Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Jun 21, 3:11 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182348182.409232.265...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > gudl...@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. > > > 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. You can disagree that 2+2=4 but that doesn't make it 5. Martin Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:25:36 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2006071625360001@66-52-22-77.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <vk6j739i7jv0b9t94i7ia143k16rrflv32@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> 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? > >This are the actual words on that report: > >Introduction: The claim is often made that few or no legitimate scientists >or academics have any real doubts about the validity of Darwinism, >naturalistic theories of the origins of life, or believe in the real >scientific possiblity of intelligent design of life or the universe. The >purpose of this document is to list individuals of high academic training >who have publicly expressed serious doubts about Darwinism, other >naturalistic theories of life's origin, or have expressed support for >intelligent design theory, either in scientific journals, books, >web-documents, letters, or other public statements. Our criteria for this >page is that each individual must either 1) have a PhD, 2) be a professor >at a university or 3) be moderately published in scientific journals, or >4) is a member of a mainstream scientific society. > So, they can be part of the list even if they aren't PhDs or don't even know what is going on in biology. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Jun 21, 2:26 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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: But that's what you were implying: you said they were all Ph.D.s. > List of Intellectual Doubters of Darwinism 1) "Intellectual" does not mean "doctor", although I'm sure you were encouraged to think so. 2) To "doubt" is not the same as to "refute". Hundreds of people may doubt the truth and it will still be true. 3) Doubting Darwin is apparently not the same as doubting evolution as there is at least one person on the list who is actually an advocate of evolution. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Jun 21, 3:13 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182348318.114973.155...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > gudl...@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. Are you turing you back on Zeus? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Jun 21, 3:21 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182348442.506426.304...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@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. So you have no way of refuting what we have to say but you accuse us of being liars and morons anyway. How nice. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Jun 21, 3:38 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f5baj2$e5...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > > > <prabb...@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, it's simple. In the same way that the church swore it was correct in terms of the Earth being the centre of the universe back in the days of Copernicus and Galileo, it is only religious fundamentalists like yourself who discount evolution and common descent. The beauty is that you can't accuse me of making a derogatory remark because you ACTUALLY ADMITTED to being a fundamentalist in a previous post. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Jun 21, 3:53 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182348668.210600.272...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@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. Scientific research regarding "intelligent design" does not exist. It all comes down to "The world is so complex that God must have done it" (as if this explains anything). Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Jun 21, 3:57 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <wvdei.4051$nQ5.2...@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-2006071105530001@66-52-22-61.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <f5b79s$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? > > > 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 So when you said above that they had Ph.D.s you were lying (yet again). Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Jun 21, 5:01 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> > 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. Argument ad ignorantum. The fact that you believe that heaven and hell exist do not make them real either. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 In article <0a6j731p6dudeibqbemtth8idvv6epj32f@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > 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. That is not a problem. Call the class: The religion of Intelligent Design. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 In article <8j6j73pl30k4h15prg40pvctlinkbegamn@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > 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. This is the title of the list: List of Intellectual Doubters of Darwinism The title is NOT List of Scientists that are Doubters of Darwinism Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 In article <vk6j739i7jv0b9t94i7ia143k16rrflv32@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > 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? This are the actual words on that report: Introduction: The claim is often made that few or no legitimate scientists or academics have any real doubts about the validity of Darwinism, naturalistic theories of the origins of life, or believe in the real scientific possiblity of intelligent design of life or the universe. The purpose of this document is to list individuals of high academic training who have publicly expressed serious doubts about Darwinism, other naturalistic theories of life's origin, or have expressed support for intelligent design theory, either in scientific journals, books, web-documents, letters, or other public statements. Our criteria for this page is that each individual must either 1) have a PhD, 2) be a professor at a university or 3) be moderately published in scientific journals, or 4) is a member of a mainstream scientific society. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 On Jun 21, 5:07 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <DCfei.811$1a....@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-2006071257020001@66-52-22-61.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <wvdei.4051$nQ5.2...@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > >>news:Jason-2006071105530001@66-52-22-61.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > >> > 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? > > > >> 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. Actually, that's what you were implying. > That is NOT true. We knew that. We've come to expect that from you. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Jun 21, 5:55 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <ZVfei.830$1a....@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-2006070004340001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <1182314491.538672.164...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jun 20, 10:18 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> > In article <1182295801.664622.91...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > >> > Martin > > > >> > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > On Jun 20, 1:31 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> > > > In article > > > <1182261263.411483.211...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > >> > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> > > > > On Jun 19, 3:04 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > >> > > > > > Those 500 people on that list that have obtained Ph.D degrees > > > attended > > >> > > > > > many different colleges and they came to the same conclusion > > > that I came > > >> > > > > > to. > > > >> > > > > So there are at least 504 fraudulent idiots in the world. So > > >> > > > > what? > > > >> > > > Galileo and Copernicus had to face the establishment without the > > >> > > > help of > > >> > > > anyone. At least, we have at least 500 people fighting against the > > >> > > > evolution establishment. > > > >> > > You can't have it both ways, Jason. You can't argue that 88% of the > > >> > > American population agrees with you and then claim that these people > > >> > > are lonely voices fighting against "the establishment". > > > >> > As far as state colleges are concerned, Christians that are advocates > > >> > of > > >> > creation science are lonely voices fighting against "the > > >> > establishment". > > >> > If you don't believe me, talk to the professor that was denied tenure > > >> > mainly because he was an advocate of creation science. If he had been > > >> > an > > >> > advocate of evolution, it's my guess that he would have been granted > > >> > tenure. I told you the story of the professor that humiliated > > >> > Christians > > >> > related to the life boat scenario. > > > >> You didn't answer my implied question, Jason: if 88% of Americans > > >> believe as you do then it is the "evolutionists" who are fighting > > >> against the establishment. You can't have it both ways, can you? > > > >> 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. For now. We can expect that number to drop steadily as people around the world get better access to education. Martin Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:20:18 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: - Refer: <6g6j731g77h1l5uv833f8v47hjsler339l@4ax.com> >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. Not even a hangman? -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:12:25 -0400, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: - Refer: <ESfei.828$1a.248@bignews1.bellsouth.net> > >"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message : >> 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. The last time that Christianity controlled western society, we called it "Reaganomics". -- Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Jun 21, 6:00 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <o0gei.835$1a....@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-1906071932510001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <1182296011.654703.17...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jun 20, 1:55 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> > In article <f58mf7$on...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > >> > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > >> > > Jason wrote: > > >> > > > In article > > > <1182228954.642933.319...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, George > > >> > > > Chen <georgech...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> > > >> On Jun 19, 1:12 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> > > >>> In article > > > <1182217986.803825.125...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > >> > > >>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> > > >>>> On Jun 19, 3:53 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> > > >>>>> In article <DOSdnUx-mdYuEuvbnZ2dnUVZ_vyun...