Guest Martin Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Jun 21, 1:01 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182400221.178506.105...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@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. > 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. There's little danger of that. It's just a question of not giving credence to theories that have no evidence or which, in fact, have already been proven wrong. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Jun 21, 1:03 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182400303.178617.309...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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. > > You should email the person that compiled the list about the names of > people that should not be on the list. Fair enough. I just sent the following e-mail to webmaster@ideacenter.org: You listed Dr. Colin Patterson in your List of Intellectual Doubters of Darwin ( http://www.ideacenter.org/site/contact.php ) and yet Dr. Colin Patterson's book "Evolution" (1978, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.). Pages 131-133 states "In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ." Why are you being deliberately deceitful? Martin Phipps Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Jun 21, 1:11 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182400381.845302.186...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@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? > If he contacted ICR--he could probably add more names to his list. Again, you lie. Morris and Gish are already on the list. Also, where are 48 and 49? Were they deleted? And how does the following "legitimize the teaching of intelligent design in the classroom"? "To Enhance the Effectiveness of Ohio Science Education, as Scientists .... We Affirm: "That biological evolution is an important scientific theory that should be taught in the classroom; That a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science; That a science curriculum should help students understand why the subject of biological evolution generates controversy; That where alternative scientific theories exist in any area of inquiry (such as wave vs. particle theories of light, biological evolution vs. intelligent design, etc.), students should be permitted to learn the evidence for and against them; That a science curriculum should encourage critical thinking and informed participation in public discussions about biological origins. We Oppose: Religious or anti-religious indoctrination in a class specifically dedicated to teaching within the discipline of science; The censorship of scientific views that may challenge current theories of origins." "Intelligent design" is a religious doctrine and not a scientific theory. In no way should scientists #'s 446 - 480 have been included in the list. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <1182388572.338981.327650@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, James Norris <JimNorris03@aol.com> wrote: > 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? I don't know. It's probably a server problem. The date and time are set correctly on my computer. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <1182401302.727328.315060@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 I disagee. I'll give one example. His name is Dr. Steven Austin. He received his doctorate from Penn State University. He is the chairman of the Geology Department at the ICR. His specialty is the sedimentary processes that form rock strata and fossils. He has led 15 research teams to the Grand Canyon. He has written numerous research papers. He wrote a book entitled, "Footprints in the Ash"--it's his third published book. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <1182401170.353456.11160@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 I have stated that there are aspects of evolution (eg Natural Selection) that I agree with. There are other aspects of evolution (eg abiogenesis and common descent) that I do not agree with. The reason: Lack of evidence. I believe that God created mankind; some plants and some animals. After the process was finished, natural selection kicked in. At least 90 or more people that have Ph.D degrees agree with me. I don't usually explain all of this when I state such things as "I am not an advocate of evolution". jason Quote
Guest hhyapster@gmail.com Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Jun 21, 12:46 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Martin, he don't know the meaning of "HYPOCRITE". Quote
Guest James Norris Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Jun 21, 8:07?am, hhyaps...@gmail.com wrote: > On Jun 21, 12:46 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > Martin, he don't know the meaning of "HYPOCRITE".- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I have to say that your insightful and well-written remarks about this complex topic really impressed me. Your have restored my faith in usenet newsgroups as a medium for meaningful discussions between intelligent human beings. Well done! ============================================ "If one doesn't clean the windows, the cat will be perplexed!" Albert Einstein http://archetype.com/macro_001.html =========================================== Quote
Guest hhyapster@gmail.com Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Jun 21, 12:55 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Martin, This fello don't know what is a fact and what is a book. How can you then communicate and try to argue with him. He is either a idiot, or a confused mind, or a naive person, or a brain-washed guy, or just a strawman. Quote
Guest hhyapster@gmail.com Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Jun 21, 12:57 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <uIkei.2382$X8.1...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-2006071906240001@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <1182385932.728635.271...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > <phippsmar...@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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - This is equivalent to a psycho institution where ordinary children should not be enrolled. And also you are trying to pre-determine the religious believe for your children, this run contrary to religious freedom in the US. Rather, your children are not given a choice. Quote
