Guest Martin Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Jun 20, 3:04 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182314491.538672.164...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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? > > My answer is above. I just checked the results of another poll in my Time > Almanac. The poll indicates that 37% are "religious" and 38% are "somewhat > religious". That adds up to 75% of Americans. That is probably the main > reason for the 88% figure that you mentioned in your post. No, the 88% figure comes from the 2004 Nat. Geo. article: if only 12% believe in evolution without a God then you're implying that 88% agree with you. > We are winning > the battle related to many of those people. We are losing the battle > related to the professors employed by state colleges. Actually, Jason, the 12% figure represents significant progress for the side of truth. That number goes up every year it seems. > Those colleges treat > the advocates of creation science and ID as second class citizens. Guess what, Jason, they also "discriminate" against people who have unaccredited degrees. Who knew? > They > are the establishment that I was speaking of in my above post. The > research facilities are also the establishment that I had in mind in the > above post--they also treat IDers as second class citizens. Journal > editors and the members of the peer review committees are part of the > establishment. Jason, you're not a "second class citizen" just because you have never had a paper published in a scientific journal. Get real. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Jun 20, 3:11 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182314683.191160.177...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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 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? > > > > > >> >You failed to answer my hypothethcal question. Let's say the > dogs were NOT > > > > >> >minature schnauzers but were the same size of minature schnauzers. You never apologized for this, Jason. You asked for a number and I gave you one. > > > > >> 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." > > Can you refer me to a site that has a picture of a Miacid? Have the bones > of miacids been found? Yes, although you really should do your own research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miacids "The miacids (Miacidae) were primitive carnivores which lived during the Paleocene and Eocene Epoch about 33-65 million years ago. Miacids evolved into the modern carnivorous mammals. "The miacids were small marten-like carnivores with long, little bodies, and long tails. Some species were arboreal, others lived on the ground. They probably fed on invertebrates, lizards, birds and smaller mammals like shrews and opossums. Their teeth and skull show that the miacids were less developed than the modern carnivores. They had Carnivora type carnassials but lacked fully ossified auditory bullae. They resembled Cimolestes, and this suggests that the order Carnivora evolved from a group of insectivores, related to Ungulates." Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 In article <1182314855.278076.182480@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@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: > > > > 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 Martin, No, it's not magic. Everything had a beginning. None of the elements came about as a result of chance--they came about as a result of the actions of an intelligent designer. Earth was placed the proper distance from the sun. Many of the 500 people have looked at the same evidence that you have looked at. They are as intelligent and as well educated as you are. They have Ph.D degrees. They came to the conclusion that an intelligent designer was the reason we have life on this earth. Many thousands of Americans have learned about evolution as a direct result of taking high school and college biology classes. Do the majority of those students that have taken those biology courses agree with you or do they agree with me? Here are the results of a poll ONLY 12 PERCENT OF AMERICANS BELIEVE THAT HUMANS EVOLVED FROM OTHER LIFE-FORMS WITHOUT ANY INVOLVEMENT FROM GOD. source: National Geographic (November, 2004) page 6 I don't blame the advocates of evolution for putting pressure on the editors of science journals to not publish articles written by the advocates of creation science or Intelligent Design. One of the reasons they do it because they know that if there were articles in every issue related to Intelligent Design that many of the readers would come to the conclusion that ID made more sense than evolution. That is also one of the main reasons they will fight in court to keep ID from being taught in the public schools. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 In article <1182314491.538672.164310@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 My answer is above. I just checked the results of another poll in my Time Almanac. The poll indicates that 37% are "religious" and 38% are "somewhat religious". That adds up to 75% of Americans. That is probably the main reason for the 88% figure that you mentioned in your post. We are winning the battle related to many of those people. We are losing the battle related to the professors employed by state colleges. Those colleges treat the advocates of creation science and ID as second class citizens. They are the establishment that I was speaking of in my above post. The research facilities are also the establishment that I had in mind in the above post--they also treat IDers as second class citizens. Journal editors and the members of the peer review committees are part of the establishment Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 In article <1182314683.191160.177330@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Can you refer me to a site that has a picture of a Miacid? Have the bones of miacids been found? Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Jun 17, 5:27 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <18e8739jjt2qgp1v3shki02bc5t0nms...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > > >In article <lo9873ta0bhvef6s89ul3msqrs9rkds...