@sti.net>, "David > > >> > > >>>>> V." > > >> > > >>>>> <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >>>>>> Jason wrote: > > >> > > >>>>>>> I found this report on the internet: I deleted number 10 to > > >> > > >>>>>>> 335. If you want to see the entire list, google this term: > > >> > > >>>>>>> List of Intellectual Doubters of Darwinism > > >> > > >>>>>> So? 500 out of hundreds of thousands of real scientists around > > >> > > >>>>>> the world is an insignificant number. A quick glance of the > > >> > > >>>>>> list > > >> > > >>>>>> showed a good number of those anti-evolutionists were not > > >> > > >>>>>> scientists or were not in the field of biology. > > >> > > >>>>>> They can doubt all they want and it's great they do because > > >> > > >>>>>> that's the way science works. It's part of the self correcting > > >> > > >>>>>> mechanism that religions lack. All they need to do is provide > > >> > > >>>>>> proof that evolution is wrong. So far they have not done so. > > >> > > >>>>>> The > > >> > > >>>>>> instant they do it will be big news and it will be in every > > >> > > >>>>>> journal that has anything to do with biology. Their lack of > > >> > > >>>>>> such > > >> > > >>>>>> proof speaks volumes. > > >> > > >>>>> Thanks for your post. The end goal of the person that compiled > > > the list > > >> > > >>>>> was to let people know that not every person that has a Ph.D > > >> > > > degree is an > > >> > > >>>>> advocate of evolution. This tread has been going on for a > > >> > > >>>>> couple > > >> > > > of weeks > > >> > > >>>>> and several posters stated or at least implied that intelligent > > >> > > > people are > > >> > > >>>>> advocates of evolution and only uneducated or stupid people are > > >> > > > advocates > > >> > > >>>>> of creation science or ID. At the very least, that was my > > > impression of > > >> > > >>>>> their opinions. I found it shocking that these famous people do > > >> > > >>>>> not > > >> > > >>>>> believe that life evolved from non-life on this earth: > > >> > > >>>>> Francis Crick was one of the discoverers of DNA > > >> > > >>>>> Taken from the above mentioned report: > > >> > > >>>>> "It should be noted that there are other scientists who are > > > committed > > >> > > >>>>> evolutionists, but have yet expressed doubt about various > > >> > > >>>>> mainstream > > >> > > >>>>> theories on the origin and diversification of life. For > > > example, Francis > > >> > > >>>>> Crick wrote "Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature" (1981) in > > >> > > >>>>> which he > > >> > > >>>>> expressed doubt that the origin of life was possible on earth. > > >> > > > Similarly, > > >> > > >>>>> Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe have sharply critiqued > > >> > > >>>>> the > > >> > > > origin of > > >> > > >>>>> life on earth in favor of evolution from space (see "Evolution > > >> > > >>>>> from > > >> > > >>>>> Space") Robert Shapiro in his "Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to > > >> > > >>>>> the > > >> > > > Creation > > >> > > >>>>> of Life on Earth" (1986) also gave a similar critique although > > >> > > >>>>> he > > >> > > > did not > > >> > > >>>>> postulate that life came from space." > > >> > > >>>> You don't understand how science works: science progresses > > >> > > >>>> because we > > >> > > >>>> doubt existing theories. Meanwhile, religion stagnates and will > > >> > > >>>> eventually disappear because your beliefs can no longer be > > >> > > >>>> reconciled > > >> > > >>>> with the known facts. > > >> > > >>> Interesting point--According to the info. posted above--it states > > >> > > >>> that > > >> > > >>> Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe have sharply critiqued the > > > origin of > > >> > > >>> life on earth in favor of evolution from space..." What do they > > > mean? It > > >> > > >>> this a rehash of Erik von Dannkan's concepts re: ancient > > >> > > >>> astronauts? > > >> > > >> No, not at all. The argument is that an oxygen atmosphere would > > >> > > >> have > > >> > > >> been toxic to early life so perhaps life originated in comets or > > >> > > >> on > > >> > > >> asteroids. It has been suggested that the earth's atmosphere only > > >> > > >> became rich in oxygen gas after plant life formed and converted > > >> > > >> carbon > > >> > > >> dioxide into carbon and oxygen (through photosynthesis). This is > > >> > > >> the > > >> > > >> argunent that most scientists favour because the idea of life > > >> > > >> dropping > > >> > > >> down from space seems awfully far fetched, although not as far > > >> > > >> fetched > > >> > > >> as ancient astronauts or some omnipotent fairy in the sky creating > > >> > > >> everything. > > > >> > > > Thanks for your post. It's an interesting concept. Since an oxygen > > >> > > > atmosphere is toxic to early life--how come life has not evolved on > > >> > > > planets that have no oxygen? > > > >> > > How do we know it hasn't? > > > >> > > The Viking space mission did not discover any > > >> > > > signs of life on Mars. > > > >> > > ...yet. > > > >> > > > We found no signs of life on the moon. > > > >> > > Life, in all likelihood, requires SOME form of an atmosphere or other > > >> > > means (such as immersion into a liquid) to prevent liquids from > > >> > > escaping, etc. There are other atmospheres than just "oxygen-rich" > > >> > > ones. > > >> > > The moon has no atmosphere or liquid water (that we know of) and thus > > >> > > (probably) no life. Mars has a very thin atmosphere and thus isn't as > > >> > > likely as the earth to have life. Also things like temperature, > > >> > > pressure, etc. come into play. > > > >> > The earth is at an excellent location from the sun. You believe it > > >> > happened by chance. I believe that it happened as a result of > > >> > intelligent > > >> > design. > > > >> Without heat, water and air, you wouldn't be here now to ask that > > >> question, would you? > > > >> Yes, I have answered your question. > > > > Yes you did--thanks. Intelligent design is the reason we have heat, water > > > and air. > > > Jason > > > And man did it all, without the help of god. > > Man created heat, water and air??? Maybe not so much water and air but we do constantly give off carbon dioxide and I produce urine every day. I admit I am somewhat at a loss as to what Ralph meant but it's true that no god is imvolved. Martin Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:03:56 +0930, in alt.atheism Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in <arhj73t1atua9vru1lekvtjetcqv1ru3q9@4ax.com>: >On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:20:18 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> >wrote: > - Refer: <6g6j731g77h1l5uv833f8v47hjsler339l@4ax.com> >>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. > >Not even a hangman? Probably not, unless he finds a different country to tell his religiously motivated lies from. John Calvin's Geneva would have done it in a trice. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 18:44:35 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2006071844360001@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1182380497.144640.154380@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 21, 3:13 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1182348318.114973.155...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, >> > gudl...@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. >> >> Are you turing you back on Zeus? >> >> Martin > >Yes--and every other false God. > Could you explain to us what standard of evidence you use for determining which gods are true and which are false? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 18:41:44 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2006071841440001@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1182379394.747043.107360@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> 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 > >I re-read the information on the list. I was wrong. He did not state that >every person on the list had Ph.D degree. It appeared to me that he did >not ask the people that had written books for permission to place their >names on his list. He probably assumed that was public information. Here >is the summary from the report: > >"Introduction: The claim is often made that few or no legitimate >scientists or academics have any real doubts about the validity of >Darwinism, naturalistic theories of the origins of life, or believe in the >real scientific possiblity of intelligent design of life or the universe. >The purpose of this document is to list individuals of high academic >training who have publicly expressed serious doubts about Darwinism, other >naturalistic theories of life's origin, or have expressed support for >intelligent design theory, either in scientific journals, books, >web-documents, letters, or other public statements. Our criteria for this >page is that each individual must either 1) have a PhD, 2) be a professor >at a university or 3) be moderately published in scientific journals, or >4) is a member of a mainstream scientific society." > The reality is that he could bare scrape up 500, some by being misleading. There are tens of thousands of biologists who actually know why they accept the evidence for evolution. You worship ignorance. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 19:10:26 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2006071910260001@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <igij73lncmssoprskphcef08i3nd0db3un@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 18:44:35 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2006071844360001@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <1182380497.144640.154380@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Jun 21, 3:13 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > In article <1182348318.114973.155...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, >> >> > gudl...@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. >> >> >> >> Are you turing you back on Zeus? >> >> >> >> Martin >> > >> >Yes--and every other false God. >> > >> Could you explain to us what standard of evidence you use for >> determining which gods are true and which are false? > >It's mainly based on faith. Books have been written on this subject. > So you claim that the god you believe in is true but the ones you don't believe in are false. Why should anyone be persuaded? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 19:06:24 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2006071906240001@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1182385932.728635.271610@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 21, 5:55 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <ZVfei.830$1a....@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> > >> > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> > >news:Jason-2006070004340001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > > > In article <1182314491.538672.164...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >Martin >> > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> > > >> On Jun 20, 10:18 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > >> > In article <1182295801.664622.91...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, >> > > >> > Martin >> > >> > > >> > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > On Jun 20, 1:31 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > >> > > > In article >> > > > <1182261263.411483.211...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> > >> > > >> > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > > > On Jun 19, 3:04 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > > > > Those 500 people on that list that have obtained Ph.D degrees >> > > > attended >> > > >> > > > > > many different colleges and they came to the same conclusion >> > > > that I came >> > > >> > > > > > to. >> > >> > > >> > > > > So there are at least 504 fraudulent idiots in the world. So >> > > >> > > > > what? >> > >> > > >> > > > Galileo and Copernicus had to face the establishment without the >> > > >> > > > help of >> > > >> > > > anyone. At least, we have at least 500 people fighting >against the >> > > >> > > > evolution establishment. >> > >> > > >> > > You can't have it both ways, Jason. You can't argue that 88% >of the >> > > >> > > American population agrees with you and then claim that these >people >> > > >> > > are lonely voices fighting against "the establishment". >> > >> > > >> > As far as state colleges are concerned, Christians that are advocates >> > > >> > of >> > > >> > creation science are lonely voices fighting against "the >> > > >> > establishment". >> > > >> > If you don't believe me, talk to the professor that was denied tenure >> > > >> > mainly because he was an advocate of creation science. If he had been >> > > >> > an >> > > >> > advocate of evolution, it's my guess that he would have been granted >> > > >> > tenure. I told you the story of the professor that humiliated >> > > >> > Christians >> > > >> > related to the life boat scenario. >> > >> > > >> You didn't answer my implied question, Jason: if 88% of Americans >> > > >> believe as you do then it is the "evolutionists" who are fighting >> > > >> against the establishment. You can't have it both ways, can you? >> > >> > > >> 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. >> >> For now. We can expect that number to drop steadily as people around >> the world get better access to education. >> >> Martin > >And brainwashing by science teachers and biology professors. > Your vile defamation of science and scientists continues. Quote