Guest James Norris Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Jun 21, 8:18?am, hhyaps...@gmail.com wrote: > On Jun 21, 12:57 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > In article <uIkei.2382$X8.1...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > >news:Jason-2006071906240001@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > In article <1182385932.728635.271...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > <phippsmar...@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.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > This is equivalent to a psycho institution where ordinary children > should not be enrolled. > And also you are trying to pre-determine the religious believe for > your children, this run contrary to religious freedom in the US. > Rather, your children are not given a choice.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I have to say that your insightful and well-written remarks about this complex topic really impressed me. Your have restored my faith in usenet newsgroups as a medium for meaningful discussions between intelligent human beings. Well done! ============================================ "If one doesn't clean the windows, the cat will be perplexed!" Albert Einstein http://archetype.com/macro_001.html =========================================== Quote
Guest hhyapster@gmail.com Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Jun 21, 1:01 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182400221.178506.105...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I thought you have faith that god will be guiding them, then why worry? Quote
Guest James Norris Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Jun 21, 8:21?am, hhyaps...@gmail.com wrote: > On Jun 21, 1:01 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > In article <1182400221.178506.105...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > Phipps <martinphip...@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.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I thought you have faith that god will be guiding them, then why worry?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I have to say that your insightful and well-written remarks about this complex topic really impressed me. Your have restored my faith in usenet newsgroups as a medium for meaningful discussions between intelligent human beings. Well done! ============================================ "If one doesn't clean the windows, the cat will be perplexed!" Albert Einstein http://archetype.com/macro_001.html =========================================== Quote
Guest hhyapster@gmail.com Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Jun 21, 1:15 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <28kj73pr3bpr6c01kt81cl1b3pdae1g...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 19:10:26 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-2006071910260...@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >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? > > > >> >> 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."- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - What are you talking about? The Chinese had and have many gods long before your god came......! This is also why your god is fearful of other gods, if not why :"Thou shall not have no other god before me"? Why, no brain cells to analyse a phrase or saying ? Quote
Guest James Norris Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Jun 21, 8:27?am, hhyaps...@gmail.com wrote: > On Jun 21, 1:15 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > In article <28kj73pr3bpr6c01kt81cl1b3pdae1g...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 19:10:26 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > <Jason-2006071910260...@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > >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? > > > > >> >> 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."- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > What are you talking about? > The Chinese had and have many gods long before your god came......! > This is also why your god is fearful of other gods, if not why :"Thou > shall not have no other god before me"? > Why, no brain cells to analyse a phrase or saying ?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I have to say that your insightful and well-written remarks about this complex topic really impressed me. Your have restored my faith in usenet newsgroups as a medium for meaningful discussions between intelligent human beings. Well done! ============================================ "If one doesn't clean the windows, the cat will be perplexed!" Albert Einstein http://archetype.com/macro_001.html =========================================== Quote
Guest James Norris Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Jun 21, 8:27?am, hhyaps...@gmail.com wrote: > On Jun 21, 1:15 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > In article <28kj73pr3bpr6c01kt81cl1b3pdae1g...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 19:10:26 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > <Jason-2006071910260...@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > >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? > > > > >> >> 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."- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > What are you talking about? > The Chinese had and have many gods long before your god came......! > This is also why your god is fearful of other gods, if not why :"Thou > shall not have no other god before me"? > Why, no brain cells to analyse a phrase or saying ?