Guest Ralph Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2006070004340001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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 No Jason, you're losing the battle. Western Europe has almost succeeded in shedding the yoke of Christianity. In England church attendance is less than 10%. In the US, according to a Christian poll, there were 14 million persons categorized as atheists or non-religious. In 2001 that figure was 29 million. Slowly but surely knowledge is casting a powerful light into the dark corner called Christianity. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 "Martin Phipps" <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1182301292.345309.216810@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 20, 1:30 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:Jason-1906071011210001@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <f58q2b$sc...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> > In article <f53are$o...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> >> > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> >>> I don't believe that you understood my point. It's probably >> >> >>> because I >> >> >>> done >> >> >>> a poor job of explaining my point. I'll try again. >> >> >> No, it's because your point was wrong. >> >> >> >>> Let's say (for the sake of discussion) a scientist (that is an >> >> >>> advocated >> >> >>> of evolution and abiogenesis) makes this statement in an article >> >> >>> or a >> >> >>> book: >> >> >> >>> "We had a time when there was no life. We now have life. Thus, it >> >> >>> is >> >> >>> logical to conclude that life naturally evolved from non-life." >> >> >> No reputable scientist would say such a thing so it's a meaningless >> >> >> question. >> >> >> >>> Would you conceed that most of the advocates of abiogenesis and >> >> >>> evolution >> >> >>> theory agree with the above statement? >> >> >> No. >> >> >> >> If your answer is yes, this is the >> >> >>> problem: >> >> >> >>> There are at least three possible causes of life evolving from >> >> >>> non-life: >> >> >> >>> 1. abiogenesis >> >> >> Get a clue. You've already admitted that abiogenesis happened. >> >> >> >> John Baker: Actually, Jason, abiogenesis is an absolute proven >> >> >> fact. >> >> >> Whether it came about through divine intervention or by purely >> >> >> natural >> >> >> means, at some point in the planet's history, life did arise from >> >> >> non-life. We both agree on that. We just disagree about how it >> >> >> happened. >> >> >> >> Jason: Excellent point. >> >> >> >> #1 should be "natural causes." >> >> >> >>> 2. intelligent design >> >> >> OK, any evidence that a god exists to have done this designing? >> >> >> Also >> >> >> how >> >> >> did this god come about? >> >> >> >>> 3. ancient astronauts >> >> >> And who caused them to come to be? >> >> >> >>> The scientist (mentioned above) failed to take intelligent design >> >> >>> or >> >> >>> ancient astronauts into consideration. He just assumed that "life >> >> >>> naturally evolved from non-life". >> >> >> And that's why he wouldn't have said what you tried to make him >> >> >> say. >> >> >> >>> I mentioned that many advocates of evolution and abiogenesis don't >> >> >>> know >> >> >>> the difference between speculation and evidence. >> >> >> No, you've claimed that but you're only proving that YOU are the >> >> >> one >> >> >> who >> >> >> doesn't have a clue as to the difference. >> >> >> >>> This leads to another question: Is the statement of the above >> >> >>> mentioned >> >> >>> scientist based on evidence or speculation that life naturally >> >> >>> evolved >> >> >>> from non-life. >> >> >> Why do you come up with these fantasies and expect us to comment on >> >> >> them? It's about as useless as asking "who is faster, superman or >> >> >> the >> >> >> flash?" >> >> >> > Thanks for your post. You explained your point of view very well. >> >> > I'll >> >> > try >> >> > to remember to stop stating, "Good Point" because that would cause >> >> > people >> >> > to think that I agreed with every point. >> >> >> You need to stop saying "good point" or "excellent answer" altogether >> >> because we both know that you don't pay any attention at all to the >> >> point (otherwise you wouldn't come up with the same crap 5 minutes >> >> later >> >> that the point addressed.) >> >> > I get accused of not responding to posts if I don't write something. I >> > do >> > read every post unless derogatory language is used. >> >> Answering you almost mandates derogatory language. > > Are "liar" and "idiot" derogatory remarks when used to refer to > Jason? I actually think they are more descriptive. How many times > does Jason have to lie before we brand him as a liar? How many > subjects does he have to demonstrate ignorance of before we can refer > to him as an "idiot"? I happen to think I've been very patient with > him overall. > > And, yes, "lying piece of shit" is definitely a derogatory remark but > I reserve that for when he accuses me of not "failing to answer" his > questions. It's fair to respond to an insult with an insult. > > Martin Yes and as he constantly loses credibility in his posts, he responds in such a manner. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1906072038060001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <l61h735a6gj0ja8ck6911sh2s1b881tdlc@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:21:19 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1906071921190001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <61tg73pp1ms1isdnmlviruvoff96opv5gi@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:46:12 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-1806072146120001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >In article <5j8e73hj9cu6m5h2r2m91f5nssdq298b17@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 22:22:50 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> <Jason-1706072222500001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >> >In article > <1182140066.278306.60300@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> >> >> >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> On Jun 18, 12:46 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> >> > In article <f54spi$kdh$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino >> >> >> >> > Gris >> >> >> >> > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> > > Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> > > > In article <f539gg$u7...