jason wrote: >> >> > > >>> In article <brKdnS6w5O9iCenbnZ2dnUVZ_qfin...@sti.net>, "David >> >> > > >>> V." >> >> > > >>> <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > >>>> Jason wrote: >> >> > > >>>>> In order for lower life forms (living cells) to evolve into >> >higher life >> >> > > >>>>> forms (mammals)--major mutations would have been required. >> >> > > >>>> No, it would not. >> >> > >> >> > > >>>>> example: Hyracotherium evolving into Equus >> >> > > >>>> Which is why a hyracotherium did not evolve into an equus. >> >> > >> >> > > >>>> Evolution doesn't work that way.... and you know it. >> >> > > >>> Did you want me to mention all of the steps: >> >> > >> >> > > >>> step 1: Hyracotherium--"vaguely horselike creature" >> >> > > >>> step 2: Orohippus >> >> > > >>> step 3: Epihippus >> >> > > >>> step 4: Mesohippus >> >> > > >>> step 5: Dinohippus >> >> > > >>> step 6: Equus--"modern genus of horse" >> >> > > >> And that right there shows that "a hyracotherium did not > evolve into an >> >> > > >> equus." In fact, there wasn't just those 6 steps. There was > millions of >> >> > > >> steps where a hyracotherium evolved into antother hyracotherium >> >that was >> >> > > >> just the tiniest bit different. Then that one evolved into > another that >> >> > > >> was a tiniest bit different, etc. Eventually these differences > added up >> >> > > >> enough to where we no longer called it a Hyracotherium but >> >> > > >> instead >> >> > > >> called it a Orohippus. But there wasn't any point where some > animal was >> >> > > >> 2' tall and then all of a sudden its immediate offspring were > 4' tall >> >> > > >> like cretinists like to make it look. >> >> > >> >> > > >> It didn't take a major mutation but simply required thousands >> >> > > >> or >> >> > > >> millions of tiny ones. >> >> > >> >> > > > I understand your points. Is it possible that some of the > mutations were >> >> > > > major mutatations (eg related to size)? It's my understanding > that the >> >> > > > Hyracotherium was about the same size as a German shepard > dog--is that >> >> > > > true? >> >> > > > jason >> >> > >> >> > > No idea about the size of that animal. >> >> > >> >> > > But how is a bigger size a major mutation? Apart from the fact > that just >> >> > > for size you don't even NEED mutation. >> >> > >> >> > In relation to size, for the sake of discussion, let's say the the >> >> > only >> >> > canines that were in the world 1 billion years a ago were 10 pairs >> >> > of >> >> > minature schnauzers. How long would it take for them to be the size >> >> > of >> >> > Saint Bernards? >> >> >> >> Did your creation-believing biology professor fail to tell you that >> >> dog breeds have developed over the past 10 000 years as a result of >> >> selective breeding by mankind? Some teacher, huh? >> >> >> >> Martin >> > >> >You failed to answer my hypothethcal question. Let's say the dogs were >> >NOT >> >minature schnauzers but were the same size of minature schnauzers. >> > >> There were no dogs a billion years ago. The precursors of dogs came far >> more recently. > > With leads to another question: What was the precursor of dogs? Which leads to another question, then another, blah...blah...blah, until you ask the biggie, who created god? Of course the answer to that is.........................MAN! Quote
Guest Ralph 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. How does > it feel to be a willing member of the Evolution establishment? How does it feel to be an ignorant creationist? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1806072319500001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1182218594.682691.83350@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 19, 3:48 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> > news:Jason-1806070044420001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> > > There was a war in heaven between the angels. God won the battle and >> > > the >> > > angel that started the war (and the angels that fought on his side) >> > > were >> > > cast down to the earth. The angel was re-named Satan and his >> > > followers >> > > were re-named demons. God may have created another planet and sun >> > > (similar >> > > to our planet and our sun). He may also have created people to live >> > > on >> > > that planet; some plants and some animals. Of course, I am only >> > > guessing. >> > >> > That doesn't even qualify as a guess. The omnipotent, omniscient god >> > couldn't defeat Satin. Another strike against the existence of the big >> > guy. >> >> For that matter, does it not occur to anyone that Satan is working FOR >> God in this story? I mean, the people who presumably disobey God are >> presumably sent to Hell which is presumably run by Satan who then goes >> ahead and makes life miserable for the people sent there. Is there >> some logical reason why Satan would do this? Satan is just a version >> of the boogieman, except these are supposed