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > ><Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > > >> >I stated that I could not produce evidence (such as X-rays) but it's > > >> >possible that Cheryl Prewitt could produce evidence (such as X-rays and > > >> >medical records). I have not seen that evidence. I believe you and I > > >> >believe Cheryl so have no need to see physical evidence. > > > >> I would believe she recovered, on the testimony of a licensed > > >> physician specializing in her case, but I do not believe in miracles. > > >> If you read David Hume's "On Miracles" you will see why. > > > >>http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/hume-miracles.html > > > >> "...The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our > > >> attention), 'That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, > > >> unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be > > >> more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish....' > > >> When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I > > >> immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that > > >> this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, > > >> which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle > > >> against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, > > >> I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. ..." > > > >David Hume is entitled to his opinion. David Hume is free to contact > > >Cheryl Prewitt and request permission to examine her medical records. > > > I don't believe he is quite that free, these days, being dead and all. > > > But in any event, the lesser miracle would be that the medical records > > are fraudulent. > > Cheryl's audience is not people like you. ie educated people. > Her audience is fellow > Christians. ie the gullible. Quote
Guest cactus Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1182314491.538672.164310@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> 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 > > My answer is above. I just checked the results of another poll in my Time > Almanac. The poll indicates that 37% are "religious" and 38% are "somewhat > religious". That adds up to 75% of Americans. That is probably the main > reason for the 88% figure that you mentioned in your post. We are winning > the battle related to many of those people. You may be winning, but the nation loses as you do. We are losing the battle > related to the professors employed by state colleges. The brightest, you notice. Those colleges treat > the advocates of creation science and ID as second class citizens. Just like Lysenkoism, phlogiston theory, the luminiferous aether, and flat-earthism. They > are the establishment that I was speaking of in my above post. Of course you resent them because they don't buy in to your mythos. The > research facilities are also the establishment that I had in mind in the > above post--they also treat IDers as second class citizens. Academically speaking they are. Think of them as three year olds at an adult party. They simply lack the skills, experience and maturity to hang with the adults. Journal > editors and the members of the peer review committees are part of the > establishment Yep. And their job is to screen out the kooks and nut cases. They are doing a pretty good job in this regard. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Jun 20, 3:45 pm, cactus <b...@nonespam.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > Those colleges treat > > the advocates of creation science and ID as second class citizens. > > Just like Lysenkoism, phlogiston theory, the luminiferous aether and > flat-earthism. Or the Ptolemic earth-centered planetary system or spontaneous generation or the idea that schizophrenics were possessed or the idea that thunder storms meant the gods were angry or... Martin Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 Jason wrote: > > Are those 500 people that agree with me (that have Ph.D degrees) also stupid? There aren't 500 people with PhD's that agree with you, liar. As it's been pointed out, many of them don't even have ANY degree shown in that list (some simply "wrote a book" and others are engineers, etc.) Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f595lf$8pb$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f58j22$l19$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <A_KdnV1kkMdKjOrbnZ2dnUVZ_uPinZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish >>>>> <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Upon you request, I'll post an article that was printed in a peer > reviewed >>>>>>> science journal. I seem to recall that the editor of that science > journal >>>>>>> was fired. >>>> You REALLY need to work on that memory of yours. >>>> >>>> <quote> >>>> "He didn't lose his job, he didn't get his pay cut, he still has his >>>> research privileges, he still has his office," Scott says. "You know, >>>> what's his complaint? People weren't nice to him. Well, life is not fair." >>>> </quote> >>>> >>>>>> I'm looking forward to seeing this. >>>>> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508 >>>>> >>>>> scroll down and click on >>>>> >>>>> READ MEYER'S ARTICLE >>>>> >>>>> >>> It's my understanding that he lost his job as editor of the journal--is >>> that true? >> Damned, are you that illiterate? Re-re-re-re-read the above quoted >> paragraph (quoted from the very link you provided) until you understand >> what "He didn't lose his job, he didn't get his pay cut, he still has >> his research privileges, he still has his office" means. > > Yes, it states that he still has his job. It does NOT state whether or not > he is still editor of the journal. What, exactly, do you think his job IS? Sweeping floors? Being the editor IS part of his job. > For example, a local cop (according to the local newspaper) shot someone. > He was assigned a desk job but is not allowed to wear his uniform until > the investigation is finished. Does he still have a job? YES---Is he still > working as a cop? NO Then he doesn't still "have his job." He has ANOTHER job. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 Jason wrote: > In the way that John defined abiogenesis--it is an absolute proven > fact--read his definition. I define abiogenesis the same way that the > advocates of evoluition define it--(without God being involved). No, you define it in your own personal way. MANY creationists think that god actually produced the life 3 billion years ago and then just "let it run" via evolution. Abiogenesis happened. It's what CAUSED it to happen that's at issue. You'll find discussions to be a lot easier if you'd quit making up your own daffynitions for words. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 [snips] On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:38:56 -0400, Ralph wrote: >> I admire the 500 people on that list that I posted. They are willing to >> fight the Evolution establishment. They remind me of Copernicus and >> Galileo since they were also willing to fight the establishment. How does >> it feel to be a willing member of the Evolution establishment? > > How does it feel to be an ignorant creationist? How does it feel to be redundant? "Ignorant creationist". Like there's any other sort. -- "Could you continue your petty bickering? I find it most intriguing." Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 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. If a professor at an xian college said "there is no god. The stars were formed by natural causes" and that professor didn't get tenure, was he "discriminated against?" Jason, you are SO damned funny. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. You hold a lot of beliefs for which there's no basis. > > > >> 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. Perhaps YOU can answer it since YOU made the claim to begin with? >>>>> 339. Choong-Kuk Chang, PhD, Genetics, Princeton University. Described in >>>>> Creation Science In Korea. >>>>> >>> > > Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f58v13$1lh$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f53du2$4m0$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>> Martin referred me to a website that mentioned various >>>>> chemistry experiments related to abiogenesis. >>>> And did you actually read any of them? Of course not. >>> I speed read the detailed report. >> Did you actually COMPREHEND any of it? Let's do a little test. Go to one >> of the websites and summarize it for us. Don't worry about if you agree >> with it or not, just summarize what it says in a couple of paragraphs. > > Nice try--but I won't do it--people would take turns telling the details > that left out of the summary. I.e. you won't demonstrate that you actually comprehended anything in the website. How typically dishonest of you. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 Jason wrote: > My answer is above. I just checked the results of another poll in my Time > Almanac. The poll indicates that 37% are "religious" and 38% are "somewhat > religious". That adds up to 75% of Americans. That is probably the main > reason for the 88% figure that you mentioned in your post. We are winning > the battle related to many of those people. We are losing the battle > related to the professors employed by state colleges. Those colleges treat > the advocates of creation science and ID as second class citizens. They > are the establishment that I was speaking of in my above post. The > research facilities are also the establishment that I had in mind in the > above post--they also treat IDers as second class citizens. Journal > editors and the members of the peer review committees are part of the > establishment Why is it that people who should be in a position to know the answers (college professors, journalists, etc) are supposedly in some "mass conspiracy" when they claim A and the less-educated claim "No, it's B"? Does it REALLY make more sense that they're all lying to us or that maybe - just maybe - you don't really know as much about the issue as you think you do? Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 Martin wrote: > 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? Of course not. He's the almighty Jason; knower of knowledge, see-er of truth, the fount of all that is wisdom and righteousness. </extreme sarcasm> Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On 19 Jun., 16:17, Martin <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 19, 9:17 pm, gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > snip > > > > Excellent answer > > > > Coming from you that doesn't mean crap! > > > I suspect that he learned to throw in an occasional "good point!" or > > "excellent answer" in some Christian apologetics course and that they > > are inserted pretty much at random. They certainly have had no effect > > on his position. > > He probably says "Good point" or "Excellent answer" when he has no > idea what the poster said but wants to be able to claim later that he > did respond. > > Martin- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On 19 Jun., 18:31, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182261565.690686.247...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@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 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- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On 19 Jun., 18:34, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182258713.074819.221...@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 18 Jun., 21:38, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <nqvdi.5876$kR2.1...@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > > >news:Jason-1706071952180001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > > In article <1182127507.933282.87...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Ma= > > rtin > > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> On Jun 18, 4:54 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > >> > The audience of the staff members employed by ICR is not atheists. > > > > > >> Science is for everybody, Jason. Apparently religion is just for > > > > >> those who already believe. That's good to know because it means that > > > > >> when people get a clue then religious people should give up on them > > > > >> and the eventual trend will be for religion to one day disappear > > > > >> altogether. > > > > > >> Martin > > > > > > Martin, > > > > > I doubt that you read the article that I posted several days ago. The > > > > > author of the article indicated that the propondents of evolution wan= > > t to > > > > > marginalize the advocates of intelligent design. The main method of d= > > oing > > > > > this is by putting pressure on the editors of scientific journals to = > > not > > > > > publish any articles written by the advocates of intelligent design. = > > Upon > > > > > request, I'll post it again. > > > > > jason > > > > > It doesn't make any difference what the article says. The reason ID is > > > > published infrequently is because it isn't science. This was clearly > > > > established at Dover. > > > > There is another reason. The editors of science journals have a bias in > > > relation to articles written by advocates of ID and creation science. The > > > judges tell potential jury members that they should not be biased. The > > > editors of journals should not be biased. Proponents of evolution should > > > not put pressure on journal editors to not publish articles written by > > > advocates of ID or creation science. > > > Jason- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > And you should not accuse the editors of dishonest behavior without > > evidence, but you do anyway. > > I posted an article several days ago indicating that the proponents of > evolution are putting pressure on the editors of science journals to not > publish articles written by the advocates of creation science or ID. Do > you want me to try to find it on the web and post it again? > Jason- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On 19 Jun., 18:47, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f58ol9$qs...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > > > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <5Hidi.1090$P8....