Guest hhyapster@gmail.com Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Jun 21, 4:25 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182410472.795311.82...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > 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? > > I would not worry if public school teachers could be trusted to not teach > our children false information.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - You loose faith in your god, Jason. If there is this god of yours with you christians, you would prevail....! Right? However, you are doubting whether there is a god or not. And since when your scientists and the teachers (not preachers) are using false info...? News to me. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On 19 Jun., 20:44, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f58lrb$ev...@austar-news.austar.net.au>, Masked Avenger > > > > > > <cootey_59@_yahoo.com> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > >>>>>> (Jason) let us all know that: > > >>>>>>> I found this report on the internet: > > >>>>>> So what? > > >>>>>> Please tell us what this proves. > > >>>>> That at least 500 people that have Ph.D degrees agree that life did not > > >>>>> evolve from non-life. I learned from the report that Francis Crick > > >>>>> expressed doubt that the origin of life was possible on earth. > > >>>> Nothing wrong with doubt. It is faith that kills brain cells. > > >>> Francis Crick is still an advocate of evolution. He probably done lots of > > >>> research before coming to the conclusion that life did not originate on > > >>> this earth. It would be interesting to learn how he believes that life did > > >>> originate. He is a very intelligent person. > > >> Intelligent enough to know that doubting abiogenesis is not the same > > >> as conclusding that it didn't happen. > > > >> Martin > > > > He believed that the abiogenesis did NOT happen on this earth. That > > > concept is vastly different than what you believe. > > > so it happened on 'another' world ..... fact is ....... it STILL > > happened ........ > > abiogenesis is abiogenesis no matter where it happens ....... > > What are you trying to prove ? ...... that you are possibly one of the > > stupidest people on usenet ? ......... > > > sorry ...... you've already proved that ....... long ago ....... > > My point was that if abiogenesis did not happen on this earth--many of the > aspects of abiogenesis have to be revised.- I see. In that case you must now be admitting that abiogenesis took place. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On 19 Jun., 20:47, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182258423.732922.128...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 18 Jun., 21:23, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <RFvdi.5882$kR2.5...@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > > >news:Jason-1706071915140001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > > In article <1182127852.310084.309...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ma= > > rtin > > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> On Jun 18, 5:01 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > >> > In article <qrqa73denflmffls0ra83nn8q8pl3e3...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > > > > >> > <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > > > >> > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > > > > >> > > >In article <1182075020.267569.195...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.c= > > om>, > > > > > George > > > > >> > > >Chen <georgech...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > >> > > <...> > > > > > >> > > >> As is the creation of a living cell from non-living base elem= > > ents. > > > > >> > > >> That is not how it happened. As you've been told already, the > > > > >> > > >> proteins, RNA and lipid membranes all existed first (and all = > > have > > > > >> > > >> been > > > > >> > > >> produced in laboratories). Even with all of these in existan= > > ce, > > > > >> > > >> it > > > > >> > > >> apparently took millions of years for them to come together u= > > nder > > > > >> > > >> the > > > > >> > > >> right conditions and form the first cell. > > > > > >> > > >It took millions of years for them to come together naturally. = > > Would > > > > >> > > >it > > > > >> > > >take MUCH less time if everything that was needed came together= > > as a > > > > >> > > >result of scientific experiments? > > > > > >> > > Yes, it will take much less time for a living cell to be formed, > > > > >> > > probably a few weeks for a multi-step process, including the var= > > ious > > > > >> > > reactions and isolation steps involved. > > > > > >> > Why have such experiments not been done? > > > > > >> What Jim has neglected to mention is that the exact conditions > > > > >> required are not known. Most likely what would be needed would be an > > > > >> oxygen free environment because oxygen would break down exposed > > > > >> nucleic acids. Then there's the question of the exact concentrations > > > > >> of each component would be required, what temperature would be ideal > > > > >> and if some sort of substrate or catalyst would be required. "A few > > > > >> weeks" is not a very conservative estimate. > > > > > >> Martin > > > > > > Martin, > > > > > But in special labs--those conditions that you mentioned would be par= > > t of > > > > > the experiment. > > > > > This is pitiful. Jason, can you read for comprehension? In Martin's fir= > > st > > > > sentence he states that the exact conditions are not known. Let me reas= > > sure > > > > you that if the initial conditions were known it would only be a matter= > > of > > > > weeks until the conditions of life would be replicated. > > > > You appear to be stating that since the exact conditions were not known, > > > that it would be fruitless to conduct any experiments related to > > > abiogenesis. My point was that scientists could experiment with various > > > scenarios until they get it right. You appear to believe that life > > > naturally evolved from non-life. Did you realize that some very > > > intelligent people disagree with you. Did you know that one of the > > > discoverers of the structure of DNA "expressed doubt that the origin of > > > life was possible on earth." > > > > I found the following information in a website: > > > > "Francis Crick wrote "Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature" (1981) in which > > > he expressed doubt that the origin of life was possible on earth. > > > Similarly, Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe have sharply critiqued > > > the origin of life on earth in favor of evolution from space (see > > > "Evolution from Space") Robert Shapiro in his "Origins: A Skeptic's Guide > > > to the Creation of Life on Earth" (1986) also gave a similar critique > > > although he did not postulate that life came from space." > > > > Upon request, I'll post more information related to the above data and > > > tell you how to find the URL of the above site.