Guest Jason Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 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". 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. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 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? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 In article <1182296011.654703.17860@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 Martin, Yes you did--thanks. Intelligent design is the reason we have heat, water and air. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 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. In other words, God created life and that is the reason scientists are not able to make it happen again. Quote
Guest David V. Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 Jason wrote: > John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> >>> 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. > > It will never happen to me. Such a closed mind is nothing to be proud of. -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 In article <1182296398.787445.208540@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 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. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 In article <1182295930.253657.10230@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 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 Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 In article <1182301402.572696.180560@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 That is great news. I am glad that he is still editor of that journal. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 In article <1182301939.137375.190330@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 I hope that more articles written by the advocates of creation science or ID are published in journals in the near future. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 In article <xrOdncNFw7FIHOXbnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > 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. It will never happen to me. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 In article <l61h735a6gj0ja8ck6911sh2s1b881tdlc@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > 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. Is that your way of not answering the question? Please answer the question. Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <xrOdncNFw7FIHOXbnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: (snip) >> 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. > > It will never happen to me. Damn! You shouldn't have said that. Now you have set an unstoppable sequence of events in motion, and you will certainly have it happen to you. I'll bow out now and check back in when it happens. Not to tell you I told you so, but to welcome you to reality. Bye for now. And good luck. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Jun 20, 10:18 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182295801.664622.91...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > <phippsmar...@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". > > As far as state colleges are concerned, Christians that are advocates of > creation science are lonely voices fighting against "the establishment". > 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. You didn't answer my implied question, Jason: if 88% of Americans believe as you do then it is the "evolutionists" who are fighting against the establishment. You can't have it both ways, can you? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Jun 20, 10:19 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <qgqg731ati2o3j6ukvvhmvhk40uooh4...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:31:53 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-1906071031530...@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <1182261263.411483.211...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > >Phipps <martinphip...@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. Only if you believe that lying is morally right. You obviously do. We don't. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Jun 20, 10:21 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <61tg73pp1ms1isdnmlviruvoff96opv...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:46:12 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-1806072146120...@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <5j8e73hj9cu6m5h2r2m91f5nssdq298...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 22:22:50 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> <Jason-1706072222500...@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> >In article <1182140066.278306.60...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > >> >Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> >> On Jun 18, 12:46 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> >> > In article <f54spi$kdh$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > >> >> > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > >> >> > > Jason wrote: > > >> >> > > > In article <f539gg$u7...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > >> >> > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> >> > > >> Jason wrote: > > >> >> > > >>> In article <brKdnS6w5O9iCenbnZ2dnUVZ_qfin...@sti.net>, > "David V." > > >> >> > > >>> <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> >> > > >>>> Jason wrote: > > >> >> > > >>>>> In order for lower life forms (living cells) to evolve into > > >> >higher life > > >> >> > > >>>>> forms (mammals)--major mutations would have been required. > > >> >> > > >>>> No, it would not. > > > >> >> > > >>>>> example: Hyracotherium evolving into Equus > > >> >> > > >>>> Which is why a hyracotherium did not evolve into an equus. > > > >> >> > > >>>> Evolution doesn't work that way.... and you know it. > > >> >> > > >>> Did you want me to mention all of the steps: > > > >> >> > > >>> step 1: Hyracotherium--"vaguely horselike creature" > > >> >> > > >>> step 2: Orohippus > > >> >> > > >>> step 3: Epihippus > > >> >> > > >>> step 4: Mesohippus > > >> >> > > >>> step 5: Dinohippus > > >> >> > > >>> step 6: Equus--"modern genus of horse" > > >> >> > > >> And that right there shows that "a hyracotherium did not > > >evolve into an > > >> >> > > >> equus." In fact, there wasn't just those 6 steps. There was > > >millions of > > >> >> > > >> steps where a hyracotherium evolved into antother hyracotherium > > >> >that was > > >> >> > > >> just the tiniest bit different. Then that one evolved into > > >another that > > >> >> > > >> was a tiniest bit different, etc. Eventually these differences > > >added up > > >> >> > > >> enough to where we no longer called it a Hyracotherium but > instead > > >> >> > > >> called it a Orohippus. But there wasn't any point where some > > >animal was > > >> >> > > >> 2' tall and then all of a sudden its immediate offspring were > > >4' tall > > >> >> > > >> like cretinists like to make it look. > > > >> >> > > >> It didn't take a major mutation but simply required thousands or > > >> >> > > >> millions of tiny ones. > > > >> >> > > > I understand your points. Is it possible that some of the > > >mutations were > > >> >> > > > major mutatations (eg related to size)? It's my understanding > > >that the > > >> >> > > > Hyracotherium was about the same size as a German shepard > > >dog--is that > > >> >> > > > true? > > >> >> > > > jason > > > >> >> > > No idea about the size of that animal. > > > >> >> > > But how is a bigger size a major mutation? Apart from the fact > > >that just > > >> >> > > for size you don't even NEED mutation. > > > >> >> > In relation to size, for the sake of discussion, let's say the > the only > > >> >> > canines that were in the world 1 billion years a ago were 10 pairs of > > >> >> > minature schnauzers. How long would it take for them to be the size of > > >> >> > Saint Bernards? > > > >> >> Did your creation-believing biology professor fail to tell you that > > >> >> dog breeds have developed over the past 10 000 years as a result of > > >> >> selective breeding by mankind? Some teacher, huh? > > > >> >> Martin > > > >> >You failed to answer my hypothethcal question. Let's say the dogs were NOT > > >> >minature schnauzers but were the same size of minature schnauzers. > > > >> 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? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canidae "Miacids evolved into the Canidae family about 40 million years ago in the late Eocene to early Oligocene. Wolves, foxes, coyotes, jackals and eventually dogs all evolved from the Canidae family. The Canidae family evolved into three subfamilies: Hesperocyoninae (~38-15 Ma), Borophaginae (~36-2 Ma), and the Caninae lineage that led to present- day Canidae inclusive of modern-day wolves, foxes, coyotes, jackals and dogs (Canis familiaris). Similar to the ancestry of the dog was the Hesperocyoninae lineage that led to the coyote-sized Mesocyon of the Oligocene (38-24 Ma). Tomarctus, a wolf/dog-like carnivore, was a Borophaginae that roamed North America some 10 million years ago. From the time of Tomarctus, dog-like carnivores have expanded throughout the world. Cynodictis, also a Borophaginae, emerged about 20 million year ago in the Oligocene and also resembled the modern dog. Its fifth toe showed signs of shorting (signs of the development of the dewclaw). The fox-like Leptocyon was a descendant that branched off from the Caninae lineage. Although the civet resembles a cat more than a dog it is said to be a living resemblance of the Cynodictis." Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Jun 20, 10:32 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182296011.654703.17...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > 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. > > Yes you did--thanks. Intelligent design is the reason we have heat, water > and air. Heat is infrared radiation. Water is bihydrogen monoxide. Air is mostly nitrogen. This is chemistry and physics. It's not magic. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Jun 20, 10:37 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182296746.299166.319...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@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? > 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. In other words, God created life and > that is the reason scientists are not able to make it happen again. Nor, apparently, can your god. You should be able to prove that abiogenesis is possible through prayer. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Jun 20, 10:44 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182296398.787445.208...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > 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. > God had a reason for everything he done. God hasn't done anything. Why not? Because he doesn't exist. See, Jason? Atheism makes all your theological conundrums simply go away. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Jun 20, 10:53 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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. Because Christian Colleges don't discriminate against people, do they? XD Jason, you've made my day. Seriously. You are SO funny. Thank you. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Jun 20, 11:21 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182301402.572696.180...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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. > That is great news. I am glad that he is still editor of that journal. Don't count on his publishing any more ID papers. What "new information" do you suppose they have to offer? Creation "science", 100 AD: "God did it." .... Creation "science", 1800 AD: "God did it." Creation "science", 1900 AD: "God did it." Creation "science", 2000 AD: "God did it." Unless they have something new to say, there's no need to write a new paper. Perhaps Meyers should focus on trying to get his paper published somewhere else. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Jun 20, 11:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182301939.137375.190...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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. > I hope that more articles written by the advocates of creation science or > ID are published in journals in the near future. Saying what exactly? Do they have anything new to say? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Jun 20, 11:32 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <xrOdncNFw7FIHOXbnZ2dnUVZ_hOdn...@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <qgqg731ati2o3j6ukvvhmvhk40uooh4...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > <l...@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. > > It will never happen to me. You have never been wrong or you have never admitted to being wrong? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Jun 20, 2:50 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182314855.278076.182...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 20, 10:32 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1182296011.654703.17...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 20, 1:55 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > Yes you did--thanks. Intelligent design is the reason we have heat, water > > > and air. > > > Heat is infrared radiation. > > > Water is bihydrogen monoxide. > > > Air is mostly nitrogen. > > > This is chemistry and physics. It's not magic. > No, it's not magic. Thank you. We're finally done here. Martin 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.