@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > >>news:Jason-1606072200250001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > >>> source: National Geographic--Nov 2004--article: "Was Darwin Wrong" > > > >> Since that appears to be the only NG that you have it appears that you > > >> purchased it based on the article "Was Darwin Wrong"? Of course we > both know > > >> that the answer in the NG was a resounding NO! > > > > Yes, you are correct. I still enjoyed the article. Actually, the answer was: > > > No: the evidence for Evolution is overwhelming. > > > If the article disagrees with your position, why do you insist on > > mentioning it? > > There was some information in the article that I had not seen before and I > had some questions about those issues. The experiments re: abiogenesis > seemed to me to support creation science instead of supporting evolution. > The advocates of creation science claim that evolution does take place but > only within "kinds". For example, a horses may evolve (or change) but they > continue to be horses. Fruit flies may evolve into a new species of fruit > flies but they will not evolve into another type or "kind" of insect. The > advocates of creation science usually call it adaption instead of > evolution. > > The author of the article mentioned the results of hundreds (or perhaps > thousands) of experiments that had been done on fruit flies and bacteria. > The end result of all of those experiments was that the fruit flies > continues to be fruit flies and the bacteria continued to be bacteria.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On 19 Jun., 18:50, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f58p6o$rf...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <dhia73p7j846pbim1ektn3h75dm58dr...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:50:26 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> <Jason-1606072150260...@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >>> In article <7c29735s3e2ff7nlm8mqtbeq7lnihmu...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > >>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > >> ... > > >>>> Belief is _never_ evidence under any circumstance. > > > >>>> Do you comprehend that simple fact? > > >>> When I was called for jury duty, we all had to listen to the judge tell us > > >>> some of the same information that you mentioned in your post. > > > >> Yet your posts show a total disregard for justice. You have made it > > >> clear that you would rather hang an innocent man than not find anyone > > >> guilty of a crime. > > > > I would make the judgement based on the physical evidence and the > > > testimonies of the witnesses. I agree that I would be pro-prosecution but > > > would not want to be responsible for sending an innocent man to prison. > > > That is the reason I would listen to the testimony and examine the > > > physical evidence. > > > What physical evidence? You already claimed you'd send the man to prison > > for life based on nothing more than 8 people saying "we heard him say > > 'I'll kill her' and then saw him walk into the room and fire a gun." > > In that case, there would have been NO physical evidence to examine. In > the above post, the question appeared to me to be unrelated to the > scenario that I mentioned in another post. In most cases, physical > evidence is involved. Yes, I would have voted to convict the husband of > that murder. > jason- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On 19 Jun., 19:08, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <4677E977.68603...@osu.edu>, Jim Burns <burns...@osu.edu> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > > In [respose to] article > > > <1182230648.471813.37...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > > George Chen <georgech...@yahoo.com> > > [...] > > > I feel sorry for all of the people that will go to hell > > > instead of going to heaven. > > > How do you feel when you realize you are more compassionate, > > a BETTER PERSON, than the God you believe in, even as > > sinful as you are? > > > Jason, a lot of people have told you that creationism is > > bad science, and it is. But, beyond that, you should be > > able to realize, even without a single science course, > > that biblical literalism is much worse theology than > > it is science. > > > Jim Burns > > Jim, > I understand your point but disagree with you. God does not want people to > go to hell (John 3:16). If people go to hell, it is NOT God's fault. Of course it is. He created hell. He can let everybody out. > Instead, it is the fault of the people that turned their backs on God. > Would atheists be happy in heaven? I doubt it. Heaven is for people that > enjoy worshipping God. I doubt that atheists would enjoy worshipping God > or following his rules. Atheists do not turn their backs on god. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On 19 Jun., 19:11, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On 19 Jun., 19:48, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <NuWdnbF_S-B9ferbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vn...@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > > > > > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > > Tell all of those Steves that I hope they have a wonderful life. They > > > should have a wonderful life since they are members of the evolution > > > establishment. If any of them are college professors--tell those Steves > > > not to worry--they will get their tenure when the time comes. Tell any of > > > those Steves that are closet creationists to keep it a secret so that they > > > will not become victims of discrimination by the evolution estabishment. > > > You need to work on that persecution complex. When ID > > proponents do real science and find an actual flaw in the > > Theory of Evolution, they will be rewarded with Nobel prizes > > for correcting the knowledge base of the human race, just > > like anyone else is, when they prove a major error in > > scientific knowledge. The reason they are so petulant is > > that they have no intention of doing science (finding out > > how the universe really works). > > > They have a preconceived conclusion and only want to find a > > way to force it upon others. That is not science. I think > > you also have some preconceived ideas you are trying to > > figure out how to persuade others to believe, rather than > > having an open mind about how the universe really works. > > That is why I.D. proponents seem reasonable to you. > > I had the college professor in mind that was denied tenure because he was > an advocate of creation science Which would have been the proper thing to do. >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.- Skjul tekst i anf 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.