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rsel= > > stegn - > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > I request that you explain how the above argues against abiogenesis. > > It does not argue against abiogenesis. It means that many of the aspects > of abiogenesis would have to be revised.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On 19 Jun., 19:45, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:Jason-1806072230030001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > > snip > > > I respect Dr. Criswell. I saw him preach a sermon on television about a > > dozen years ago. Is he still alive? > > He's dead. I guess he is in heaven, wherever that may be, playing > tiddlywinks with god. The game will probably last for 10^50 years and then > someone else will play with god.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On 19 Jun., 21:07, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <sIUdi.335$1a....@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-1806072251380001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <GvWdnakHpKUSturbnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: snip > > Quite frankly they shouldn't have to be encouraged. If there is no science > > there should be no article. Tell me Jason. what are the main tenets of ID > > and how do we test them? > > I don't know--someone posted the tenets of creation science.- No Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On 20 Jun., 01:30, 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". > > Martin Of course he can. He is Jason. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On 20 Jun., 04:18, 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". > > > Martin > > 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. And if he had been a teacher of astronomy and believed the Sun was the center of the universe he would not have been granted tenure. >I told you the story of the professor that humiliated Christians > related to the life boat scenario. > Jason- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On 20 Jun., 04:19, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <qgqg731ati2o3j6ukvvhmvhk40uooh4...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:31:53 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-1906071031530...@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <1182261263.411483.211...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > >Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > ... > > > >> So there are at least 504 fraudulent idiots in the world. So what? > > > >> Martin > > > >Galileo and Copernicus had to face the establishment without the help of > > >anyone. At least, we have at least 500 people fighting against the > > >evolution establishment. I don't blame the proponents of evolution for > > >putting pressure on the editors of science journals to not publish > > >articles written by advocates of creation science and intelligent design. > > >They are worried about the competition. > > > Jason, listen, almost none of the 500 that you are referring to are > > biologists. Secondly, they are the ones who are on the side of ignorance > > and darkness. Galileo and Copernicus were the good guys, just as science > > is today. You are supporting the forces of ignorance and darkness, just > > as the Church did back then. > > > You have picked the side of evil. > > I disagree. Christians represent the forces of light.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On 20 Jun., 04:37, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182296746.299166.319...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 20, 2:27 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1182260610.432907.155...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 19, 2:42 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > In article <1182228233.943883.28...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, > Martin > > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 19, 1:05 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > In article > > > > <1182219544.874919.109...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 19, 7:52 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > > > In article <bj1e7353rt356ni2l9k8i00t5kr45j3...@4ax.com>, > Free Lunch > > > > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:20:53 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > > > > > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > > > > > > > > <Jason-1806071620540...@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse..net>: > > > > > > > > > > >In article <EKydnfhTRM1rSuvbnZ2dnUVZ_qupn...@sti.net>, > "David V." > > > > > > > > > > ><s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Jason wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Thanks for your post. The end goal of the person that > > > compiled > > > > > > > > > > >> > the list was to let people know that not every > person that > > > > > > > > > > >> > has a Ph.D degree is an advocate of evolution. > > > > > > > > > > > >> No, it was not. It was an attempt to claim that these > "smart" > > > > > > > > > > >> people do not agree with science so science must be > > > wrong. It is > > > > > > > > > > >> an attempt to create a controversy where there is none. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > This tread has been going on for a couple of weeks and > > > several > > > > > > > > > > >> > posters stated or at least implied that > intelligent people > > > > > > > > > > >> > are advocates of evolution and only uneducated or stupid > > > > > > > > > > >> > people are advocates of creation science or ID. > > > > > > > > > > > >> Anyone here will tell you that it is entirely possible, and > > > > > > > > > > >> probable, that some very intelligent people will be > > > fooled by the > > > > > > > > > > >> creationists attempts to debase evolution. > > > > > > > > > > > >I doubt that people like Francis Crick were fooled by > > > > > creationists. He > > > > > > > > > > >continues to be an advocate of evolution but expressed > > > doubt that the > > > > > > > > > > >origin of life was possible on earth. He probably came > to that > > > > > decision > > > > > > > > > > >after lots of research. > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > Crick is not a creationist nor do his questions help the > > > creationist > > > > > > > > > > liars who have conned you. > > > > > > > > > > I did not state that he is a creationist. > > > > > > > > > You implied it. > > > > > > > > Re-read the above informaiton: One of the sentences is: "He > continues to > > > > > > > be an advocate of evolution..." > > > > > > > > Am I implying in that sentence that he is a creationist? > > > > > > > Then why mention him at all? He is an advocate of evolution and > > > > > > doesn't believe in creationism so the mere fact that he had doubts as > > > > > > to abiogenesis doesn't support your false argument one whit. Doubt is > > > > > > an inherent part of the scientific method. Deal with it. > > > > > > Do you doubt any of the aspects of abiogenesis? > > > > > As you already know, abiogenesis is not a theory but the idea that > > > > there once was no life and there is now life. > > > > > John Baker: Actually, Jason, abiogenesis is an absolute proven fact. > > > > Whether it came about through divine intervention or by purely > > > > natural > > > > means, at some point in the planet's history, life did arise from > > > > non-life. We both agree on that. We just disagree about how it > > > > happened. > > > > > Jason: Excellent point. > > > > John did make an excellent point but that does not mean that I believe > > > that life came about purely by natural means. I just re-read what John > > > stated and he summarized our various arguments very well. > > > No, but it does mean that you agree that abiogenesis occured even > > though you say it didn't. If it happened once then scientists can > > make it happen again. Isn't that what you said? > > > Martin > > Martin, > When I made the point: "If it happened once then scientists should be able > to make it happen again"--this is the point that I was trying to make: > > Since the scientists have not made it happen again--the reason is because > that was not the way life came to be. In other words, God created life and > that is the reason scientists are not able to make it happen again.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On 20 Jun., 05:11, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <n0rg73psrrnu9dcvs7dn0msp8odt9qg...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch snip > > The vast majority of Christians belong to church bodies that rejected > > your foolish claims about biology and evolution. Why do you think you > > are going to heaven. You have demonstrated to us all here that you love > > lies. > > According to the Nov 2004 issue of National Geographic (page 6) only 12 > percent of Americans believe that humans evolved from other life-forms > without any involvement from God.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On 20 Jun., 04:16, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:11:34 -0700, in alt.atheism > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-1906072011340...@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > >In article <n0rg73psrrnu9dcvs7dn0msp8odt9qg...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > >> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:10:07 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-1906070010070...@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <1182230648.471813.37...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, George > >> >Chen <georgech...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> >> On Jun 19, 2:19 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >> > In article <1182218594.682691.83...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >> >> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> > > On Jun 19, 3:48 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> > > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> >> > > >news:Jason-1806070044420001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net.... > > >> >> > > > > There was a war in heaven between the angels. God won the battle > >> >and the > >> >> > > > > angel that started the war (and the angels that fought on his > >> >side) were > >> >> > > > > cast down to the earth. The angel was re-named Satan and his > >followers > >> >> > > > > were re-named demons. God may have created another planet and > >> >sun (similar > >> >> > > > > to our planet and our sun). He may also have created people > >to live on > >> >> > > > > that planet; some plants and some animals. Of course, I am only > >> >guessing. > > >> >> > > > That doesn't even qualify as a guess. The omnipotent, omniscient god > >> >> > > > couldn't defeat Satin. Another strike against the existence of the > >> >big guy. > > >> >> > > For that matter, does it not occur to anyone that Satan is working FOR > >> >> > > God in this story? I mean, the people who presumably disobey God are > >> >> > > presumably sent to Hell which is presumably run by Satan who then goes > >> >> > > ahead and makes life miserable for the people sent there. Is there > >> >> > > some logical reason why Satan would do this? Satan is just a version > >> >> > > of the boogieman, except these are supposed adults who believe in him. > > >> >> > The book of Job (Job 1:5-12) discusses how Satan made a return visit to > >> >> > heaven to talk to God about Job. Satan was a former arch angel (one > >of the > >> >> > head angels). As a result, God had a good relationship with Satan--prior > >> >> > to the war. Satan became very obsessed with power and wanted to take over > >> >> > heaven but he lost that war. Actually, Hell was not created for > >people. It > >> >> > was created for Satan and his demons. It was eventually used for evil > >> >> > people such as the rich man (Luke 16: 19-31). Whether or not God > >and Satan > >> >> > worked out some sort of agreement about those subjects discussed in your > >> >> > post is not known > > >> >> Actually it is known: it is known that God, Satan, Heaven and Hell do > >> >> not exist and that they are just fantasies that idiots believe in. > > >> >> >--since such an agreement is not discussed in the Bible. > >> >> > God will eventually destoy Satan and his demons--as well as every person > >> >> > that is in hell (Rev 20:1-15)--it's referred to as the "second death". > > >> >> And you are looking forward to that, aren't you? I feel sorry for > >> >> you. I really do. > > >> >Do you also feel sorry for the 1.9 billion other Christians in the world? > >> >I feel sorry for all of the people that will go to hell instead of going > >> >to heaven. > > >> The vast majority of Christians belong to church bodies that rejected > >> your foolish claims about biology and evolution. Why do you think you > >> are going to heaven. You have demonstrated to us all here that you love > >> lies. > > >According to the Nov 2004 issue of National Geographic (page 6) only 12 > >percent of Americans believe that humans evolved from other life-forms > >without any involvement from God. > > It's sad how many Americans are ignorant or misinformed about evolution > because of the concerted efforts of liars who call themselves > Christians. It should be pointed out that people can both completely accept the theory of evolution and believe that god was involved in the process. Many more than 12 percent do believe this. I, for example, learned about evolution from Christian teachers in Christian schools. > -- > > "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel > to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy > Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should > take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in > which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh > it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On 20 Jun., 05:25, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182301939.137375.190...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 20, 1:51 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > > >news:Jason-1806072251380001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > In article <GvWdnakHpKUSturbnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > > > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > > > > >> Jason wrote: > > > >> > In article <A_KdnV1kkMdKjOrbnZ2dnUVZ_uPin...@comcast.com>, John > > > >> > Popelish > > > >> > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > > > > >> >> Jason wrote: > > > > >> >>> Upon you request, I'll post an article that was printed in a peer > > > >> >>> reviewed > > > >> >>> science journal. I seem to recall that the editor of that science > > > >> >>> journal > > > >> >>> was fired. > > > >> >> I'm looking forward to seeing this. > > > > >> >http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508 > > > > >> > scroll down and click on > > > > >> > READ MEYER'S ARTICLE > > > > >> You recalled wrong about the editor losing his job. > > > > >> From the article at this link: > > > > >> (begin excerpt) > > > > >> Eugenie Scott, the executive director of the National Center > > > >> for Science Education, says her group did consult with > > > >> Smithsonian officials and the museum's concerns were valid. > > > > >> "Clearly people were annoyed, they were frustrated, they > > > >> were blowing off steam," Scott says. "Some probably did > > > >> speak intemperately. Their concern was that somehow the > > > >> Smithsonian would be associated with supporting the > > > >> creationist cause by being associated with this journal that > > > >> published a creationist paper." > > > > >> Anyway, she says -- echoing the comments of a Smithsonian > > > >> official -- Sternberg did not really suffer. > > > > >> "He didn't lose his job, he didn't get his pay cut, he still > > > >> has his research privileges, he still has his office," Scott > > > >> says. "You know, what's his complaint? People weren't nice > > > >> to him. Well, life is not fair." > > > > >> (end excerpt) > > > > >> Also, I don't study the references to find out who reviewed > > > >> this paper before it was approved for publication, but I > > > >> think they did a very poor job of criticizing its content. > > > > >> The author uses many conclusion assuming words to describe > > > >> the arguments and questions leading up to his conclusions, > > > >> rather than neutral descriptive terms. For instance, in the > > > >> Cambrian Explosion section, he says, > > > > >> "Can neo-Darwinism explain the discontinuous increase in CSI > > > >> that appears in the Cambrian explosion--either in the form > > > >> of new genetic information or in the form of hierarchically > > > >> organized systems of parts? We will now examine the two > > > >> parts of this question." > > > > >> There is nothing in the evidence of life that implies a > > > >> discontinuous increase in information involved in any branch > > > >> of life. A miraculous intervention would be a discontinuous > > > >> event, but all that we see is a varying rate of genetic > > > >> complexity, not a discontinuous one. So he states the > > > >> question using a word that is answerable only with his > > > >> intended conclusion. > > > > >> Also, his arguments assume that evolution is producing an > > > >> intended result, even though he is criticizing the > > > >> assumptions that it is an undirected process. For instance, > > > >> in the section talking about the improbability of creating > > > >> functional protein sequences, randomly, he doesn't work with > > > >> the concept that the end result is not intended, and that > > > >> many workable results might be comparable functional in some > > > >> way. No, he works through the estimates that a particular, > > > >> presently existing function will come about, randomly, not > > > >> that any functional living thing might somehow come about. > > > >> His bias toward intentionality