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> >> >> >> > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > >> Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> > > >>> In article <brKdnS6w5O9iCenbnZ2dnUVZ_qfin...@sti.net>, >> >"David V." >> >> >> >> > > >>> <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > >>>> Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> > > >>>>> In order for lower life forms (living cells) to evolve >> >> >> >> > > >>>>> into >> >> >> >higher life >> >> >> >> > > >>>>> forms (mammals)--major mutations would have been >> >> >> >> > > >>>>> required. >> >> >> >> > > >>>> No, it would not. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > >>>>> example: Hyracotherium evolving into Equus >> >> >> >> > > >>>> Which is why a hyracotherium did not evolve into an >> >> >> >> > > >>>> equus. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > >>>> Evolution doesn't work that way.... and you know it. >> >> >> >> > > >>> Did you want me to mention all of the steps: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > >>> step 1: Hyracotherium--"vaguely horselike creature" >> >> >> >> > > >>> step 2: Orohippus >> >> >> >> > > >>> step 3: Epihippus >> >> >> >> > > >>> step 4: Mesohippus >> >> >> >> > > >>> step 5: Dinohippus >> >> >> >> > > >>> step 6: Equus--"modern genus of horse" >> >> >> >> > > >> And that right there shows that "a hyracotherium did not >> >> >evolve into an >> >> >> >> > > >> equus." In fact, there wasn't just those 6 steps. There >> >> >> >> > > >> was >> >> >millions of >> >> >> >> > > >> steps where a hyracotherium evolved into antother > hyracotherium >> >> >> >that was >> >> >> >> > > >> just the tiniest bit different. Then that one evolved >> >> >> >> > > >> into >> >> >another that >> >> >> >> > > >> was a tiniest bit different, etc. Eventually these >> >> >> >> > > >> differences >> >> >added up >> >> >> >> > > >> enough to where we no longer called it a Hyracotherium >> >> >> >> > > >> but >> >instead >> >> >> >> > > >> called it a Orohippus. But there wasn't any point where >> >> >> >> > > >> some >> >> >animal was >> >> >> >> > > >> 2' tall and then all of a sudden its immediate offspring >> >> >> >> > > >> were >> >> >4' tall >> >> >> >> > > >> like cretinists like to make it look. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > >> It didn't take a major mutation but simply required > thousands or >> >> >> >> > > >> millions of tiny ones. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > > I understand your points. Is it possible that some of the >> >> >mutations were >> >> >> >> > > > major mutatations (eg related to size)? It's my >> >> >> >> > > > understanding >> >> >that the >> >> >> >> > > > Hyracotherium was about the same size as a German shepard >> >> >dog--is that >> >> >> >> > > > true? >> >> >> >> > > > jason >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > No idea about the size of that animal. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > But how is a bigger size a major mutation? Apart from the >> >> >> >> > > fact >> >> >that just >> >> >> >> > > for size you don't even NEED mutation. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > In relation to size, for the sake of discussion, let's say the >> >the only >> >> >> >> > canines that were in the world 1 billion years a ago were 10 > pairs of >> >> >> >> > minature schnauzers. How long would it take for them to be > the size of >> >> >> >> > Saint Bernards? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Did your creation-believing biology professor fail to tell you >> >> >> >> that >> >> >> >> dog breeds have developed over the past 10 000 years as a result >> >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> selective breeding by mankind? Some teacher, huh? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Martin >> >> >> > >> >> >> >You failed to answer my hypothethcal question. Let's say the dogs > were NOT >> >> >> >minature schnauzers but were the same size of minature schnauzers. >> >> >> > >> >> >> There were no dogs a billion years ago. The precursors of dogs came >> >> >> far >> >> >> more recently. >> >> > >> >> >With leads to another question: What was the precursor of dogs? >> >> > >> >> God made you really stupid. I thought that every kid learned that by >> >> about third grade: wolves. >> > >> >What was the precursor of wolves? >> > >> You don't care at all. You have demonstrated that. > > Is that your way of not answering the question? Please answer the > question. Same damn circular questions, all answered with the question, who created god? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1906071953470001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1182295930.253657.10230@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 20, 1:51 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1182262384.036425.205...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, >> > Martin >> > >> > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > On Jun 19, 3:42 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > > In article <1182227659.150003.16...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, > Martin >> > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > > > On Jun 19, 12:38 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > > > > In article >> > >> > <1182220953.505863.148...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > > > > > On Jun 19, 8:47 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > > > > > > In article <-bednXdsS_EeiOrbnZ2dnUVZ_jOdn...