Guest Free Lunch Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:31:26 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1906070931260001@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1182261565.690686.247000@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 19, 3:20 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1182230164.715111.147...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, George >> > Chen <georgech...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > On Jun 19, 1:43 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > > In article <1182218071.284270.86...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, >Martin >> > >> > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > > > On Jun 19, 3:01 am, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > > > > Jason wrote: >> > >> > > > > > > There is another reason. The editors of science journals have >> > > > > > > a bias in relation to articles written by advocates of ID and >> > > > > > > creation science. >> > >> > > > > > And it is a well deserved bias. The creationists (ID is just >> > > > > > creationism in a pretty package for resale) have no scientific >> > > > > > basis for their arguments. Every one of them is a perversion of >> > > > > > what evolution actually is. >> > >> > > > > > > The judges tell potential jury members that they should not be >> > > > > > > biased. >> > >> > > > > They also tell jury members to consider the evidence. When a case >> > > > > lacks any evidence, it is automatically thrown out of court. Is that >> > > > > bias? >> > >> > > > No. >> > >> > > Then the requirement that creationists should offer evidence to back >> > > up their claims is not bias, is it? >> > >> > As others have told me--science works different than courts. >> >> You didn't answer the question. If a publisher refuses to publish a >> paper on the basis that there was no evidence supporting the author's >> conclusion then that is not bias, is it? >> >> Martin > >Yes, it is bias. The editors and the members of the peer review committees >should treat every article just the same. They do. They throw out all papers that don't have evidence. >They should not discriminate >against any author. There are aspects of abiogenesis that are based on >speculation instead of evidence. Even Francis Creek claims there are some >serious problems with some aspects of abiogenesis. He believes that life >never evolved from non-life on this planet. For those reasons, should the >editors of journals discriminate against the advocates of evolution--my >answer--of course not. They should not discriminate against any authors. >Jason > You love your lies. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:42:11 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1806072242110001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1182217881.318600.209010@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 19, 3:38 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <nqvdi.5876$kR2.1...@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> > >news:Jason-1706071952180001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > > > In article <1182127507.933282.87...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, >Martin >> > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > >> On Jun 18, 4:54 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > >> > > >> > The audience of the staff members employed by ICR is not atheists. >> > >> > > >> Science is for everybody, Jason. Apparently religion is just for >> > > >> those who already believe. That's good to know because it means that >> > > >> when people get a clue then religious people should give up on them >> > > >> and the eventual trend will be for religion to one day disappear >> > > >> altogether. >> >> > > > I doubt that you read the article that I posted several days ago. The >> > > > author of the article indicated that the propondents of evolution >want to >> > > > marginalize the advocates of intelligent design. The main method >of doing >> > > > this is by putting pressure on the editors of scientific journals to not >> > > > publish any articles written by the advocates of intelligent >design. Upon >> > > > request, I'll post it again. >> > >> > > It doesn't make any difference what the article says. The reason ID is >> > > published infrequently is because it isn't science. This was clearly >> > > established at Dover. >> > >> > There is another reason. The editors of science journals have a bias in >> > relation to articles written by advocates of ID and creation >> >> They have a bias towards research that is actually supported by >> evidence and against hypotheses for which no evidence exists, yes. >> >> Martin > >Have you read about Copernicus and Galileo? Back in those days the >establishment was the Roman Catolic Church. Copernicus and Galileo were >fighting against the establishment. The new establishment is Evolution. >Those 500 people on the list that I published are (like Copernicus and >Galileo) fighting against the establishment. The editor of the journal >that published an article written by an advocate of ID was also fighting >the establishment. The professor that was denied tenune was fighting the >establishment. Even Francis Crick is fighting the establishment. > >How does it feel to be part of the establishment? > You keep repeating that because it is a lie. You are still defending the lies of the Inquisition. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:50:36 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1906071150360001@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >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? > When it comes to creationism. Still, I doubt that you could get those 500 to say that they have scientific evidence that supports their rejection of evolution in favor of creationism. You are still misrepresenting what they said. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 12:07:24 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1906071207240001@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <sIUdi.335$1a.142@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > .... >> >> Quite frankly they shouldn't have to be encouraged. If there is no science >> there should be no article. Tell me Jason. what are the main tenets of ID >> and how do we test them? > >I don't know--someone posted the tenets of creation science. > And they were not testable because they were religious dogma, not science. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:24:50 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1806072124500001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <z_Edi.1985$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. > No, they do not merely have Ph.D.s. They are engaged in studying life science. How many of your supposed 500 are actually engage in life science today? Of course, you don't wish them well, because they are proving every day that you teach lies with your religious doctrines. Too bad for you. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:48:14 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1906071048150001@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <NuWdnbF_S-B9ferbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish ><jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> >> > Tell all of those Steves that I hope they have a wonderful life. They >> > should have a wonderful life since they are members of the evolution >> > establishment. If any of them are college professors--tell those Steves >> > not to worry--they will get their tenure when the time comes. Tell any of >> > those Steves that are closet creationists to keep it a secret so that they >> > will not become victims of discrimination by the evolution estabishment. >> >> You need to work on that persecution complex. When ID >> proponents do real science and find an actual flaw in the >> Theory of Evolution, they will be rewarded with Nobel prizes >> for correcting the knowledge base of the human race, just >> like anyone else is, when they prove a major error in >> scientific knowledge. The reason they are so petulant is >> that they have no intention of doing science (finding out >> how the universe really works). >> >> They have a preconceived conclusion and only want to find a >> way to force it upon others. That is not science. I think >> you also have some preconceived ideas you are trying to >> figure out how to persuade others to believe, rather than >> having an open mind about how the universe really works. >> That is why I.D. proponents seem reasonable to you. > >I had the college professor in mind that was denied tenure because he was >an advocate of creation science when I mentioned one of my points about >"closet creationists" in the above post. Your made some good point in your >post. ID proponents do need to do more real science. > ID proponents don't do any science. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 12:48:39 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1906071248390001@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <LdVdi.349$1a.26@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: .... >> Since this list was totally voluntary I doubt that you will find any closet >> creationists. > >Thanks for your post. The Steves appear to be conformists. Unlike the 500 >people that I mentioned, the Steves are part of the status quo. > Reality is a strong bias for most people. Unfortunately, you are one of the people who refuses to allow reality to control his thinking. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:44:45 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1906071144450001@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <f58lrb$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. > You wouldn't have any idea if that were the case or not. You are too proud of your ignorance to even try to explain what is going on in abiogenesis research today, yet you somehow are able to claim that you know they are wrong. You are a fool. -- "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 12:38:17 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1906071238170001@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >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. > Then he lied to you, didn't he, but since his lies agreed with the lies you like to tell, you don't care that he lied to you. You mock God with your foolishness. > >> >> 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 Free Lunch Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:46:12 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <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? > God made you really stupid. I thought that every kid learned that by about third grade: wolves. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Jun 20, 1:30 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:Jason-1906071011210001@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <f58q2b$sc...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > >> Jason wrote: > >> > In article <f53are$o...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >> > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > >> >> Jason wrote: > >> >>> I don't believe that you understood my point. It's probably because I > >> >>> done > >> >>> a poor job of explaining my point. I'll try again. > >> >> No, it's because your point was wrong. > > >> >>> Let's say (for the sake of discussion) a scientist (that is an > >> >>> advocated > >> >>> of evolution and abiogenesis) makes this statement in an article or a > >> >>> book: > > >> >>> "We had a time when there was no life. We now have life. Thus, it is > >> >>> logical to conclude that life naturally evolved from non-life." > >> >> No reputable scientist would say such a thing so it's a meaningless > >> >> question. > > >> >>> Would you conceed that most of the advocates of abiogenesis and > >> >>> evolution > >> >>> theory agree with the above statement? > >> >> No. > > >> >> If your answer is yes, this is the > >> >>> problem: > > >> >>> There are at least three possible causes of life evolving from > >> >>> non-life: > > >> >>> 1. abiogenesis > >> >> Get a clue. You've already admitted that abiogenesis happened. > > >> >> John Baker: Actually, Jason, abiogenesis is an absolute proven fact. > >> >> Whether it came about through divine intervention or by purely natural > >> >> means, at some point in the planet's history, life did arise from > >> >> non-life. We both agree on that. We just disagree about how it > >> >> happened. > > >> >> Jason: Excellent point. > > >> >> #1 should be "natural causes." > > >> >>> 2. intelligent design > >> >> OK, any evidence that a god exists to have done this designing? Also > >> >> how > >> >> did this god come about? > > >> >>> 3. ancient astronauts > >> >> And who caused them to come to be? > > >> >>> The scientist (mentioned above) failed to take intelligent design or > >> >>> ancient astronauts into consideration. He just assumed that "life > >> >>> naturally evolved from non-life". > >> >> And that's why he wouldn't have said what you tried to make him say. > > >> >>> I mentioned that many advocates of evolution and abiogenesis don't > >> >>> know > >> >>> the difference between speculation and evidence. > >> >> No, you've claimed that but you're only proving that YOU are the one > >> >> who > >> >> doesn't have a clue as to the difference. > > >> >>> This leads to another question: Is the statement of the above > >> >>> mentioned > >> >>> scientist based on evidence or speculation that life naturally > >> >>> evolved > >> >>> from non-life. > >> >> Why do you come up with these fantasies and expect us to comment on > >> >> them? It's about as useless as asking "who is faster, superman or the > >> >> flash?" > > >> > Thanks for your post. You explained your point of view very well. I'll > >> > try > >> > to remember to stop stating, "Good Point" because that would cause > >> > people > >> > to think that I agreed with every point. > > >> You need to stop saying "good point" or "excellent answer" altogether > >> because we both know that you don't pay any attention at all to the > >> point (otherwise you wouldn't come up with the same crap 5 minutes later > >> that the point addressed.) > > > I get accused of not responding to posts if I don't write something. I do > > read every post unless derogatory language is used. > > Answering you almost mandates derogatory language. Are "liar" and "idiot" derogatory remarks when used to refer to Jason? I actually think they are more descriptive. How many times does Jason have to lie before we brand him as a liar? How many subjects does he have to demonstrate ignorance of before we can refer to him as an "idiot"? I happen to think I've been very patient with him overall. And, yes, "lying piece of shit" is definitely a derogatory remark but I reserve that for when he accuses me of not "failing to answer" his questions. It's fair to respond to an insult with an insult. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Jun 20, 2:49 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f58j22$l1...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <A_KdnV1kkMdKjOrbnZ2dnUVZ_uPin...@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > > > >>> Upon you request, I'll post an article that was printed in a peer reviewed > > >>> science journal. I seem to recall that the editor of that science journal > > >>> was fired. > > > You REALLY need to work on that memory of yours. > > > <quote> > > "He didn't lose his job, he didn't get his pay cut, he still has his > > research privileges, he still has his office," Scott says. "You know, > > what's his complaint? People weren't nice to him. Well, life is not fair." > > </quote> > > > >> I'm looking forward to seeing this. > > > >http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508 > > > > scroll down and click on > > > > READ MEYER'S ARTICLE > > It's my understanding that he lost his job as editor of the journal--is > that true? No. In fact, the work he did for the journal was considered extra curricular work outside of his work as a researcher. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Jun 20, 2:50 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182261659.556884.283...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 19, 3:29 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1182229523.902724.128...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, George > > > > Chen <georgech...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 19, 1:31 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > In article > > <1182221224.581834.111...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 19, 9:02 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > In article <jXEdi.1981$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. > Are those 500 people that agree with me (that have Ph.D degrees) also stupid? Either stupid or deliberate liars. Not that one possibility is exclusive of the other. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Jun 20, 1:51 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:Jason-1806072251380001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <GvWdnakHpKUSturbnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > > >> Jason wrote: > >> > 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 > > >> 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. > > Quite frankly they shouldn't have to be encouraged. I think proponents of ID should be encouraged to do actual science. That's not what they are doing right now. To say "It's too complex to have happened by chance" is not a scientific argument because natural selection is not a random process: it's a stocastic process, yes, but it is biased in favour of those species that are best fit to survive. Apparently complexity is an advantage. > 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 think the editor was right in printing the article but I agree with John Popelish that the author should have framed his arguments with more scientific language (say for example "apparently discontinuous" as opposed to "discontinuous" because the latter assumes what he wants to prove and reveals his bias). I can only imagine what the article would have looked like before the peer review! I don't see the problem anyway: a poorly written article is easily refuted anyway. Does John Popelish have a Ph.D. in biology? It's sad that he can tear the paper apart so easily then. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Jun 20, 1:56 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:Jason-1806072219310001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <_5Fdi.1993$C31.1...@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Please give examples of Crick's research in abiogenesis. > > > I have not read his book which is entitled: "Life Itself: Its Origin and > > Nature" > > (1981) > > > I don't know what sort of research that Francis Crick has done in recent > > years--perhaps it was related to reading lots of science journals and > > learning the results of various experiments. I am guessing. > > Let me give you a small lesson in science. In the field of abiogenesis, 1981 > was eons ago. Of course this is true of most science books. When I purchase > a book for my library I won't but a book that is older than five years. You > should also be extremely wary of old science quotes. I remember my older brother's astronomy textbook saying that there were "canals" on Mars. The pictures of the planets were all artist's impressions as the Voyager spacecraft had not yet taken pictures of the planets by that time. Martin Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <qgqg731ati2o3j6ukvvhmvhk40uooh4toj@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> You have picked the side of evil. > > I disagree. Christians represent the forces of light. I understand that you believe this. But believing it does not necessarily make it so. Someday you may examine this belief among others and decide that you have been wrong about a lot of things. It happened to me. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Jun 20, 3:07 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <sIUdi.335$1a....@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-1806072251380001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <GvWdnakHpKUSturbnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > > >> > 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 > > > >> 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. http://www.icr.org/home/faq/ ICR holds to certain tenets. By Scientific Creationism, ICR believes: The physical universe of space, time, matter and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity. The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator. (Prove that the "Creator" exists.) Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variations) within the kinds, or "downward" changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions). (Prove that anything was "created".) The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life. (Prove that human beings were "created".) The record of earth history, as preserved in the earth's crust, especially in the rocks and fossil deposits, is primarily a record of catastrophic intensities of natural processes, operating largely within uniform natural laws, rather than one of gradualism and relatively uniform process rates. There are many scientific evidences for a relatively recent creation of the earth and the universe, in addition to strong scientific evidence that most of the earth's fossiliferous sedimentary rocks were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm. (Prove that the Earth was "created".) Processes today operate primarily within fixed natural laws and relatively uniform process rates, but since these were themselves originally created and are daily maintained by their Creator, there is always the possibility of miraculous intervention in these laws or processes by their Creator. Evidences for such intervention should be scrutinized critically, however, because there must be clear and adequate reason for any such action on the part of the Creator. (Prove that the "Creator" exists. Also note that "evidence" is non countable.) The universe and life have somehow been impaired since the completion of creation, so that imperfections in structure, disease, aging, extinctions and other such phenomena are the result of "negative" changes in properties and processes occurring in an originally perfect created order. Since the universe and its primary components were created perfect for their purposes in the beginning by a competent and volitional Creator, and since the Creator does remain active in this now decaying creation, there do exist ultimate purposes and meanings in the universe. Teleological considerations, therefore, are appropriate in scientific studies whenever they are consistent with the actual data of observation. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that the creation presently awaits the consummation of the Creator's purpose. (Prove that the "Creator" exists.) Although people are finite and scientific data concerning origins are always circumstantial and incomplete, the human mind (if open to the possibility of creation) is able to explore the manifestations of that Creator rationally, scientifically, and teleologically. (Prove that the "Creator" exists.) Martin Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:18:18 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1906071918180001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1182295801.664622.91750@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 > >As far as state colleges are concerned, Christians that are advocates of >creation science are lonely voices fighting against "the establishment". As far as reality is concerned 'Christians' who are advocates of 'creation science' are liars. They have no excuse for refusing to accept reality. >If you don't believe me, talk to the professor that was denied tenure >mainly because he was an advocate of creation science. If he had been an >advocate of evolution, it's my guess that he would have been granted >tenure. I told you the story of the professor that humiliated Christians >related to the life boat scenario. I have no respect for your opinion because you advocate lying. I don't care whether you are a Christian or not. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:19:54 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1906071919550001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <qgqg731ati2o3j6ukvvhmvhk40uooh4toj@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> 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. > >I disagree. Christians represent the forces of light. > Christians might, you do not. You advocate lies and ignorance. I see no evidence at all that you are Christian. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:21:19 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1906071921190001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <61tg73pp1ms1isdnmlviruvoff96opv5gi@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:46:12 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <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? >> > >> God made you really stupid. I thought that every kid learned that by >> about third grade: wolves. > >What was the precursor of wolves? > You don't care at all. You have demonstrated that. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:37:51 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1906071937510001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1182296746.299166.319350@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 > >Martin, >When I made the point: "If it happened once then scientists should be able >to make it happen again"--this is the point that I was trying to make: > >Since the scientists have not made it happen again--the reason is because >that was not the way life came to be. False. you have just invoked thefoolish argument most commonly called the God of the Gaps. >In other words, God created life and >that is the reason scientists are not able to make it happen again. There is no evidence that any god exists or did anything. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:44:45 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1906071944460001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1182296398.787445.208540@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: .... >> >> 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 > >God had a reason for everything he done. God knows his reason but the most >we can do is to make guesses related to his reasons. I don't even have any >guesses as to why God made the other planets. We see thru a mirrow darkly >[while we are on this earth] but one day [when we are in heaven] all >things will be clear to us. > Why did He make you tell lies so you make Christians look dishonest? -- "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:53:47 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1906071953470001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1182295930.253657.10230@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > .... >> 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 > >Martin, >I hope that professor gets a job at a Christian college where he will not >be discriminated against and will be able to get tenure. >jason > Yes, he should be allowed to tell lies to people who want to hear those lies. 'Christians' like Jason don't want to be educated. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 In article <1ujg735ajfu31vkopcbikhgrehtk7j56nv@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > 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? It's an accredited college. You would have to google the name of the college to find out the name of the organization that accredited them. I transferred to a state college after I graduated from Ferrum Junior College. They accepted all of my credits. Jason Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:11:34 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1906072011340001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <n0rg73psrrnu9dcvs7dn0msp8odt9qg7ju@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> 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. > >According to the Nov 2004 issue of National Geographic (page 6) only 12 >percent of Americans believe that humans evolved from other life-forms >without any involvement from God. > It's sad how many Americans are ignorant or misinformed about evolution because of the concerted efforts of liars who call themselves Christians. -- "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis 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.