is understandable, as is > > > >> the obstacle that we have no idea how to estimate how many > > > >> different ways a functional living thing may be made of > > > >> different parts. > > > > >> If the reviewers approved the paper, and apparently they > > > >> did, I guess I can't fault the editor too much, though he > > > >> should have some input into the process. It is those > > > >> reviewers who botched their part of the process. This paper > > > >> could be used to design a training program for reviewers, to > > > >> show some of the many ways a paper can go wrong. > > > > >> Unfortunately, you can be certain that any other attempts at > > > >> Intelligent Design papers will certainly reference this > > > >> turkey. Lets hope their reviewers do a better job. > > > > > Thanks for your post. I posted an article a couple of days ago which > > > > indicated that the proponents of evolution are encouraging the editors of > > > > science journals to not publish any articles that are written by the > > > > advocates of creation science or intelligent design. Upon your request, > > > > I'll post it again if I can find it. > > > > Quite frankly they shouldn't have to be encouraged. > > > I think proponents of ID should be encouraged to do actual science. > > That's not what they are doing right now. To say "It's too complex to > > have happened by chance" is not a scientific argument because natural > > selection is not a random process: it's a stocastic process, yes, but > > it is biased in favour of those species that are best fit to survive. > > Apparently complexity is an advantage. > > > > If there is no science > > > there should be no article. Tell me Jason. what are the main tenets of ID > > > and how do we test them? > > > I think the editor was right in printing the article but I agree with > > John Popelish that the author should have framed his arguments with > > more scientific language (say for example "apparently discontinuous" > > as opposed to "discontinuous" because the latter assumes what he wants > > to prove and reveals his bias). I can only imagine what the article > > would have looked like before the peer review! I don't see the > > problem anyway: a poorly written article is easily refuted anyway. > > Does John Popelish have a Ph.D. in biology? It's sad that he can tear > > the paper apart so easily then. > > > Martin > > I hope that more articles written by the advocates of creation science or > ID are published in journals in the near future. > Jason- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Jun 21, 1:56 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182401302.727328.315...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@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. > 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. Unless you follow the scientific method, you are not a scientist. A scientist cannot, therefore, believe in the sort of superstititious nonsense you profess to believe in. Period. Someone who claims to be a scientist but actually believes in such nonsense is a complete fraud. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Jun 21, 2:21 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182401170.353456.11...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, 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. > > 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. There's mountains of evidence supporting evolution and common descent but you choose not to look at it. You are the basest of liars for the denying its existance. > I believe that God Talk about lack of evidence! Your god has been proven to be a myth. You proved yourself that your god was just a god like any other god when you pointed out how other gods were worshipped just like your god in ancient times. You god was just one god out of many. There was never any question of a "one true god" back then. It's just a Jideo- Christian rewriting of ancient myths, the originals of which you yourself today simply wouldn't believe. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Jun 21, 3:14 pm, hhyaps...@gmail.com wrote: > 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. It's worse than that: he's evil. I can see that now. He lustfully hopes that his Jesus will return to kill all unbelievers including those who are in Hell already. (He calls this the "second death".) It's a good thing his god isn't real because I couldn't imagine anything more evil than that: let's face it, in his story, Satan is working for his god punishing those who were sent to Hell for not believing in him. If Satan is evil in his story then how evil is his master? I guess this is why we are supposed to "fear God". The irony is that, as his god really doesn't exist, there would be nothing to fear if everybody stopped believing in it: it's as if his god were a meme that would disappear if it were no longer passed on. Martin Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On 21 Jun., 03:44, 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 turing you back on Zeus? > > > Martin > > Yes--and every other false God.- A false god being defined as one you do not believe in. You have no evidence for Zeus. Many of the beliefs about Zeus were silly. You have no evidence for your god. Many of the beliefs about your god are silly. There is no objective way to select one as being true and the other as being false. I have no more turned my back on your god than I have turned my back on Zeus. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On 21 Jun., 03:45, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182381024.670853.26...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@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.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest Martin 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>: > > > > > > >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. > 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. The Judges of today are in place to prevent such a travesty of justice from occuring again: Scopes LOST the right to teach the truth about evolution to his students. Eventually teachers won the right to teach the truth: you want to take that right away from them and have them teach creationism instead. Martin Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On 21 Jun., 03:56, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182379655.680290.141...