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I have to say that your insightful and well-written remarks about this complex topic really impressed me. Your have restored my faith in usenet newsgroups as a medium for meaningful discussions between intelligent human beings. Well done! ============================================ "If one doesn't clean the windows, the cat will be perplexed!" Albert Einstein http://archetype.com/macro_001.html =========================================== Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <1182403948.732350.256590@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 21, 1:01 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1182400221.178506.105...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@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. > > > 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. > > There's little danger of that. It's just a question of not giving > credence to theories that have no evidence or which, in fact, have > already been proven wrong. > > Martin Martin, Remember learning about the Scopes Monkey Trial. The Christians were trying to keep out the teaching of evolution in the public schools. I do believe that the advocates of evolution are doing the same thing those Christians done--keeping out the competition. They have the judges on their side so they will probably succeed. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <1182403994.932671.263530@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 21, 1:03 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1182400303.178617.309...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > You should email the person that compiled the list about the names of > > people that should not be on the list. > > Fair enough. I just sent the following e-mail to > webmaster@ideacenter.org: > > You listed Dr. Colin Patterson in your List of Intellectual Doubters > of Darwin ( http://www.ideacenter.org/site/contact.php ) and yet Dr. > Colin Patterson's book "Evolution" (1978, Routledge & Kegan Paul > Ltd.). Pages 131-133 states > > "In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to > bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, > the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their > closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an > extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a > small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the > rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. > There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as > Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs > (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links > land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) > fishes. . ." > > Why are you being deliberately deceitful? > > Martin Phipps Martin, Please let us know the response that you receive. Your email may bounce. I once posted my email address in newsgroup posts and still get tons of spam. I no longer post my email address for that reason. Jason Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f550vg$l7p$02$4@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <1182125258.409052.162860@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Jun 18, 2:08 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> In article >>>>> <46753e27$0$1181$61c65...@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>, >>>>> >>>>> "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Jun 16, 9:26 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>> I hope those Arabic Christians realize that the true God is very >>> different >>>>>>> than a false God. >>>>>> Just as you believe your god to be true and others false, everyone else >>>>>> believes their gods true and your god false. If you go by majority >>>>>> decision, EVERY god must be false >>>>> Or--one of the Gods may be the true God. >>>> You better hope it's not Allah then. >>>> >>>> Martin >>> It's not. >>> >>> >> How do you know? >> >> I hate to say this AGAIN! >> >> Any evidence? Except your book, of course? >> >> Tokay > > My belief system > > How is that evidence? A belief system is by definition NOT evidence for what it claims. It IS evidence for the existence of that belief system. But for nothing else. So, try again: Any evidence? Tokay -- Germans are flummoxed by humor, the Swiss have no concept of fun, the Spanish think there is nothing at all ridiculous about eating dinner at midnight, and the Italians should never, ever have been let in on the invention of the motor car. Bill Bryson Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1182218071.284270.86400@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 19, 3:01 am, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> Jason wrote: >>> >>>> There is another reason. The editors of science journals have >>>> a bias in relation to articles written by advocates of ID and >>>> creation science. >>> And it is a well deserved bias. The creationists (ID is just >>> creationism in a pretty package for resale) have no scientific >>> basis for their arguments. Every one of them is a perversion of >>> what evolution actually is. >>> >>>> The judges tell potential jury members that they should not be >>>> biased. >> They also tell jury members to consider the evidence. When a case >> lacks any evidence, it is automatically thrown out of court. Is that >> bias? >> >> Martin > > No > > Ehm. QED? Tokay -- Germans are flummoxed by humor, the Swiss have no concept of fun, the Spanish think there is nothing at all ridiculous about eating dinner at midnight, and the Italians should never, ever have been let in on the invention of the motor car. Bill Bryson Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <1182404480.086727.93260@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 21, 1:11 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1182400381.845302.186...