Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On 19 Jun., 19:51, 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. > > > Martin > > Martin, > Do you believe the college professor that was denied tenure felt > discriminated against?- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1906071919550001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <qgqg731ati2o3j6ukvvhmvhk40uooh4toj@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:31:53 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1906071031530001@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <1182261263.411483.211720@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, >> >Martin >> >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> ... >> >> >> >> So there are at least 504 fraudulent idiots in the world. So what? >> >> >> >> Martin >> > >> >Galileo and Copernicus had to face the establishment without the help of >> >anyone. At least, we have at least 500 people fighting against the >> >evolution establishment. I don't blame the proponents of evolution for >> >putting pressure on the editors of science journals to not publish >> >articles written by advocates of creation science and intelligent >> >design. >> >They are worried about the competition. >> > >> Jason, listen, almost none of the 500 that you are referring to are >> biologists. Secondly, they are the ones who are on the side of ignorance >> and darkness. Galileo and Copernicus were the good guys, just as science >> is today. You are supporting the forces of ignorance and darkness, just >> as the Church did back then. >> >> You have picked the side of evil. > > I disagree. Christians represent the forces of light. Yeah, keep telling yourself that. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote snip > Martin, > Yes you did--thanks. Intelligent design is the reason we have heat, water > and air. Why are you lying? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2006071105530001@66-52-22-61.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <f5b79s$blf$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > >> > Are those 500 people that agree with me (that have Ph.D degrees) also > stupid? >> >> There aren't 500 people with PhD's that agree with you, liar. As it's >> been pointed out, many of them don't even have ANY degree shown in that >> list (some simply "wrote a book" and others are engineers, etc.) > > Are you stating that no engineers have Ph.D degrees? Are you stating that > none of the people that write books have Ph.D degrees? No, he is stating what is written above. How in the hell you came up with your questions form what he wrote is known only to you and your god, and right now he isn't sure. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2006071114230001@66-52-22-61.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <f5b87e$cf8$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In the way that John defined abiogenesis--it is an absolute proven >> > fact--read his definition. I define abiogenesis the same way that the >> > advocates of evoluition define it--(without God being involved). >> >> No, you define it in your own personal way. MANY creationists think that >> god actually produced the life 3 billion years ago and then just "let it >> run" via evolution. Abiogenesis happened. It's what CAUSED it to happen >> that's at issue. >> >> You'll find discussions to be a lot easier if you'd quit making up your >> own daffynitions for words. > > Are you stating that when an athiest makes use of the term "abiogenesis" > that the atheist is indicating that he believes that God was involved in > abiogenesis? Jason has apparently totally lost the ability to read for comprehension. What the man is sating is what he stated! Read the damn post!! Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 In article <f5b79s$blf$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > > > Are those 500 people that agree with me (that have Ph.D degrees) also stupid? > > There aren't 500 people with PhD's that agree with you, liar. As it's > been pointed out, many of them don't even have ANY degree shown in that > list (some simply "wrote a book" and others are engineers, etc.) Are you stating that no engineers have Ph.D degrees? Are you stating that none of the people that write books have Ph.D degrees? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 In article <f5b7gi$blf$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > 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. Researcher--I was informed by someone else that he still has a job as a researcher and the editor of the journal. > > > For example, a local cop (according to the local newspaper) shot someone. > > He was assigned a desk job but is not allowed to wear his uniform until > > the investigation is finished. Does he still have a job? YES---Is he still > > working as a cop? NO > > Then he doesn't still "have his job." He has ANOTHER job. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 In article <f5b87e$cf8$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In the way that John defined abiogenesis--it is an absolute proven > > fact--read his definition. I define abiogenesis the same way that the > > advocates of evoluition define it--(without God being involved). > > No, you define it in your own personal way. MANY creationists think that > god actually produced the life 3 billion years ago and then just "let it > run" via evolution. Abiogenesis happened. It's what CAUSED it to happen > that's at issue. > > You'll find discussions to be a lot easier if you'd quit making up your > own daffynitions for words. Are you stating that when an athiest makes use of the term "abiogenesis" that the atheist is indicating that he believes that God was involved in abiogenesis? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 In article <f5b8vs$d9i$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > 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. > >>>>> > >>> > > > > Yes, I think that these fields are indirectly related to evolution: microbiology, biochemistry, and biology. I don't know whether or not Physics is indirectly related to evolution. I believe that various people have misunderstood this fact: This is NOT a list of scientists that are involved in evolution related fields. Instead, the title of the list is: List of Intellectual Doubters of Darwinism Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 In article <1182348090.555329.173350@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > 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 y= > ou > > > >> 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 answ= > er 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.- S= > kjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > The experiment with fruit flies produced speciation. You have been > told that, but, as usual, you ignore facts. Yes, that is true. The researchers involved in fruit fly research did produce a new species. Did the fruit flies evolve into a different type of insect? The answer is NO. They produced a new species of fruit flies. If the fruit flies had evolved into a different type of insect--that would be evidence for evolution. Most everyone has seen that famous chart that is inside many biology class rooms. The chart shows a creature that looks like a monkey on the left side of the chart and a human being on the right side of the chart. The advocates of evolution do NOT claim that the monkey type creature evolved into various other monkey type creatures. Instead, they claim that it eventually evolved (after many steps) into human beings. The fruit fly experiments are not evidence for evolution. If the fruit flies had evolved into a different type insect--that would have been evidence for evolution. That leads me to believe that the monkey type creature NEVER evolved into mankind--instead--those creatures evolved into a new species of monkeys in much the same way that the fruit flies evolved into a new species of fruit flies. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 In article <1182348182.409232.265850@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > 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 priso= > n=2E > > > > 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=F8rselstegn - > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > You have totally and, no doubt, delibrately missed the point that > there was no evidence of a murder let alone evidence against the > person charged. I disagree. I'll give you an example. This really happened: A young man attended a party. Almost everyone that attended that party were students at the local state college. When the party was almost over, the young man was observed leaving the party with a young girl that was a college student at the state college. That young girl MAY have been murdered by that young man. Her body has NEVER been found. The cops searched the land fills since they believed he may have placed her body in a dumpster after he murdered her. They did not find her body. They were building a new facility at the college so he MAY have buried her under the soft dirt. If so, she is still under that building. The cops know that he murdered that girl. The police captain appeared on television and stated that they would arrest the young man and charge him with first degree murder if they were able to find the body. Several days ago, the cops dug up the yard of his parents and did not find a body. The witnesses at that party would be the main evidence--if the body had been found. A lady that he attempted to date rape--may also be a witness. I know the father of that woman that was almost date raped. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 In article <1182348318.114973.155980@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > 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. They don't even believe that God exists which is even worse than turning their backs on God. Would atheists enjoy worshipping God for the rest of eternity? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2006071213350001@66-52-22-61.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1182348318.114973.155980@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> 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. > > They don't even believe that God exists which is even worse than turning > their backs on God. Would atheists enjoy worshipping God for the rest of > eternity? They might if they thought your tales of mythology were true. So much for 'free will', eh Jason? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 In article <1182348442.506426.304380@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > 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 advo= > cated > > > >>> 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 evo= > lution > > > >>> 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 natur= > al > > > >> 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 happe= > ned. > > > > > >> 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 menti= > oned > > > >>> scientist based on evidence or speculation that life naturally evol= > ved > > > >>> 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'l= > l try > > > > to remember to stop stating, "Good Point" because that would cause pe= > ople > > > > 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=F8= > rselstegn - > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > Which has nothing to do with your saying "good point", when clearly > you do not think so. I'll give you an example--someone provided a very detailed excellent summary of