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > snip > > > > 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".- They said there was no speciation. There was. Redefining the terms is not only dishonest; it is ridiculous. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On 21 Jun., 04:06, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182385932.728635.271...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin snip > > > 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.- Providing objective data is not brainwashing. Furthermore you have no foundation for the above charge, not that that has ever bothered you before. Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Jun 21, 4:22 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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 Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in The Wall" doesn't mention public school teachers. It is actually directed at Catholic school teachers. Keep in mind it is a song about non-conformity and what is more non- conformist than being an atheist in theseventies. Yes, Pink Floyd (Nick Mason) was an atheist. http://www.adherents.com/people/100_rock.html Another Brick in the Wall Daddy's flown across the ocean Leaving just a memory Snapshot in the family album Daddy what else did you leave for me? Daddy, what'd'ja leave behind for me?!? All in all it was just a brick in the wall. All in all it was all just bricks in the wall. "You! Yes, you! Stand still laddy!" We don't need no education We dont need no thought control No dark sarcasm in the classroom Teachers leave them kids alone Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone! All in all it's just another brick in the wall. All in all you're just another brick in the wall. We don't need no education We dont need no thought control No dark sarcasm in the classroom Teachers leave them kids alone Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone! All in all it's just another brick in the wall. All in all you're just another brick in the wall. "Wrong, Do it again!" "If you don't eat yer meat, you can't have any pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat?" "You! Yes, you behind the bikesheds, stand still laddy!" [sound of many TV's coming on, all on different channels] "The Bulls are already out there" Pink: "Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrgh!" "This Roman Meal bakery thought you'd like to know." I don't need no arms around me And I dont need no drugs to calm me. I have seen the writing on the wall. Don't think I need anything at all. No! Don't think I'll need anything at all. All in all it was all just bricks in the wall. All in all you were all just bricks in the wall. Martin Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f5b79s$blf$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> Are those 500 people that agree with me (that have Ph.D degrees) also > stupid? >> There aren't 500 people with PhD's that agree with you, liar. As it's >> been pointed out, many of them don't even have ANY degree shown in that >> list (some simply "wrote a book" and others are engineers, etc.) > > Are you stating that no engineers have Ph.D degrees? Are you stating that > none of the people that write books have Ph.D degrees? Do you never read for comprehension? I said that there were NOT 500 people with PhD's SHOWN in that list. Why would they not mention one of their most important credentials? But you assumed that they ALL had PhD's with no evidence to support that assumption (just like all the other assumptions you make.) Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <wvdei.4051$nQ5.2553@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-2006071105530001@66-52-22-61.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>> In article <f5b79s$blf$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> Are those 500 people that agree with me (that have Ph.D degrees) also >>> stupid? >>>> There aren't 500 people with PhD's that agree with you, liar. As it's >>>> been pointed out, many of them don't even have ANY degree shown in that >>>> list (some simply "wrote a book" and others are engineers, etc.) >>> Are you stating that no engineers have Ph.D degrees? Are you stating that >>> none of the people that write books have Ph.D degrees? >> No, he is stating what is written above. How in the hell you came up with >> your questions form what he wrote is known only to you and your god, and >> right now he isn't sure. > > The title of the list is: > > List of Intellectual Doubters of Darwinism And where does that say they all have PhD's? "Are those 500 people that agree with me (that have Ph.D degrees)..." WHERE does it say they all have PhD's? You wouldn't be making wild-assed, unsupported assumptions again, would you? Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Jun 21, 4:25 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182410472.795311.82...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > hhyaps...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Jun 21, 1:01 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > 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. > > > 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. Ah, I see you are still falsely calling us liars. Anyway, don't worry. As long as the public school teachers are properly educated they will teach the truth about education. It is fortunate that you never chose to become a "teacher". Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Jun 21, 4:28 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f5dbsn$qot$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <f550vg$l7p$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > > >>> In article <1182125258.409052.162...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > >>> Phipps <martinphip...@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? > Just fossil evidence that is discussed in two different books that I will > tell you about upon your request. You mean those books you claimed you either didn't have anymore or hadn't ever read? Martin Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.