Guest James Norris Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Jun 21, 2:46?am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182380564.943339.161...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 21, 3:21 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1182348442.506426.304...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > gudl...@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. > > > So you have no way of refuting what we have to say but you accuse us > > of being liars and morons anyway. How nice. > > > Martin > > To say that I do not agree with someone is vastly different than calling > someone a liar. > Jason- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Sorry to interrupt your slanging match. How come your postings are dated ahead of the time they arrive? This one I'm replying to is Jun 21, 2:46 am, and it's currently only 2:14 am. How did you do that? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <1182379394.747043.107360@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 I re-read the information on the list. I was wrong. He did not state that every person on the list had Ph.D degree. It appeared to me that he did not ask the people that had written books for permission to place their names on his list. He probably assumed that was public information. Here is the summary from the report: "Introduction: The claim is often made that few or no legitimate scientists or academics have any real doubts about the validity of Darwinism, naturalistic theories of the origins of life, or believe in the real scientific possiblity of intelligent design of life or the universe. The purpose of this document is to list individuals of high academic training who have publicly expressed serious doubts about Darwinism, other naturalistic theories of life's origin, or have expressed support for intelligent design theory, either in scientific journals, books, web-documents, letters, or other public statements. Our criteria for this page is that each individual must either 1) have a PhD, 2) be a professor at a university or 3) be moderately published in scientific journals, or 4) is a member of a mainstream scientific society." Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2006071906240001@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1182385932.728635.271610@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 21, 5:55 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <ZVfei.830$1a....@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> > >> > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> > >news:Jason-2006070004340001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > > > In article <1182314491.538672.164...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > Martin >> > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> > > >> On Jun 20, 10:18 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > >> > In article >> > > >> > <1182295801.664622.91...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, >> > > >> > Martin >> > >> > > >> > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > On Jun 20, 1:31 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > >> > > > In article >> > > > <1182261263.411483.211...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> > >> > > >> > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > > > On Jun 19, 3:04 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > > > > Those 500 people on that list that have obtained Ph.D >> > > >> > > > > > degrees >> > > > attended >> > > >> > > > > > many different colleges and they came to the same >> > > >> > > > > > conclusion >> > > > that I came >> > > >> > > > > > to. >> > >> > > >> > > > > So there are at least 504 fraudulent idiots in the world. >> > > >> > > > > So >> > > >> > > > > what? >> > >> > > >> > > > Galileo and Copernicus had to face the establishment without >> > > >> > > > the >> > > >> > > > help of >> > > >> > > > anyone. At least, we have at least 500 people fighting > against the >> > > >> > > > evolution establishment. >> > >> > > >> > > You can't have it both ways, Jason. You can't argue that 88% > of the >> > > >> > > American population agrees with you and then claim that these > people >> > > >> > > are lonely voices fighting against "the establishment". >> > >> > > >> > As far as state colleges are concerned, Christians that are >> > > >> > advocates >> > > >> > of >> > > >> > creation science are lonely voices fighting against "the >> > > >> > establishment". >> > > >> > If you don't believe me, talk to the professor that was denied >> > > >> > tenure >> > > >> > mainly because he was an advocate of creation science. If he had >> > > >> > been >> > > >> > an >> > > >> > advocate of evolution, it's my guess that he would have been >> > > >> > granted >> > > >> > tenure. I told you the story of the professor that humiliated >> > > >> > Christians >> > > >> > related to the life boat scenario. >> > >> > > >> You didn't answer my implied question, Jason: if 88% of Americans >> > > >> believe as you do then it is the "evolutionists" who are fighting >> > > >> against the establishment. You can't have it both ways, can you? >> > >> > > >> 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. >> >> For now. We can expect that number to drop steadily as people around >> the world get better access to education. >> >> Martin > > And brainwashing by science teachers and biology professors. No brainwashing, Jason, that is the province of religion. Better education means fewer place for the 'god of the gaps' to hide. 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.