abiogenesis. It was an "excellent post" and he made some "good points". I did not agree with all of his points--but he did make excellent points related to his point of view. When I attended the creation science versus evolution debate, I conceeded that the professor made some good points but I did not agree that he was correct related to his points. jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 In article <f5baj2$e5n$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > 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? The college professors, editors of journals, etc. are part of the establishment that I mentioned in my post. Are they lying to us or don't really know as much about the issue as you think they do? My answer: No--it's more complicated--In much the same way that the Catholics in the days of Copernicus and Galileo believed they were correct related to their theories--the advocates of evolution believe they are correct related to their theories. At the very least, they should allow students to attend classes that have are taught by Professors that are advocates of Intelligent Design. Those could be optional classes that are not required classes. Do you think that state colleges would allow such classes to be taught? The answer is NO. At least one of those colleges (Columbia) will allow a professor to teach a class related to the history of withcraft but they would never allow a professor to teach a class related to Intelligent Design. The advocates of evolution do not want students to learn about Intelligent Design in state colleges. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 In article <f5b8os$d9i$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > 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. As far as I know, he was not assigned to teach classes related to creation science or intelligent design. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 In article <1182348733.546339.193440@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > On 19 Jun., 19:51, 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>, Ma= > rtin > > > > <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 t= > o fall > > > > > > > > > for it and your assumption that we are is insulting. Your a= > ppeal > > > > > > > > > to authority is another insulting argument. Just because th= > ey > > > > > > > > > have a PhD does not automatically give them credibility. I= > t is > > > > > > > > > also well known that many creationists that claim to have d= > egrees > > > > > > > > > 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 t= > hat > > > > have Ph.D > > > > > > > > degrees do not have legitimate Ph.D degrees? If so, please ma= > ke 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 majorit= > y of > > > > > > > them don't even have publications listed. How is it possible f= > or 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 mai= > n goal > > > > > > was to list the names of the people. I doubt that he was concerne= > d with > > > > > > providing details about publications. I admire those 500 people. = > We both > > > > > > know what happened to the professor that was an advocate of creat= > ion > > > > > > 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 t= > hen > > > > > 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 Stev= > es > > > > not to worry--they will get their tenure when the time comes. Tell an= > y of > > > > those Steves that are closet creationists to keep it a secret so that= > they > > > > will not become victims of discrimination by the evolution estabishme= > nt. > > > > > 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. > > > > > Martin > > > > Martin, > > Do you believe the college professor that was denied tenure felt > > discriminated against?- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > Perhaps he did. That does not mean that he was. It could also mean that he was discriminated against. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 In article <1182348668.210600.272810@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > 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 Stev= > es > > > > not to worry--they will get their tenure when the time comes. Tell an= > y of > > > > those Steves that are closet creationists to keep it a secret so that= > they > > > > will not become victims of discrimination by the evolution estabishme= > nt. > > > > > 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= > =F8rselstegn - > > > > You are trying to imply that they have done any science at all, > thereby lying about the point being made. I don't know anything about research that has been done by ID proponents. According to the ICR newsletter, they do conduct research related to creation science--mainly related to rock formations/fossils at the Grand Canyon. Dr. John Morris has a Ph.D degree in Geological Engineering. Dr. Steven Austin has a Ph.D degree in Geology. His specialty is sedimentary processes that form rock strata and fossils. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2006071257020001@66-52-22-61.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <wvdei.4051$nQ5.2553@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-2006071105530001@66-52-22-61.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <f5b79s$blf$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Are those 500 people that agree with me (that have Ph.D degrees) >> >> > also >> > stupid? >> >> >> >> There aren't 500 people with PhD's that agree with you, liar. As it's >> >> been pointed out, many of them don't even have ANY degree shown in >> >> that >> >> list (some simply "wrote a book" and others are engineers, etc.) >> > >> > Are you stating that no engineers have Ph.D degrees? Are you stating >> > that >> > none of the people that write books have Ph.D degrees? >> >> No, he is stating what is written above. How in the hell you came up with >> your questions form what he wrote is known only to you and your god, and >> right now he isn't sure. > > The title of the list is: > > List of Intellectual Doubters of Darwinism I don't care what the title of the list is, your questions were, "Are you stating that no engineers have Ph.D degrees" and "Are you stating that none of the people that write books have Ph.D degrees?". Both of your questions have to do with Ph.D. degrees. Either you are intellectually dishonest or you're stupid. Take your choice. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 In article <wvdei.4051$nQ5.2553@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-2006071105530001@66-52-22-61.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <f5b79s$blf$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >> > > >> > Are those 500 people that agree with me (that have Ph.D degrees) also > > stupid? > >> > >> There aren't 500 people with PhD's that agree with you, liar. As it's > >> been pointed out, many of them don't even have ANY degree shown in that > >> list (some simply "wrote a book" and others are engineers, etc.) > > > > Are you stating that no engineers have Ph.D degrees? Are you stating that > > none of the people that write books have Ph.D degrees? > > No, he is stating what is written above. How in the hell you came up with > your questions form what he wrote is known only to you and your god, and > right now he isn't sure. The title of the list is: List of Intellectual Doubters of Darwinism Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2006071238450001@66-52-22-61.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <f5baj2$e5n$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> 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? > > The college professors, editors of journals, etc. are part of the > establishment that I mentioned in my post. Are they lying to us or don't > really know as much about the issue as you think they do? My answer: > > No--it's more complicated--In much the same way that the Catholics in the > days of Copernicus and Galileo believed they were correct related to their > theories--the advocates of evolution believe they are correct related to > their theories. At the very least, they should allow students to attend > classes that have are taught by Professors that are advocates of > Intelligent Design. Those could be optional classes that are not required > classes. Do you think that state colleges would allow such classes to be > taught? The answer is NO. At least one of those colleges (Columbia) will > allow a professor to teach a class related to the history of withcraft but > they would never allow a professor to teach a class related to Intelligent > Design. The advocates of evolution do not want students to learn about > Intelligent Design in state colleges. > Jason Of course the answer is 'no', There is no science in intelligent design. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2006071157020001@66-52-22-61.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1182348090.555329.173350@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> 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 >> > > >> y= >> ou >> > > >> 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 >> > > > answ= >> er 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.- >> > S= >> kjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >> > >> > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >> >> The experiment with fruit flies produced speciation. You have been >> told that, but, as usual, you ignore facts. > > Yes, that is true. The researchers involved in fruit fly research did > produce a new species. Did the fruit flies evolve into a different type of > insect? The answer is NO. They produced a new species of fruit flies. > > If the fruit flies had evolved into a different type of insect--that would > be evidence for evolution. > > Most everyone has seen that famous chart that is inside many biology class > rooms. The chart shows a creature that looks like a monkey on the left > side of the chart and a human being on the right side of the chart. The > advocates of evolution do NOT claim that the monkey type creature evolved > into various other monkey type creatures. Instead, they claim that it > eventually evolved (after many steps) into human beings. The fruit fly > experiments are not evidence for evolution. If the fruit flies had evolved > into a different type insect--that would have been evidence for evolution. > That leads me to believe that the monkey type creature NEVER evolved into > mankind--instead--those creatures evolved into a new species of monkeys in > much the same way that the fruit flies evolved into a new species of fruit > flies. Who gives a big rat's ass what you believe? You are a fundamentalist creationist Christian and your views are worth zilch in the world of science. Not because of bias or prejudice but because your viewpoint has no evidence to support it!! Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1906071911440001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1ujg735ajfu31vkopcbikhgrehtk7j56nv@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:53:27 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1806072253270001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <1182218813.834333.90560@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, >> >Martin >> >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Jun 19, 7:01 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > In article <vmBdi.3308$nQ5.3...@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> >> > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> > >news:Jason-1706072247350001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> > > > In article >> >> > > > <1182139338.508689.267...