Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <1182381024.670853.26570@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 That is true. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <1182380564.943339.161200@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@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 Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <1182380763.619921.188130@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Martin, That is true. jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <1182379655.680290.141710@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Martin, It may be in relation to evolution theory. It is not according to the advocates of creation science. In this case, the fruit fly would have had to evolve into a different type of insect before it was considered a new kind. "Genus" may be the term that I was looking for but am not 100% sure. If that is the correct term--the fruit fly would have to evolve into another genus before it became a new "kind". Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <1182379707.534130.141710@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 That is true. Even if all other members of the jury disagreed with me--I would still have voted to convict him based on the testimony (evidence) of the witnesses that observed him enter the apartment with a gun and hearing a shot. The O.J. defense of "some other guy did it" would not work with me. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 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. Quote
Guest David V. Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 Jason wrote: > > Here are the results of a poll ONLY 12 PERCENT OF AMERICANS > BELIEVE THAT HUMANS EVOLVED FROM OTHER LIFE-FORMS WITHOUT ANY > INVOLVEMENT FROM GOD. source: National Geographic (November, > 2004) page 6 That is pretty sad isn't it. That makes us look foolish to the rest of the world. It's bad enough we have a sociopath as a president - our country is scientifically illiterate too. > I don't blame the advocates of evolution for putting pressure > on the editors of science journals to not publish articles > written by the advocates of creation science or Intelligent > Design. Of course you can't blame them for doing something they're not doing! > One of the reasons they do it because they know that if there > were articles in every issue related to Intelligent Design > that many of the readers would come to the conclusion that ID > made more sense than evolution. .... If you really believe that.... I have a bridge to sell you. -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Jun 21, 7:19 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <0a6j731p6dudeibqbemtth8idvv6epj...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:38:44 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-2006071238450...@66-52-22-61.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >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, 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. As long as they don't try to pass it off as truth I can see them devoting a few minutes to this topic. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Jun 21, 7:21 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <8j6j73pl30k4h15prg40pvctlinkbeg...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 11:05:53 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-2006071105530...@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? > > > 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 Maybe they should have called it "LIst of Idiots who Doubt Darwinism". Of course, they should first remove the names of actual "evolutionists" that were fraudulently placed on the list. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Jun 21, 7:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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. They weren't aiming very high, were they? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Jun 21, 9:44 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182380497.144640.154...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@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 turning you back on Zeus? > Yes--and every other false God. Correction: you are turning your backs on all false gods except one. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Jun 21, 9:46 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: > > > 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. > > To say that I do not agree with someone is vastly different than calling > someone a liar. You don't agree that we are telling you the truth when in fact we are. You, on the other hand, have alternated between saying that you'd believe in evolution if there was evidence and saying that no amount of evidence would change your stand on evolution. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Jun 21, 9:56 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182379655.680290.141...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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. > It may be in relation to evolution theory. It is not according to the > advocates of creation Which is irrelevent because advocates of creation are not scientists, not in any sense of the word whatsoever. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Jun 21, 9:59 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182379707.534130.141...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > You can disagree that 2+2=4 but that doesn't make it 5. > That is true. Even if all other members of the jury disagreed with me--I > would still have voted to convict him based on the testimony (evidence) of > the witnesses that observed him enter the apartment with a gun and hearing > a shot. The O.J. defense of "some other guy did it" would not work with > me. Likewise the creationist claim that some magical fairy in the sky "did it" just doesn't work with us. We don't believe in any fairy tales, not yours and not O.J.'s. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Jun 21, 10:06 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182385932.728635.271...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 21, 5:55 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > 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. > And brainwashing by science teachers and biology professors. It's called "education", Jason, something you apparently have never experienced. Once again you are calling us liars. This goes well beyond simply disagreeing with us. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Jun 21, 10:10 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <igij73lncmssoprskphcef08i3nd0db...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 18:44:35 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-2006071844360...@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <1182380497.144640.154...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > >Phipps <martinphip...@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? > > >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. Faith is not evidence. > Books have been written on this subject. Books are not evidence, no matter how many pages long they are. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <uIkei.2382$X8.1806@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "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. The children in Christian schools and that are home schooled can still hear the truth about how life came to be on this planet. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <1182400221.178506.105870@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 21, 7:19 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <0a6j731p6dudeibqbemtth8idvv6epj...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:38:44 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > <Jason-2006071238450...@66-52-22-61.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > >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, 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. > > As long as they don't try to pass it off as truth I can see them > devoting a few minutes to this topic. > > Martin It won't happen. The advocates of evolution would never allow classes re: to Intelligent Design to be taught at state colleges. They are concerned that the students would realize that Intellegent Design made more sense. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <1182400303.178617.309720@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 21, 7:21 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <8j6j73pl30k4h15prg40pvctlinkbeg...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 11:05:53 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > <Jason-2006071105530...@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? > > > > > 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 > > Maybe they should have called it "LIst of Idiots who Doubt > Darwinism". Of course, they should first remove the names of actual > "evolutionists" that were fraudulently placed on the list. > > Martin You should email the person that compiled the list about the names of people that should not be on the list. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Jun 21, 12:57 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > The children in Christian schools and that are home schooled can still > hear the truth about how life came to be on this planet. Only if they are taught about evolution. What are our guarantees that they won't be lied to? Fortunately you never had children that you could lie to. Martin Quote
Guest cactus Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 Martin Phipps wrote: > On Jun 20, 3:45 pm, cactus <b...@nonespam.com> wrote: >> Jason wrote: > >> > Those colleges treat >>> the advocates of creation science and ID as second class citizens. >> Just like Lysenkoism, phlogiston theory, the luminiferous aether and >> flat-earthism. > > Or the Ptolemic earth-centered planetary system or spontaneous > generation or the idea that schizophrenics were possessed or the idea > that thunder storms meant the gods were angry or... > > Martin > It's really sad that his faith is so weak that he cannot be both spiritual and educated. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <1182400381.845302.186400@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 21, 7:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > 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. > > They weren't aiming very high, were they? > > Martin If he contacted ICR--he could probably add more names to his list. They have the names of at least 90 people that have Ph.D degrees that allowed ICR to put their names and essays in two different books. He should have set his standards higher--such as having only the people that had Ph.D degrees or were college professors on that list. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <28kj73pr3bpr6c01kt81cl1b3pdae1gn38@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > 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? It's a Bible doctrine based on a commandment--"Thou shalt have no other gods before me." 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.