Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <f595lf$8pb$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f58j22$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. Yes, it states that he still has his job. It does NOT state whether or not he is still editor of the journal. For example, a local cop (according to the local newspaper) shot someone. He was assigned a desk job but is not allowed to wear his uniform until the investigation is finished. Does he still have a job? YES---Is he still working as a cop? NO Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <f596h8$9pt$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f58luq$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." I believe the man that compiled the list indicated that all of those people on the list had 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. > > How is physics related to evolution? Perhaps Martin could answer this question. > > >>> 339. Choong-Kuk Chang, PhD, Genetics, Princeton University. Described in > >>> Creation Science In Korea. > >>> > > > > Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <f595qf$8pb$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > 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?" In the way that John defined abiogenesis--it is an absolute proven fact--read his definition. I define abiogenesis the same way that the advocates of evoluition define it--(without God being involved). Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <LdVdi.349$1a.26@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "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. Thanks for your post. The Steves appear to be conformists. Unlike the 500 people that I mentioned, the Steves are part of the status quo. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <MdVdi.350$1a.266@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "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? He would continue to be intelligent regardless of what he believes--if that was your point--I agree with you. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In article <weVdi.351$1a.150@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "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. Based upon what others have stated in their posts--you are correct. Quote
Guest John Baker Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:38:56 -0400, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >"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. <PIGGYBACKING> >> >> 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 a complete idiot? > >How does it feel to be an ignorant creationist? > > Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 23:32:24 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1806072332250001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <6kae731sjmfoi1t07qgmgeqldu8b885iqa@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:48:58 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1806071648580001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <b01e73hss44edrjoko230mbu5163e2ovk6@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:46:03 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-1806071146030001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> ... >> >> Since you have demonstrated a complete inability to understand biology, >> >> I have absolutely no confidence in your ability to select a good biology >> >> teacher. >> > >> >I did not select my biology professor. My biology professor was an >> >advocate of evolution. We were not allowed to choose professors during the >> >first year. We were allowed to choose professors during the second year. >> > >> Evolution is a fact. Any biology professor who denies it is failing in >> his job. You prefer lies to truth, that doesn't change the fact that the >> lies you prefer are lies. > >I had no problems with Natural Selection which is the most important >aspect of Evolution. I did have problems with abiogenesis and common >descent due to the lack of evidence and successful experiments. > Once again, you are lying about the lack of evidence for common descent. You are also lying about the lack of evidence for abiogenesis, though it is not part of the theory of evolution. You have been corrected repeatedly on these lies, but since you insist on restating them, it is clear to all of us that you have no intention of learning, that you enjoy being a liar, that you enjoy showing us how 'Christians' behave. You still haven't told me why you think that God won't send you to Hell for your lies. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:53:27 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1806072253270001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1182218813.834333.90560@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 19, 7:01 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <vmBdi.3308$nQ5.3...@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> > >news:Jason-1706072247350001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > > > In article <1182139338.508689.267...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >Martin >> > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> > > >> On Jun 18, 10:59 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > >> > In article <1182126930.187720.194...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >> > > >> > Martin >> > > >> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > On Jun 18, 3:32 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > >> > > > In article >> > >> > > > ><46753d99$0$1182$61c65...@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>, >> > > >> > > > "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > > > "Martin" <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > > >> > > > >news:1182071263.602369.18620@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> > > >> > > > > > On Jun 16, 2:13 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > >> > > > > >> I once talked to a >> > > >> > > > > >> biology professor that was an advocate of creation science. >> > > > He knew as >> > > >> > > > > >> much about evolution as any of the other biology professors >> > > > that worked >> > > >> > > > > >> at >> > > >> > > > > >> that college. >> > >> > > >> > > > > > Obviously not. >> > >> > > >> > > > > It is possible to believe in everything about evolution itself, >> > > > and still >> > > >> > > > > believe there was some external creating entity that either >> > > > created the >> > > >> > > > > universe initially and/or caused life to first emerge. >> > > > Evolution really >> > > >> > > > > only kicks in once there is life and a process in place for >> > > > selection and >> > > >> > > > > mutation to take place. >> > >> > > >> > > > > So its not incompatible .. but not necessarily reasonable .. to >> > > > believe in >> > > >> > > > > some sort of creator that did his job and then let nature (his >> > > > creation) >> > > >> > > > > take its course (see deism). >> > >> > > >> > > > I understand your point. That is the reason college biology >> > > > teachers that >> > > >> > > > are advocates of creation science can teach their students about >> > > > evolution >> > > >> > > > as well as college biology professors that are NOT advocates of >> > > >> > > > creation >> > > >> > > > science. >> > >> > > >> > > You can't teach using the scientific method and still believe in >> > > >> > > religious fantasies. It's not good enough for the teacher to say >> > > >> > > "This is what you need to know for the exam." >> > >> > > >> > I disagree with you. That professor that was an advocate of creation >> > > >> > science taught biology as well as the other professors. >> > >> > > >> If he taught YOU biology then he didn't teach very well, did he? >> >> > > > He was not my biology professor. However, I did set in on one of his >> > > > classes as per his request since we were friends and he invited me >to one >> > > > of his classes. I wanted to take his class but the class was full. >> > >> > > Where did you go to school, Jason? >> > >> > I took the biology class at Ferrum College. >> >> in Ferrem, Virginia? >> >> Martin > >Yes, when I attended the college it was a junior college but it is now a >four year college. It is a Christian college. > Is it a real college or is it a TRACS college? Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 Mike wrote: > John Popelish wrote: (snip) >> 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.) > > And I was using "when" in the "not until" sense. Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <bpKdnfZeQqyyZOrbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: (snip) >> 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. We agree on this. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 [snips] On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:28:40 -0400, Mike wrote: >> 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." To Jason, if you can find a second person who makes the same unfounded, unsupported, asinine claim as the one you're making, that is evidence for the claim. Eight people all saying the same thing? Must be direct revelation from God. Jason has a very shaky concept of the difference between someone screaming "is too" and someone actually demonstrating their claim is, in fact, valid. -- I have never accepted the Ideal personally that gays have any rights and i never will. - Don Ward Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 20, 1:08 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <4677E977.68603...@osu.edu>, Jim Burns <burns...@osu.edu> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > > In [respose to] article > > > <1182230648.471813.37...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > > George Chen <georgech...@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. > I understand your point but disagree with you. God does not want people to > go to hell God doesn't want anything. He doesn't exist. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 20, 1:31 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182261263.411483.211...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 19, 3:04 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > 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? > 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. You can't have it both ways, Jason. You can't argue that 88% of the American population agrees with you and then claim that these people are lonely voices fighting against "the establishment". Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 20, 1:48 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <NuWdnbF_S-B9ferbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vn...@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > > > > > <jpopel...@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 Quite right. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 20, 1:51 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182262384.036425.205...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmar...@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. > Do you believe the college professor that was denied tenure felt > discriminated against? I'm sure he did, but then so would a four feet tall basketball player. If the "discrimination" in question is because you have reason to believe that he won't be able to properly do his job then it is not discrimination. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 20, 1:55 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f58mf7$on...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > 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 > > >> 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. Without heat, water and air, you wouldn't be here now to ask that question, would you? Yes, I have answered your question. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 20, 1:01 am, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f58mf7$on...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > >> 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 > >>>> 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. Ask him why God placed Mars and Venus too far and too close to the sun, respectively, so that they were too cold and too hot to support life. That would have been my next question. Of course, the distance from the sun is not the only determiner of temperature: Mars also has a thin atmosphere and Venus has a thick atompshere. Venus is extremely hot due to the greenhouse effect and Mars would be a lot warmer if only its atmosphere could trap more heat from the sun. This would have been extremely poor design on God's part. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Jun 20, 2:27 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182260610.432907.155...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@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. > 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. No, but it does mean that you agree that abiogenesis occured even though you say it didn't. If it happened once then scientists can make it happen again. Isn't that what you said? Martin Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:31:53 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1906071031530001@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1182261263.411483.211720@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: .... >> >> 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. > Jason, listen, almost none of the 500 that you are referring to are biologists. Secondly, they are the ones who are on the side of ignorance and darkness. Galileo and Copernicus were the good guys, just as science is today. You are supporting the forces of ignorance and darkness, just as the Church did back then. You have picked the side of evil. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:10:07 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <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. > The vast majority of Christians belong to church bodies that rejected your foolish claims about biology and evolution. Why do you think you are going to heaven. You have demonstrated to us all here that you love lies. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:08:13 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1906071008130001@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >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. That's not true. >Instead, it is the fault of the people that turned their backs on God. Why should anyone believe a defective storybook like the Bible. If there were a God who cared, He'd do a lot better than giving us a book of myths. >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. That leaves you out. God did not tell you to repeatedly lie. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 23:37:23 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <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. That is because you admire dishonest people. > They are willing to fight the Evolution establishment. They are fighting the evidence. >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? You are wrong, intentionally wrong. You are proud of your false claims. Science is still the way to learn and religion is still what is trying to stop it. You act as if you want the Inquisition to return. You worship lies. Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 In alt.atheism On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:39:56 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >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. So what? Please tell us what that proves? And, since you haven't shown me what problems there are with my answers to your 20 questions, I shall repost them. You're so fucked, Jason. > 20 Questions for Evolutionists > > 1. Where has macro evolution ever been observed? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html > What's the mechanism >for getting new complexity such as new vital organs? Mutation. Natural selection >How, for example, >could a caterpillar evolve into a butterfly? It transforms, dumbshit. > > 2. Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there >if your theory is right? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html > 3. Who are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC220_1.html > 4. What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could >ever assemble itself? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF003.html > 5. How could organs as complicated as the eye http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html > or the ear http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB302.html > or the brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB303.html > How could a bacterial motor evolve? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html > > 6. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Oh for fucks sake, Hovind: this has nothing to do with evolution. 7 and 8 have nothing to do with evolution, either. That is in the field of COSMOLOGY and ASTROPHYSICS, moron. Stop believing Kent Hovind. He's a liar and a con-artist. > 9. How did sexual reproduction evolve? http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/dec98.html > > 10. If the big bang occurred, where did all the information It's not information. > 11. Why do so many of the earth's ancient cultures have flood legends? Because the started near rivers. > > 12. Where did matter come from? Where did god come from? > What about space, time, energy, and even the laws of physics? > > 13. How did the first living cell begin? No one really knows, but it's not a miracle. How did god begin? Yes, god began. No, god didn't not begin. Yes, god began. No, god didn't not begin. I'll keep repeating that until you understand that you can't special plead. > 14. Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did >it not have oxygen? Didn't. > > 15. Why aren't meteorites found in supposedly old rocks? We do find them there in their remnants. Search for "iridium layer" in google. You'll find something interesting. > > 16. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn't it take >vastly more intelligence to create a human? Why doesn't it take vastly more intelligence than that to create god? > Do you really believe that >hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough? Only if you want to strawman evolution, which clearly you do. > > 17. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA--which can >only be produced by DNA? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html > > 18. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got >there http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/moon/moon_formation.html >--any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data? Why aren't >students told the scientific reasons for rejecting all the evolutionary >theories for the moon's origin? There AREN'T any evolutionary theories for it because IT'S NOT PART OF EVOLUTION, YOU IGNORANT FUCK. IT'S PART OF ASTROPHYSICS/COSMOLOGY, YOU IGNORANT FUCK. > 19. Why won't qualified evolutionists enter into a written, scientific >debate? Because they don't want to dirty themselves with the laughable bullshit of creationists. > > 20. Would you like to explain the origin of any of the following >twenty-one features of the earth: No. I've humored you enough > If so, I will point out some obvious problems with your >explanation No, you won't. You will just point us to a place that closes its eyes and screams "gawddidit" over and over. --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:20:02 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <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 > It has a higher standard of evidence than courts do. The creationists have absolutely no evidence: they were thrown out of court and they have been thrown out of science. Your church would throw them out as liars if your church were honest. Apparently, it is not. Apparently, it worships lies like you 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.