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >> >Martin >> >> > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > >> On Jun 18, 10:59 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > > >> > In article >> >> > > >> > <1182126930.187720.194...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >> >> > > >> > Martin >> >> > > >> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > > >> > > On Jun 18, 3:32 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > > >> > > > In article >> >> > >> >> > > > >> ><46753d99$0$1182$61c65...@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>, >> >> > > >> > > > "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> >> > > >> > > > > "Martin" <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> > > >> > > > >news:1182071263.602369.18620@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> >> > > >> > > > > > On Jun 16, 2:13 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > > >> > > > > >> I once talked to a >> >> > > >> > > > > >> biology professor that was an advocate of creation > science. >> >> > > > He knew as >> >> > > >> > > > > >> much about evolution as any of the other biology > professors >> >> > > > that worked >> >> > > >> > > > > >> at >> >> > > >> > > > > >> that college. >> >> > >> >> > > >> > > > > > Obviously not. >> >> > >> >> > > >> > > > > It is possible to believe in everything about > evolution itself, >> >> > > > and still >> >> > > >> > > > > believe there was some external creating entity that >> >> > > >> > > > > either >> >> > > > created the >> >> > > >> > > > > universe initially and/or caused life to first emerge. >> >> > > > Evolution really >> >> > > >> > > > > only kicks in once there is life and a process in place >> >> > > >> > > > > for >> >> > > > selection and >> >> > > >> > > > > mutation to take place. >> >> > >> >> > > >> > > > > So its not incompatible .. but not necessarily > reasonable .. to >> >> > > > believe in >> >> > > >> > > > > some sort of creator that did his job and then let > nature (his >> >> > > > creation) >> >> > > >> > > > > take its course (see deism). >> >> > >> >> > > >> > > > I understand your point. That is the reason college >> >> > > >> > > > biology >> >> > > > teachers that >> >> > > >> > > > are advocates of creation science can teach their > students about >> >> > > > evolution >> >> > > >> > > > as well as college biology professors that are NOT > advocates of >> >> > > >> > > > creation >> >> > > >> > > > science. >> >> > >> >> > > >> > > You can't teach using the scientific method and still >> >> > > >> > > believe in >> >> > > >> > > religious fantasies. It's not good enough for the teacher > to say >> >> > > >> > > "This is what you need to know for the exam." >> >> > >> >> > > >> > I disagree with you. That professor that was an advocate of > creation >> >> > > >> > science taught biology as well as the other professors. >> >> > >> >> > > >> If he taught YOU biology then he didn't teach very well, did >> >> > > >> he? >> >> >> >> > > > He was not my biology professor. However, I did set in on one of >> >> > > > his >> >> > > > classes as per his request since we were friends and he invited >> >> > > > me >> >to one >> >> > > > of his classes. I wanted to take his class but the class was >> >> > > > full. >> >> > >> >> > > Where did you go to school, Jason? >> >> > >> >> > I took the biology class at Ferrum College. >> >> >> >> in Ferrem, Virginia? >> >> >> >> Martin >> > >> >Yes, when I attended the college it was a junior college but it is now a >> >four year college. It is a Christian college. >> > >> Is it a real college or is it a TRACS college? > > It's an accredited college. You would have to google the name of the > college to find out the name of the organization that accredited them. I > transferred to a state college after I graduated from Ferrum Junior > College. They accepted all of my credits. > Jason From your discussions of science in this forum, they failed! Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1906072032470001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. It happened to me but you are right, you're too stupid to question your myth. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1906071919550001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <qgqg731ati2o3j6ukvvhmvhk40uooh4toj@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:31:53 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1906071031530001@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <1182261263.411483.211720@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, >> >Martin >> >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> ... >> >> >> >> So there are at least 504 fraudulent idiots in the world. So what? >> >> >> >> Martin >> > >> >Galileo and Copernicus had to face the establishment without the help of >> >anyone. At least, we have at least 500 people fighting against the >> >evolution establishment. I don't blame the proponents of evolution for >> >putting pressure on the editors of science journals to not publish >> >articles written by advocates of creation science and intelligent >> >design. >> >They are worried about the competition. >> > >> Jason, listen, almost none of the 500 that you are referring to are >> biologists. Secondly, they are the ones who are on the side of ignorance >> and darkness. Galileo and Copernicus were the good guys, just as science >> is today. You are supporting the forces of ignorance and darkness, just >> as the Church did back then. >> >> You have picked the side of evil. > > I disagree. Christians represent the forces of light. Yeah, that's why the last time the Christians controlled Western society we called it the dark ages. 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.