adults who believe in him. >> >> Martin > > The book of Job (Job 1:5-12) discusses how Satan made a return visit to > heaven to talk to God about Job. Satan was a former arch angel (one of the > head angels). As a result, God had a good relationship with Satan--prior > to the war. Satan became very obsessed with power and wanted to take over > heaven but he lost that war. Actually, Hell was not created for people. It > was created for Satan and his demons. It was eventually used for evil > people such as the rich man (Luke 16: 19-31). Whether or not God and Satan > worked out some sort of agreement about those subjects discussed in your > post is not known--since such an agreement is not discussed in the Bible. > God will eventually destoy Satan and his demons--as well as every person > that is in hell (Rev 20:1-15)--it's referred to as the "second death". Lord, the things that supposedly rational believe. Job is a make believe story anyway, of course most of the bible is. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <f58luq$o5h$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > I found this report on the internet: > > I deleted number 10 to 335. > > <long list of scientists who doubt evolution. > > > In no particular order... > > > > 1. Michael Behe, "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to > > Evolution" (1996). > > Credentials? > > > 2. Robert W. Faid, American Nuclear Society, Nuclear Scientist, author of > > A Scientific Approach to Christianity. > > Nuclear science has nothing to do with evolution. > > > 3. Michael Denton, medical doctor and molecular biologist, , "Evolution: A > > Theory in Crisis" (1985). > > > > 4. Francis Hitching, "The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong" (1982). > > Credentials? > > > 5. Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Saunders, "Beyond Neo-Darwinism" (1984). > > Credentials? > > > 6. Soren Lovtrup, "Darwinism: Refutation of a Myth" (1987). > > Credentials? > > > 7. Milton R., "The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myth of Darwinism", > > Fourth Estate, London, 1992. > > Credentials? > > > 8. Rodney Stark, Professor of Social Sciences at Baylor University, see > > Fact, Fable, and Darwin. > > Socials science has nothing to do with evolution. > > > 9. Gordon Rattray Taylor, "The Great Evolution Mystery" (1983). > > Credentials? > > > 335. Terry Mortenson, Ph.D. in history of geology, Coventry University, > > England. See his bio on Answers in Genesis website. > > Geology has nothing to do with evolution. > > > 336. John C. Whitcomb, Th.D. served as Professor of Theology and Old > > Testament at Grace Theological Seminary, Winona Lake, IN, for 38 years. > > See his bio on Answers in Genesis website. > > Theology has nothing to do with evolution. > > > > 337. Prof. Vladimir Betina, PhD, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology. > > Listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page. > > > > 338. Prof. Sung-Do Cha, PhD Physics. Listed on Answers in Genesis creation > > scientists page. > > Physics has nothing to do with evolution. > > > 339. Choong-Kuk Chang, PhD, Genetics, Princeton University. Described in > > Creation Science In Korea. > > > > 340. Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering, PhD. Listed on > > Answers in Genesis creation scientists page. > > Aeronautical Engineering has nothing to do with evolution. > > > 341. Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education, PhD. Listed on Answers in > > Genesis creation scientists page. > > > > 342. Bob Compton, Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (from Washington State > > University), Ph.D. in Physiology (University of Wisconsin/Madison). See > > his bio on Answers in Genesis website. > > > > 343. Lionel Dahmer, PhD Organic Chemistry. Listed on Answers in Genesis > > creation scientists page and reported as technical review liason for Earth > > and Planetary Science papers for the 4th International Conference on > > Creationism. > > > > 344. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging, as > > seen on his bio page. (see also this interesting Scientific American > > article about him. > > Magnetic resonance imaging has nothing to do with evolution. > > > 345. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist, PhD. Listed on Answers in Genesis > > creation scientists page or see his "Genes -- created but evolving". In > > Concepts in Creationism, E.H. Andrews, W. Gitt, and W.J. Ouweneel (eds.), > > pp. 241-266. Herts, England: Evangelical Press. > > > > 346. Douglas Dean, Ph.D. in Biology, as listed on Answers in Genesis > > creation scientists page. > > > > 347. Stephen W. Deckard (Ed.D. Univesity of Sarasota), Assistant Professor > > of Education. See his bio on the Answers in Genesis website. > > Professor of Education has nothing to do with evolution. > > > 348. Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics (Ed.D. Univesity of > > Southern California). See his bio on the Answers in Genesis website. > > Geophysics has nothing to do with evolution. > > <snip rest> > > Just out of the above, we find that 2/3 of them either show no > credentials at all or have training in fields that have diddly-squat to > do with evolution. Even the ones who have training in any field that may > be related to evolutionary theory still might not specialize in that > particular part of the field. > > So your fallacious "argument from authority" failed yet again. Please do some research on all of those Steves and tell me how many of them show no credentials at all or have training in fields that have diddly-squat to do with evolution. I understand your points. All of those people do have Ph.D degrees. Even if all of them do not work in fields directly related to evolution, it does not mean they have no interest in this issue. I disagree with one of your points--Some of those people that you menitoned have jobs not directed related to evolution but have jobs indirectly related to evolution. These are three examples: > > 337. Prof. Vladimir Betina, PhD, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology. > > Listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page. > > > > 338. Prof. Sung-Do Cha, PhD Physics. Listed on Answers in Genesis creation > > scientists page. > > 339. Choong-Kuk Chang, PhD, Genetics, Princeton University. Described in > > Creation Science In Korea. > > Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1906070010070001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1182230648.471813.37850@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, George > Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 19, 2:19 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1182218594.682691.83...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, >> > Martin >> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > On Jun 19, 3:48 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> > > >news:Jason-1806070044420001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > >> > > > > There was a war in heaven between the angels. God won the battle > and the >> > > > > angel that started the war (and the angels that fought on his > side) were >> > > > > cast down to the earth. The angel was re-named Satan and his >> > > > > followers >> > > > > were re-named demons. God may have created another planet and > sun (similar >> > > > > to our planet and our sun). He may also have created people to >> > > > > live on >> > > > > that planet; some plants and some animals. Of course, I am only > guessing. >> > >> > > > That doesn't even qualify as a guess. The omnipotent, omniscient >> > > > god >> > > > couldn't defeat Satin. Another strike against the existence of the > big guy. >> > >> > > For that matter, does it not occur to anyone that Satan is working >> > > FOR >> > > God in this story? I mean, the people who presumably disobey God are >> > > presumably sent to Hell which is presumably run by Satan who then >> > > goes >> > > ahead and makes life miserable for the people sent there. Is there >> > > some logical reason why Satan would do this? Satan is just a version >> > > of the boogieman, except these are supposed adults who believe in >> > > him. >> > >> > The book of Job (Job 1:5-12) discusses how Satan made a return visit to >> > heaven to talk to God about Job. Satan was a former arch angel (one of >> > the >> > head angels). As a result, God had a good relationship with >> > Satan--prior >> > to the war. Satan became very obsessed with power and wanted to take >> > over >> > heaven but he lost that war. Actually, Hell was not created for people. >> > It >> > was created for Satan and his demons. It was eventually used for evil >> > people such as the rich man (Luke 16: 19-31). Whether or not God and >> > Satan >> > worked out some sort of agreement about those subjects discussed in >> > your >> > post is not known >> >> Actually it is known: it is known that God, Satan, Heaven and Hell do >> not exist and that they are just fantasies that idiots believe in. >> >> >--since such an agreement is not discussed in the Bible. >> > God will eventually destoy Satan and his demons--as well as every >> > person >> > that is in hell (Rev 20:1-15)--it's referred to as the "second death". >> >> And you are looking forward to that, aren't you? I feel sorry for >> you. I really do. > > Do you also feel sorry for the 1.9 billion other Christians in the world? > I feel sorry for all of the people that will go to hell instead of going > to heaven. No one is going to hell, Jason. Intelligent people knew that centuries ago. Of course no one is going to heaven either. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1806072325050001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <L2Fdi.1989$C31.1332@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1806071648580001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <b01e73hss44edrjoko230mbu5163e2ovk6@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:46:03 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-1806071146030001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >In article <1182168723.095379.294370@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >> >> >Martin >> >> >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Jun 18, 1:47 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> > In article >> >> >> > <1182139338.508689.267...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >> >> >> > Martin >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> > > On Jun 18, 10:59 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> > > > In article >> >> >> > > > <1182126930.187720.194...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >> >> >Martin >> >> >> > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> > > > > On Jun 18, 3:32 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> > > > > > In article >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > <46753d99$0$1182$61c65...@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>, >> >> >> > > > > > "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> >> >> > > > > > > "Martin" <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> > > > > > >news:1182071263.602369.18620@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > > > > > > > On Jun 16, 2:13 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> > > > > > > >> I once talked to a >> >> >> > > > > > > >> biology professor that was an advocate of creation >> >> >> > > > > > > >> science. >> >> >> > He knew as >> >> >> > > > > > > >> much about evolution as any of the other biology >> >> >> > > > > > > >> professors >> >> >> > that worked >> >> >> > > > > > > >> at >> >> >> > > > > > > >> that college. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Obviously not. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > > > > > It is possible to believe in everything about evolution >> >> >> > > > > > > itself, >> >> >> > and still >> >> >> > > > > > > believe there was some external creating entity that >> >> >> > > > > > > either >> >> >> > created the >> >> >> > > > > > > universe initially and/or caused life to first emerge. >> >> >> > Evolution really >> >> >> > > > > > > only kicks in once there is life and a process in place >> >> >> > > > > > > for >> >> >> > selection and >> >> >> > > > > > > mutation to take place. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > > > > > So its not incompatible .. but not necessarily >> >> >> > > > > > > reasonable >> >> >> > > > > > > .. to >> >> >> > believe in >> >> >> > > > > > > some sort of creator that did his job and then let >> >> >> > > > > > > nature >> >> >> > > > > > > (his >> >> >> > creation) >> >> >> > > > > > > take its course (see deism). >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > > > > I understand your point. That is the reason college >> >> >> > > > > > biology >> >> >> > teachers that >> >> >> > > > > > are advocates of creation science can teach their >> >> >> > > > > > students >> >> >> > > > > > about >> >> >> > evolution >> >> >> > > > > > as well as college biology professors that are NOT >> >> >> > > > > > advocates >> >> >of creation >> >> >> > > > > > science. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > > > You can't teach using the scientific method and still >> >> >> > > > > believe >> >> >> > > > > in >> >> >> > > > > religious fantasies. It's not good enough for the teacher >> >> >> > > > > to >> >> >> > > > > say >> >> >> > > > > "This is what you need to know for the exam." >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > > I disagree with you. That professor that was an advocate of >> >> >> > > > creation >> >> >> > > > science taught biology as well as the other professors. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > If he taught YOU biology then he didn't teach very well, did >> >> >> > > he? >> >> >> >> >> >> > He was not my biology professor. However, I did set in on one of >> >> >> > his >> >> >> > classes as per his request since we were friends and he invited >> >> >> > me >> >> >> > to one >> >> >> > of his classes. I wanted to take his class but the class was >> >> >> > full. >> >> >> >> >> >> And on that basis you decided he was as good a teacher as >> >> >> professors >> >> >> who actually had a clue what they were talking about?! >> >> >> >> >> >> Martin >> >> > >> >> >Martin, >> >> >In much the same way that critics can watch a movie or new Broadway >> >> >play >> >> >and gain an understanding about whether or not it's a good movie or >> >> >play--I can set in on one lecture and gain an understanding of >> >> >whether >> >> >or >> >> >not he is a good professor. For example, professors in charge of >> >> >student >> >> >teachers do not have to set in on every class that is taught by the >> >> >student teachers but only