@sti.net>, > "David V." >> > >> > > > > > > > <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > > > > > > > Jason wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > That at least 500 people that have Ph.D degrees agree >> > > > > > > > > > that >> > > > > > > > > > life did not evolve from non-life. >> > >> > > > > > > > > Another logical fallacy. Argumentum ad numerum is a very >> > > > > > > > > sophomoric argument. I doubt anyone here is stupid > enough to fall >> > > > > > > > > for it and your assumption that we are is insulting. > Your appeal >> > > > > > > > > to authority is another insulting argument. Just because >> > > > > > > > > they >> > > > > > > > > have a PhD does not automatically give them > credibility. It is >> > > > > > > > > also well known that many creationists that claim to > have degrees >> > > > > > > > > do not. They freely give each other degrees, get them >> > > > > > > > > from >> > > > > > > > > diploma mills or biblical "colleges." >> > >> > > > > > > > Do you have evidence that any of the 500 people on the list >> > > > > > > > that >> > > > have Ph.D >> > > > > > > > degrees do not have legitimate Ph.D degrees? If so, please > make a >> > > > list of >> > > > > > > > those names. >> > >> > > > > > > Note that the list of people on >> > >> > > > > >http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1207 >> > >> > > > > > > doesn't say where they go their degrees from. The vast > majority of >> > > > > > > them don't even have publications listed. How is it > possible for a >> > > > > > > Ph.D. to not have any publications? >> > >> > > > > > There is an email address in the report so you may want to >> > > > > > email the >> > > > > > person that compiled the list and ask him your questions. His > main goal >> > > > > > was to list the names of the people. I doubt that he was > concerned with >> > > > > > providing details about publications. I admire those 500 > people. We both >> > > > > > know what happened to the professor that was an advocate of >> > > > > > creation >> > > > > > science. He was denied tenure. Those 500 people are going > against the >> > > > > > establishment. >> > >> > > > > They aren't just against the establishment, Jason: they are >> > > > > against >> > > > > common sense. It was due to common sense that the establishment >> > > > > became the establishment and if you had any common sense yourself >> > > > > then >> > > > > you would already know that. >> > >> > > > > Again, 800 scientists NAMED STEVE disagree with you. >> > >> > > > Tell all of those Steves that I hope they have a wonderful life. >> > > > They >> > > > should have a wonderful life since they are members of the >> > > > evolution >> > > > establishment. If any of them are college professors--tell those >> > > > Steves >> > > > not to worry--they will get their tenure when the time comes. Tell > any of >> > > > those Steves that are closet creationists to keep it a secret so > that they >> > > > will not become victims of discrimination by the evolution >> > > > estabishment. >> > >> > > Oh boo hoo hoo. The people who lack any clue whatsoever about >> > > reality >> > > feel discriminated against by those who actually do understand >> > > reality. >> > >> > > Too bad. Consider it a wake up call. When you got a F on a math >> > > test, did you complain that your teacher was discriminating against >> > > you because you didn't understand math? Then don't feel >> > > discriminated >> > > against simply because, to this day, you don't know a thing about >> > > science or history. >> >> > Do you believe the college professor that was denied tenure felt >> > discriminated against? >> >> I'm sure he did, but then so would a four feet tall basketball >> player. If the "discrimination" in question is because you have >> reason to believe that he won't be able to properly do his job then it >> is not discrimination. >> >> Martin > > Martin, > I hope that professor gets a job at a Christian college where he will not > be discriminated against and will be able to get tenure. > jason I hope he does too because he doesn't belong in an institution of higher learning and it is certain that creationist colleges are not institutions of higher learning. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1906071932510001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1182296011.654703.17860@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 20, 1:55 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <f58mf7$on...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> > > Jason wrote: >> > > > In article > <1182228954.642933.319...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, George >> > > > Chen <georgech...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> > > >> On Jun 19, 1:12 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > >>> In article > <1182217986.803825.125...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> > > >>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > >>>> On Jun 19, 3:53 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > >>>>> In article <DOSdnUx-mdYuEuvbnZ2dnUVZ_vyun...@sti.net>, "David >> > > >>>>> V." >> > > >>>>> <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > >>>>>> Jason wrote: >> > > >>>>>>> I found this report on the internet: I deleted number 10 to >> > > >>>>>>> 335. If you want to see the entire list, google this term: >> > > >>>>>>> List of Intellectual Doubters of Darwinism >> > > >>>>>> So? 500 out of hundreds of thousands of real scientists around >> > > >>>>>> the world is an insignificant number. A quick glance of the >> > > >>>>>> list >> > > >>>>>> showed a good number of those anti-evolutionists were not >> > > >>>>>> scientists or were not in the field of biology. >> > > >>>>>> They can doubt all they want and it's great they do because >> > > >>>>>> that's the way science works. It's part of the self correcting >> > > >>>>>> mechanism that religions lack. All they need to do is provide >> > > >>>>>> proof that evolution is wrong. So far they have not done so. >> > > >>>>>> The >> > > >>>>>> instant they do it will be big news and it will be in every >> > > >>>>>> journal that has anything to do with biology. Their lack of >> > > >>>>>> such >> > > >>>>>> proof speaks volumes. >> > > >>>>> Thanks for your post. The end goal of the person that compiled > the list >> > > >>>>> was to let people know that not every person that has a Ph.D >> > > > degree is an >> > > >>>>> advocate of evolution. This tread has been going on for a >> > > >>>>> couple >> > > > of weeks >> > > >>>>> and several posters stated or at least implied that intelligent >> > > > people are >> > > >>>>> advocates of evolution and only uneducated or stupid people are >> > > > advocates >> > > >>>>> of creation science or ID. At the very least, that was my > impression of >> > > >>>>> their opinions. I found it shocking that these famous people do >> > > >>>>> not >> > > >>>>> believe that life evolved from non-life on this earth: >> > > >>>>> Francis Crick was one of the discoverers of DNA >> > > >>>>> Taken from the above mentioned report: >> > > >>>>> "It should be noted that there are other scientists who are > committed >> > > >>>>> evolutionists, but have yet expressed doubt about various >> > > >>>>> mainstream >> > > >>>>> theories on the origin and diversification of life. For > example, Francis >> > > >>>>> Crick wrote "Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature" (1981) in >> > > >>>>> which he >> > > >>>>> expressed doubt that the origin of life was possible on earth. >> > > > Similarly, >> > > >>>>> Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe have sharply critiqued >> > > >>>>> the >> > > > origin of >> > > >>>>> life on earth in favor of evolution from space (see "Evolution >> > > >>>>> from >> > > >>>>> Space") Robert Shapiro in his "Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to >> > > >>>>> the >> > > > Creation >> > > >>>>> of Life on Earth" (1986) also gave a similar critique although >> > > >>>>> he >> > > > did not >> > > >>>>> postulate that life came from space." >> > > >>>> You don't understand how science works: science progresses >> > > >>>> because we >> > > >>>> doubt existing theories. Meanwhile, religion stagnates and will >> > > >>>> eventually disappear because your beliefs can no longer be >> > > >>>> reconciled >> > > >>>> with the known facts. >> > > >>> Interesting point--According to the info. posted above--it states >> > > >>> that >> > > >>> Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe have sharply critiqued the > origin of >> > > >>> life on earth in favor of evolution from space..." What do they > mean? It >> > > >>> this a rehash of Erik von Dannkan's concepts re: ancient >> > > >>> astronauts? >> > > >> No, not at all. The argument is that an oxygen atmosphere would >> > > >> have >> > > >> been toxic to early life so perhaps life originated in comets or >> > > >> on >> > > >> asteroids. It has been suggested that the earth's atmosphere only >> > > >> became rich in oxygen gas after plant life formed and converted >> > > >> carbon >> > > >> dioxide into carbon and oxygen (through photosynthesis). This is >> > > >> the >> > > >> argunent that most scientists favour because the idea of life >> > > >> dropping >> > > >> down from space seems awfully far fetched, although not as far >> > > >> fetched >> > > >> as ancient astronauts or some omnipotent fairy in the sky creating >> > > >> everything. >> > >> > > > Thanks for your post. It's an interesting concept. Since an oxygen >> > > > atmosphere is toxic to early life--how come life has not evolved on >> > > > planets that have no oxygen? >> > >> > > How do we know it hasn't? >> > >> > > The Viking space mission did not discover any >> > > > signs of life on Mars. >> > >> > > ...yet. >> > >> > > > We found no signs of life on the moon. >> > >> > > Life, in all likelihood, requires SOME form of an atmosphere or other >> > > means (such as immersion into a liquid) to prevent liquids from >> > > escaping, etc. There are other atmospheres than just "oxygen-rich" >> > > ones. >> > > The moon has no atmosphere or liquid water (that we know of) and thus >> > > (probably) no life. Mars has a very thin atmosphere and thus isn't as >> > > likely as the earth to have life. Also things like temperature, >> > > pressure, etc. come into play. >> > >> > The earth is at an excellent location from the sun. You believe it >> > happened by chance. I believe that it happened as a result of >> > intelligent >> > design. >> >> Without heat, water and air, you wouldn't be here now to ask that >> question, would you? >> >> Yes, I have answered your question. >> >> Martin > > Martin, > Yes you did--thanks. Intelligent design is the reason we have heat, water > and air. > Jason And man did it all, without the help of god. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 > >> > 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? They may believe there is not a heaven or hell but that does not mean there is no heaven or hell. People tell be that I am wrong about my beliefs but those same people don't seem to realize that they could be wrong about their own beliefs. They have free will to do whatever they want to do. They will be judged related to how they used their free will. If they refuse to believe in God--it will mean they will end up in hell. If they change their minds and do decide to accept Jesus as their saviour before they die--they will end up in heaven. There were two people on the crosses next to Jesus. He gave the same message to both of them. One of them believed what Jesus told him and ended up in heaven. The other one did not believe the message of Jesus and ended up in hell. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 In article <DCfei.811$1a.460@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-2006071257020001@66-52-22-61.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <wvdei.4051$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$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Jason wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > Are those 500 people that agree with me (that have Ph.D degrees) > >> >> > also > >> > stupid? > >> >> > >> >> There aren't 500 people with PhD's that agree with you, liar. As it's > >> >> been pointed out, many of them don't even have ANY degree shown in > >> >> that > >> >> list (some simply "wrote a book" and others are engineers, etc.) > >> > > >> > Are you stating that no engineers have Ph.D degrees? Are you stating > >> > that > >> > none of the people that write books have Ph.D degrees? > >> > >> No, he is stating what is written above. How in the hell you came up with > >> your questions form what he wrote is known only to you and your god, and > >> right now he isn't sure. > > > > The title of the list is: > > > > List of Intellectual Doubters of Darwinism > > I don't care what the title of the list is, your questions were, "Are you > stating that no engineers have Ph.D degrees" and "Are you stating that > none of the people that write books have Ph.D degrees?". Both of your > questions have to do with Ph.D. degrees. Either you are intellectually > dishonest or you're stupid. Take your choice. I seem to recall that the person that compiled the list indicated that everyone on the list had a Ph.D degree and were intellectual doubters of Darwinism. That is the reason I made the point about Ph.D degrees. Some people in this newsgroup seem to believe that it was a list of people that had Ph.D degrees related to evolution; had jobs directed to related to evolution research or were scientists. That is NOT true. It is a list of people that have Ph.D degrees and are Intellectual doubters of Darwinism. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:38:44 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2006071238450001@66-52-22-61.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <f5baj2$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. No, they aren't the same at all. You and the religionists of the time of Galileo had no evidence. Galileo and scientists of today do. You are telling lies. > 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. There is no science called intelligent design. It is a religious doctrine and must be taught in religion classes. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:55:31 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2006071455320001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <ZVfei.830$1a.632@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-2006070004340001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > 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 >> >> No Jason, you're losing the battle. Western Europe has almost succeeded in >> shedding the yoke of Christianity. In England church attendance is less than >> 10%. In the US, according to a Christian poll, there were 14 million persons >> categorized as atheists or non-religious. In 2001 that figure was 29 >> million. Slowly but surely knowledge is casting a powerful light into the >> dark corner called Christianity. > >Yes, you are correct. It does not mean we are wrong. Copernicus and >Galileo were only two people--they were right and everybody else was >wrong. There still are 1.9 billion Christians in the world. It's expected >that in the near future, that there will be more Christians in China than >in any other country. There are also lots of Christians in Iran. Thank >goodness for the internet since the Iranian Christians are able to be >witnessed to by Iranian Christians that live in America. > You are wrong though. That is why you tell us lies instead of learning science. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:32:46 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <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. > No one will ever get you to stop telling lies. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 11:05:53 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <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? > You have misrepresented the list. Your questions appear to be an attempt to distract from that fact that once again you have lied to us. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:07:28 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2006071407280001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <DCfei.811$1a.460@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-2006071257020001@66-52-22-61.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <wvdei.4051$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. > >I seem to recall that the person that compiled the list indicated that >everyone on the list had a Ph.D degree and were intellectual doubters of >Darwinism. That is the reason I made the point about Ph.D degrees. Some >people in this newsgroup seem to believe that it was a list of people that >had Ph.D degrees related to evolution; had jobs directed to related to >evolution research or were scientists. > >That is NOT true. > >It is a list of people that have Ph.D degrees and are Intellectual >doubters of Darwinism. > Then your list compiler is an idiot. The credits themselves tell us that some of the people don't have Ph Ds. Why do you continue to tell such blatant lies. Will your god really reward you for the way you make him look bad? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:25:15 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1906072025160001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1182301939.137375.190330@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: .... >> I think the editor was right in printing the article but I agree with >> John Popelish that the author should have framed his arguments with >> more scientific language (say for example "apparently discontinuous" >> as opposed to "discontinuous" because the latter assumes what he wants >> to prove and reveals his bias). I can only imagine what the article >> would have looked like before the peer review! I don't see the >> problem anyway: a poorly written article is easily refuted anyway. >> Does John Popelish have a Ph.D. in biology? It's sad that he can tear >> the paper apart so easily then. >> >> Martin > >I hope that more articles written by the advocates of creation science or >ID are published in journals in the near future. >Jason > That would be because they abandoned the lies of ID and chose to act like scientists. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 11:14:23 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <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? > Scientists don't say anything about God. It is religious zealots who lie about science who make claims about what science says about God. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:53:14 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2006071253140001@66-52-22-61.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >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. > They have already demonstrated by their behavior that they do not do scientific research. They tell you that they are doing research because they know that you will swallow their lies. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 11:26:45 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in .... >Yes, I think that these fields are indirectly related to evolution: >microbiology, biochemistry, and biology. Add genetics and the rest of the life sciences. >I don't know whether or not Physics is indirectly related to evolution. No, it isn't related to biological 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 Most of whom do not understand biological evolution well enough to critique it. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:38:06 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1906072038060001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <l61h735a6gj0ja8ck6911sh2s1b881tdlc@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:21:19 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1906071921190001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: .... >> >What was the precursor of wolves? >> > >> You don't care at all. You have demonstrated that. > >Is that your way of not answering the question? Please answer the question. > No, I won't. You can easily find it out for yourself if you actually care, but we already know that you don't. You have already decided that evolution is false. No possible pieces of evidence will change your mind. You have already told us that you will tell us, and yourself, any lie it takes to keep yourself from questioning your heretical 'Christian' doctrine about 'creationism'. Jesus warned us about you: "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." I've had enough of your lies and see no reason to ever give you any sense that I think you are doing anything honest or defensible. You are acting in the most vile, unchristian manner possible. You mock God with your lies. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 11:57:01 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2006071157020001@66-52-22-61.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1182348090.555329.173350@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: .... >> 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. Once again, your objection is completely dishonest. All new species are similar to the species that they were derived from. Dogs do not become cats. That would not be evolution. Stop relying on the lies that ICR feeds you. Learn something for yourself. Give yourself something to feel proud of. >If the fruit flies had evolved into a different type of insect--that would >be evidence for evolution. Nonsense. You are once again misrepresenting how evolution works. Stop being a lying fool. >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. You are hopeless. Satan must love you. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 In article <ZVfei.830$1a.632@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-2006070004340001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > 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 > > No Jason, you're losing the battle. Western Europe has almost succeeded in > shedding the yoke of Christianity. In England church attendance is less than > 10%. In the US, according to a Christian poll, there were 14 million persons > categorized as atheists or non-religious. In 2001 that figure was 29 > million. Slowly but surely knowledge is casting a powerful light into the > dark corner called Christianity. Yes, you are correct. It does not mean we are wrong. Copernicus and Galileo were only two people--they were right and everybody else was wrong. There still are 1.9 billion Christians in the world. It's expected that in the near future, that there will be more Christians in China than in any other country. There are also lots of Christians in Iran. Thank goodness for the internet since the Iranian Christians are able to be witnessed to by Iranian Christians that live in America. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 In article <FZfei.832$1a.478@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-1906072038060001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <l61h735a6gj0ja8ck6911sh2s1b881tdlc@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:21:19 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-1906071921190001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <61tg73pp1ms1isdnmlviruvoff96opv5gi@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:46:12 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> <Jason-1806072146120001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> >In article <5j8e73hj9cu6m5h2r2m91f5nssdq298b17@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 22:22:50 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> >> <Jason-1706072222500001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> >> >In article > > <1182140066.278306.60300@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >> >> >> >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> On Jun 18, 12:46 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >> >> >> > In article <f54spi$kdh$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino > >> >> >> >> > Gris > >> >> >> >> > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > > Jason wrote: > >> >> >> >> > > > In article <f539gg$u7...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >> >> >> >> > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> Jason wrote: > >> >> >> >> > > >>> In article <brKdnS6w5O9iCenbnZ2dnUVZ_qfin...@sti.net>, > >> >"David V." > >> >> >> >> > > >>> <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >>>> Jason wrote: > >> >> >> >> > > >>>>> In order for lower life forms (living cells) to evolve > >> >> >> >> > > >>>>> into > >> >> >> >higher life > >> >> >> >> > > >>>>> forms (mammals)--major mutations would have been > >> >> >> >> > > >>>>> required. > >> >> >> >> > > >>>> No, it would not. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >>>>> example: Hyracotherium evolving into Equus > >> >> >> >> > > >>>> Which is why a hyracotherium did not evolve into an > >> >> >> >> > > >>>> equus. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >>>> Evolution doesn't work that way.... and you know it. > >> >> >> >> > > >>> Did you want me to mention all of the steps: > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >>> step 1: Hyracotherium--"vaguely horselike creature" > >> >> >> >> > > >>> step 2: Orohippus > >> >> >> >> > > >>> step 3: Epihippus > >> >> >> >> > > >>> step 4: Mesohippus > >> >> >> >> > > >>> step 5: Dinohippus > >> >> >> >> > > >>> step 6: Equus--"modern genus of horse" > >> >> >> >> > > >> And that right there shows that "a hyracotherium did not > >> >> >evolve into an > >> >> >> >> > > >> equus." In fact, there wasn't just those 6 steps. There > >> >> >> >> > > >> was > >> >> >millions of > >> >> >> >> > > >> steps where a hyracotherium evolved into antother > > hyracotherium > >> >> >> >that was > >> >> >> >> > > >> just the tiniest bit different. Then that one evolved > >> >> >> >> > > >> into > >> >> >another that > >> >> >> >> > > >> was a tiniest bit different, etc. Eventually these > >> >> >> >> > > >> differences > >> >> >added up > >> >> >> >> > > >> enough to where we no longer called it a Hyracotherium > >> >> >> >> > > >> but > >> >instead > >> >> >> >> > > >> called it a Orohippus. But there wasn't any point where > >> >> >> >> > > >> some > >> >> >animal was > >> >> >> >> > > >> 2' tall and then all of a sudden its immediate offspring > >> >> >> >> > > >> were > >> >> >4' tall > >> >> >> >> > > >> like cretinists like to make it look. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> It didn't take a major mutation but simply required > > thousands or > >> >> >> >> > > >> millions of tiny ones. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > > I understand your points. Is it possible that some of the > >> >> >mutations were > >> >> >> >> > > > major mutatations (eg related to size)? It's my > >> >> >> >> > > > understanding > >> >> >that the > >> >> >> >> > > > Hyracotherium was about the same size as a German shepard > >> >> >dog--is that > >> >> >> >> > > > true? > >> >> >> >> > > > jason > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > No idea about the size of that animal. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > But how is a bigger size a major mutation? Apart from the > >> >> >> >> > > fact > >> >> >that just > >> >> >> >> > > for size you don't even NEED mutation. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > In relation to size, for the sake of discussion, let's say the > >> >the only > >> >> >> >> > canines that were in the world 1 billion years a ago were 10 > > pairs of > >> >> >> >> > minature schnauzers. How long would it take for them to be > > the size of > >> >> >> >> > Saint Bernards? > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Did your creation-believing biology professor fail to tell you > >> >> >> >> that > >> >> >> >> dog breeds have developed over the past 10 000 years as a result > >> >> >> >> of > >> >> >> >> selective breeding by mankind? Some teacher, huh? > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Martin > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >You failed to answer my hypothethcal question. Let's say the dogs > > were NOT > >> >> >> >minature schnauzers but were the same size of minature schnauzers. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> There were no dogs a billion years ago. The precursors of dogs came > >> >> >> far > >> >> >> more recently. > >> >> > > >> >> >With leads to another question: What was the precursor of dogs? > >> >> > > >> >> God made you really stupid. I thought that every kid learned that by > >> >> about third grade: wolves. > >> > > >> >What was the precursor of wolves? > >> > > >> You don't care at all. You have demonstrated that. > > > > Is that your way of not answering the question? Please answer the > > question. > > Same damn circular questions, all answered with the question, who created > god? Martin told me the percursor of wolves. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 In article <o0gei.835$1a.241@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-1906071932510001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <1182296011.654703.17860@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jun 20, 1:55 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > In article <f58mf7$on...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> > > Jason wrote: > >> > > > In article > > <1182228954.642933.319...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, George > >> > > > Chen <georgech...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> On Jun 19, 1:12 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > > >>> In article > > <1182217986.803825.125...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >> > > >>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > > >>>> On Jun 19, 3:53 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > > >>>>> In article <DOSdnUx-mdYuEuvbnZ2dnUVZ_vyun...@sti.net>, "David > >> > > >>>>> V." > >> > > >>>>> <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >>>>>> Jason wrote: > >> > > >>>>>>> I found this report on the internet: I deleted number 10 to > >> > > >>>>>>> 335. If you want to see the entire list, google this term: > >> > > >>>>>>> List of Intellectual Doubters of Darwinism > >> > > >>>>>> So? 500 out of hundreds of thousands of real scientists around > >> > > >>>>>> the world is an insignificant number. A quick glance of the > >> > > >>>>>> list > >> > > >>>>>> showed a good number of those anti-evolutionists were not > >> > > >>>>>> scientists or were not in the field of biology. > >> > > >>>>>> They can doubt all they want and it's great they do because > >> > > >>>>>> that's the way science works. It's part of the self correcting > >> > > >>>>>> mechanism that religions lack. All they need to do is provide > >> > > >>>>>> proof that evolution is wrong. So far they have not done so. > >> > > >>>>>> The > >> > > >>>>>> instant they do it will be big news and it will be in every > >> > > >>>>>> journal that has anything to do with biology. Their lack of > >> > > >>>>>> such > >> > > >>>>>> proof speaks volumes. > >> > > >>>>> Thanks for your post. The end goal of the person that compiled > > the list > >> > > >>>>> was to let people know that not every person that has a Ph.D > >> > > > degree is an > >> > > >>>>> advocate of evolution. This tread has been going on for a > >> > > >>>>> couple > >> > > > of weeks > >> > > >>>>> and several posters stated or at least implied that intelligent > >> > > > people are > >> > > >>>>> advocates of evolution and only uneducated or stupid people are > >> > > > advocates > >> > > >>>>> of creation science or ID. At the very least, that was my > > impression of > >> > > >>>>> their opinions. I found it shocking that these famous people do > >> > > >>>>> not > >> > > >>>>> believe that life evolved from non-life on this earth: > >> > > >>>>> Francis Crick was one of the discoverers of DNA > >> > > >>>>> Taken from the above mentioned report: > >> > > >>>>> "It should be noted that there are other scientists who are > > committed > >> > > >>>>> evolutionists, but have yet expressed doubt about various > >> > > >>>>> mainstream > >> > > >>>>> theories on the origin and diversification of life. For > > example, Francis > >> > > >>>>> Crick wrote "Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature" (1981) in > >> > > >>>>> which he > >> > > >>>>> expressed doubt that the origin of life was possible on earth. > >> > > > Similarly, > >> > > >>>>> Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe have sharply critiqued > >> > > >>>>> the > >> > > > origin of > >> > > >>>>> life on earth in favor of evolution from space (see "Evolution > >> > > >>>>> from > >> > > >>>>> Space") Robert Shapiro in his "Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to > >> > > >>>>> the > >> > > > Creation > >> > > >>>>> of Life on Earth" (1986) also gave a similar critique although > >> > > >>>>> he > >> > > > did not > >> > > >>>>> postulate that life came from space." > >> > > >>>> You don't understand how science works: science progresses > >> > > >>>> because we > >> > > >>>> doubt existing theories. Meanwhile, religion stagnates and will > >> > > >>>> eventually disappear because your beliefs can no longer be > >> > > >>>> reconciled > >> > > >>>> with the known facts. > >> > > >>> Interesting point--According to the info. posted above--it states > >> > > >>> that > >> > > >>> Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe have sharply critiqued the > > origin of > >> > > >>> life on earth in favor of evolution from space..." What do they > > mean? It > >> > > >>> this a rehash of Erik von Dannkan's concepts re: ancient > >> > > >>> astronauts? > >> > > >> No, not at all. The argument is that an oxygen atmosphere would > >> > > >> have > >> > > >> been toxic to early life so perhaps life originated in comets or > >> > > >> on > >> > > >> asteroids. It has been suggested that the earth's atmosphere only > >> > > >> became rich in oxygen gas after plant life formed and converted > >> > > >> carbon > >> > > >> dioxide into carbon and oxygen (through photosynthesis). This is > >> > > >> the > >> > > >> argunent that most scientists favour because the idea of life > >> > > >> dropping > >> > > >> down from space seems awfully far fetched, although not as far > >> > > >> fetched > >> > > >> as ancient astronauts or some omnipotent fairy in the sky creating > >> > > >> everything. > >> > > >> > > > Thanks for your post. It's an interesting concept. Since an oxygen > >> > > > atmosphere is toxic to early life--how come life has not evolved on > >> > > > planets that have no oxygen? > >> > > >> > > How do we know it hasn't? > >> > > >> > > The Viking space mission did not discover any > >> > > > signs of life on Mars. > >> > > >> > > ...yet. > >> > > >> > > > We found no signs of life on the moon. > >> > > >> > > Life, in all likelihood, requires SOME form of an atmosphere or other > >> > > means (such as immersion into a liquid) to prevent liquids from > >> > > escaping, etc. There are other atmospheres than just "oxygen-rich" > >> > > ones. > >> > > The moon has no atmosphere or liquid water (that we know of) and thus > >> > > (probably) no life. Mars has a very thin atmosphere and thus isn't as > >> > > likely as the earth to have life. Also things like temperature, > >> > > pressure, etc. come into play. > >> > > >> > The earth is at an excellent location from the sun. You believe it > >> > happened by chance. I believe that it happened as a result of > >> > intelligent > >> > design. > >> > >> Without heat, water and air, you wouldn't be here now to ask that > >> question, would you? > >> > >> Yes, I have answered your question. > >> > >> Martin > > > > Martin, > > Yes you did--thanks. Intelligent design is the reason we have heat, water > > and air. > > Jason > > And man did it all, without the help of god. Man created heat, water and air??? Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Jun 21, 2:05 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f5b79s$bl...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > > Are those 500 people that agree with me (that have Ph.D degrees) also > stupid? > > > There aren't 500 people with PhD's that agree with you, liar. As it's > > been pointed out, many of them don't even have ANY degree shown in that > > list (some simply "wrote a book" and others are engineers, etc.) > > Are you stating that no engineers have Ph.D degrees? Are you stating that > none of the people that write books have Ph.D degrees? You don't need a Ph.D. degree to be an engineer. Nor do you need a Ph.D. to write a book. You just assumed that the people on the list all had Ph.D.s. It's just a list of names. And at least one person on the list was not there willingly and DOES NOT believe in creationism. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Jun 21, 2:14 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f5b87e$cf...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabb...@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? When an atheist makes use of the term "rain" the atheist doesn't believe God was involved in THAT process either. God doesn't exist. Period. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Jun 21, 2:26 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f5b8vs$d9...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > > > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <f596h8$9p...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > > >>> In article <f58luq$o5...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > >>> <prabb...@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. It isn't. And you DO know that. You've been told a doaen times in this thread alone. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Jun 21, 2:57 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182348090.555329.173...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > gudl...@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. A new species IS a new kind. Martin Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.