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@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? > > > If he contacted ICR--he could probably add more names to his list. > > Again, you lie. Morris and Gish are already on the list. > > Also, where are 48 and 49? Were they deleted? > > And how does the following "legitimize the teaching of intelligent > design in the classroom"? > > "To Enhance the Effectiveness of Ohio Science Education, as Scientists > ... We Affirm: > > "That biological evolution is an important scientific theory that > should be taught in the classroom; > That a quality science education should prepare students to > distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious > or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science; > That a science curriculum should help students understand why the > subject of biological evolution generates controversy; > That where alternative scientific theories exist in any area of > inquiry (such as wave vs. particle theories of light, biological > evolution vs. intelligent design, etc.), students should be permitted > to learn the evidence for and against them; > That a science curriculum should encourage critical thinking and > informed participation in public discussions about biological > origins. > > We Oppose: > > Religious or anti-religious indoctrination in a class specifically > dedicated to teaching within the discipline of science; > The censorship of scientific views that may challenge current theories > of origins." > > "Intelligent design" is a religious doctrine and not a scientific > theory. In no way should scientists #'s 446 - 480 have been included > in the list. > > Martin Martin, I wonder if the 90 people that are listed in those ICR two books are on the list of 500 people? I don't know. I am not going to buy the two books in order to find out. Since Gish and Morris are on the list--he probably receives the ICR newsletter. If so, he knows about those two books since they are advertised in the newsletter. Dr. Henry Morris has died so his name should be removed from the list. His son, Dr. John Morris, should be on the list. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <1182410337.731200.315230@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, hhyapster@gmail.com wrote: > On Jun 21, 12:57 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <uIkei.2382$X8.1...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > > > > > > > > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > >news:Jason-2006071906240001@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > In article <1182385932.728635.271...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > <phippsmar...@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.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > This is equivalent to a psycho institution where ordinary children > should not be enrolled. > And also you are trying to pre-determine the religious believe for > your children, this run contrary to religious freedom in the US. > Rather, your children are not given a choice. Public school teachers--leave those kids alone. All in all--it's just another brick in the wall. We don't need no education We don't need no thought control Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <1182410472.795311.82060@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, hhyapster@gmail.com wrote: > On Jun 21, 1:01 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1182400221.178506.105...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@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.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > I thought you have faith that god will be guiding them, then why worry? I would not worry if public school teachers could be trusted to not teach our children false information. Quote
Guest hhyapster@gmail.com Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Jun 21, 3:56 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182403948.732350.256...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 21, 1:01 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1182400221.178506.105...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > Phipps <martinphip...@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. > > > > 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. > > > There's little danger of that. It's just a question of not giving > > credence to theories that have no evidence or which, in fact, have > > already been proven wrong. > > > Martin > > Martin, > Remember learning about the Scopes Monkey Trial. The Christians were > trying to keep out the teaching of evolution in the public schools. I do > believe that the advocates of evolution are doing the same thing those > Christians done--keeping out the competition. They have the judges on > their side so they will probably succeed. > Jason- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - You are quite a naive person. You very well know that Christianity is based on the believe of a "no where to be found" god. Most Christians are brought up in the religious culture but that doesn't mean they are fools in adulthood....! Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <f5dbsn$qot$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f550vg$l7p$02$4@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <1182125258.409052.162860@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >>> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Jun 18, 2:08 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>>> In article > >>>>> <46753e27$0$1181$61c65...@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>, > >>>>> > >>>>> "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On Jun 16, 9:26 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>>>>> I hope those Arabic Christians realize that the true God is very > >>> different > >>>>>>> than a false God. > >>>>>> Just as you believe your god to be true and others false, everyone else > >>>>>> believes their gods true and your god false. If you go by majority > >>>>>> decision, EVERY god must be false > >>>>> Or--one of the Gods may be the true God. > >>>> You better hope it's not Allah then. > >>>> > >>>> Martin > >>> It's not. > >>> > >>> > >> How do you know? > >> > >> I hate to say this AGAIN! > >> > >> Any evidence? Except your book, of course? > >> > >> Tokay > > > > My belief system > > > > > > How is that evidence? A belief system is by definition NOT evidence for > what it claims. It IS evidence for the existence of that belief system. > But for nothing else. So, try again: Any evidence? > > Tokay Just fossil evidence that is discussed in two different books that I will tell you about upon your request. 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.