one class. >> >> >Jason >> >> > >> >> Since you have demonstrated a complete inability to understand >> >> biology, >> >> I have absolutely no confidence in your ability to select a good >> >> biology >> >> teacher. >> > >> > I did not select my biology professor. My biology professor was an >> > advocate of evolution. We were not allowed to choose professors during >> > the >> > first year. We were allowed to choose professors during the second >> > year. >> >> Yes and you wanted a creationist professor so that you wouldn't have to >> learn biology. > > That is not true. All of the Ferrum biology professors followed the same > curriculum. The professor that was an advocate of creation science > followed the curriculum. He knew as much about evolution as the other > professors. > Jason Which, if you are an indicator, was precious little. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <f58lrb$ev1$1@austar-news.austar.net.au>, Masked Avenger <cootey_59@_yahoo.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > >>>>>> (Jason) let us all know that: > >>>>>>> I found this report on the internet: > >>>>>> So what? > >>>>>> Please tell us what this proves. > >>>>> That at least 500 people that have Ph.D degrees agree that life did not > >>>>> evolve from non-life. I learned from the report that Francis Crick > >>>>> expressed doubt that the origin of life was possible on earth. > >>>> Nothing wrong with doubt. It is faith that kills brain cells. > >>> Francis Crick is still an advocate of evolution. He probably done lots of > >>> research before coming to the conclusion that life did not originate on > >>> this earth. It would be interesting to learn how he believes that life did > >>> originate. He is a very intelligent person. > >> Intelligent enough to know that doubting abiogenesis is not the same > >> as conclusding that it didn't happen. > >> > >> Martin > > > > He believed that the abiogenesis did NOT happen on this earth. That > > concept is vastly different than what you believe. > > > > so it happened on 'another' world ..... fact is ....... it STILL > happened ........ > abiogenesis is abiogenesis no matter where it happens ....... > What are you trying to prove ? ...... that you are possibly one of the > stupidest people on usenet ? ......... > > sorry ...... you've already proved that ....... long ago ....... My point was that if abiogenesis did not happen on this earth--many of the aspects of abiogenesis have to be revised. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <1182258423.732922.128500@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > On 18 Jun., 21:23, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <RFvdi.5882$kR2.5...@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > > > > > > > > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > >news:Jason-1706071915140001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > In article <1182127852.310084.309...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ma= > rtin > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> On Jun 18, 5:01 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > >> > In article <qrqa73denflmffls0ra83nn8q8pl3e3...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > > > > >> > <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > > >> > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > > > > >> > > >In article <1182075020.267569.195...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.c= > om>, > > > > George > > > >> > > >Chen <georgech...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> > > <...> > > > > > >> > > >> As is the creation of a living cell from non-living base elem= > ents. > > > >> > > >> That is not how it happened. As you've been told already, the > > > >> > > >> proteins, RNA and lipid membranes all existed first (and all = > have > > > >> > > >> been > > > >> > > >> produced in laboratories). Even with all of these in existan= > ce, > > > >> > > >> it > > > >> > > >> apparently took millions of years for them to come together u= > nder > > > >> > > >> the > > > >> > > >> right conditions and form the first cell. > > > > > >> > > >It took millions of years for them to come together naturally. = > Would > > > >> > > >it > > > >> > > >take MUCH less time if everything that was needed came together= > as a > > > >> > > >result of scientific experiments? > > > > > >> > > Yes, it will take much less time for a living cell to be formed, > > > >> > > probably a few weeks for a multi-step process, including the var= > ious > > > >> > > reactions and isolation steps involved. > > > > > >> > Why have such experiments not been done? > > > > > >> What Jim has neglected to mention is that the exact conditions > > > >> required are not known. Most likely what would be needed would be an > > > >> oxygen free environment because oxygen would break down exposed > > > >> nucleic acids. Then there's the question of the exact concentrations > > > >> of each component would be required, what temperature would be ideal > > > >> and if some sort of substrate or catalyst would be required. "A few > > > >> weeks" is not a very conservative estimate. > > > > > >> Martin > > > > > > Martin, > > > > But in special labs--those conditions that you mentioned would be par= > t of > > > > the experiment. > > > > > This is pitiful. Jason, can you read for comprehension? In Martin's fir= > st > > > sentence he states that the exact conditions are not known. Let me reas= > sure > > > you that if the initial conditions were known it would only be a matter= > of > > > weeks until the conditions of life would be replicated. > > > > You appear to be stating that since the exact conditions were not known, > > that it would be fruitless to conduct any experiments related to > > abiogenesis. My point was that scientists could experiment with various > > scenarios until they get it right. You appear to believe that life > > naturally evolved from non-life. Did you realize that some very > > intelligent people disagree with you. Did you know that one of the > > discoverers of the structure of DNA "expressed doubt that the origin of > > life was possible on earth." > > > > I found the following information in a website: > > > > "Francis Crick wrote "Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature" (1981) in which > > he expressed doubt that the origin of life was possible on earth. > > Similarly, Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe have sharply critiqued > > the origin of life on earth in favor of evolution from space (see > > "Evolution from Space") Robert Shapiro in his "Origins: A Skeptic's Guide > > to the Creation of Life on Earth" (1986) also gave a similar critique > > although he did not postulate that life came from space." > > > > Upon request, I'll post more information related to the above data and > > tell you how to find the URL of the above site.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rsel= > stegn - > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > I request that you explain how the above argues against abiogenesis. It does not argue against abiogenesis. It means that many of the aspects of abiogenesis would have to be revised. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <f58j22$l19$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <A_KdnV1kkMdKjOrbnZ2dnUVZ_uPinZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >> > >>> Upon you request, I'll post an article that was printed in a peer reviewed > >>> science journal. I seem to recall that the editor of that science journal > >>> was fired. > > You REALLY need to work on that memory of yours. > > <quote> > "He didn't lose his job, he didn't get his pay cut, he still has his > research privileges, he still has his office," Scott says. "You know, > what's his complaint? People weren't nice to him. Well, life is not fair." > </quote> > > >> I'm looking forward to seeing this. > > > > http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508 > > > > scroll down and click on > > > > READ MEYER'S ARTICLE > > > > It's my understanding that he lost his job as editor of the journal--is that true? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <1182261659.556884.283070@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 19, 3:29 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1182229523.902724.128...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, George > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chen <georgech...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 19, 1:31 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <1182221224.581834.111...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 19, 9:02 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > In article <jXEdi.1981$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 Are those 500 people that agree with me (that have Ph.D degrees) also stupid? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <1182261438.657327.187190@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Yes, I saw that. I should have told him that I agreed with him related to that point. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <sIUdi.335$1a.142@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "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? I don't know--someone posted the tenets of creation science. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <f58v13$1lh$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > 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. Nice try--but I won't do it--people would take turns telling the details that left out of the summary. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <bpKdnfZeQqyyZOrbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> 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. That would be difficult to do. 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.