Guest Mike Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 Jason wrote: > I seem to recall that the person that compiled the list indicated that > everyone on the list had a Ph.D degree and were intellectual doubters of > Darwinism. You seem to recall a lot of shit that you pull out of your ass with no support at all for it. That is the reason I made the point about Ph.D degrees. Some > people in this newsgroup seem to believe that it was a list of people that > had Ph.D degrees related to evolution; had jobs directed to related to > evolution research or were scientists. > > That is NOT true. > > It is a list of people that have Ph.D degrees and are Intellectual > doubters of Darwinism. Your evidence that they ALL have PhD's is where, again? Oh, yeah, piled right next to the evidence for your god. Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Jun 21, 5:32 pm, gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > 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". > Of course he can. He is Jason. True. He does not feel bound by the requirement to tell the truth. Martin Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <vk6j739i7jv0b9t94i7ia143k16rrflv32@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:07:28 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2006071407280001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>> In article <DCfei.811$1a.460@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >>> <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >>>> news:Jason-2006071257020001@66-52-22-61.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>>> In article <wvdei.4051$nQ5.2553@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >>>>> <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:Jason-2006071105530001@66-52-22-61.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>>>>> In article <f5b79s$blf$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>>>>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>>>> Are those 500 people that agree with me (that have Ph.D degrees) >>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>> stupid? >>>>>>>> There aren't 500 people with PhD's that agree with you, liar. As it's >>>>>>>> been pointed out, many of them don't even have ANY degree shown in >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> list (some simply "wrote a book" and others are engineers, etc.) >>>>>>> Are you stating that no engineers have Ph.D degrees? Are you stating >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> none of the people that write books have Ph.D degrees? >>>>>> No, he is stating what is written above. How in the hell you came > up with >>>>>> your questions form what he wrote is known only to you and your god, and >>>>>> right now he isn't sure. >>>>> The title of the list is: >>>>> >>>>> List of Intellectual Doubters of Darwinism >>>> I don't care what the title of the list is, your questions were, "Are you >>>> stating that no engineers have Ph.D degrees" and "Are you stating that >>>> none of the people that write books have Ph.D degrees?". Both of your >>>> questions have to do with Ph.D. degrees. Either you are intellectually >>>> dishonest or you're stupid. Take your choice. >>> I seem to recall that the person that compiled the list indicated that >>> everyone on the list had a Ph.D degree and were intellectual doubters of >>> Darwinism. That is the reason I made the point about Ph.D degrees. Some >>> people in this newsgroup seem to believe that it was a list of people that >>> had Ph.D degrees related to evolution; had jobs directed to related to >>> evolution research or were scientists. >>> >>> That is NOT true. >>> >>> It is a list of people that have Ph.D degrees and are Intellectual >>> doubters of Darwinism. >>> >> Then your list compiler is an idiot. The credits themselves tell us that >> some of the people don't have Ph Ds. Why do you continue to tell such >> blatant lies. Will your god really reward you for the way you make him >> look bad? > > This are the actual words on that report: > > Introduction: The claim is often made that few or no legitimate scientists > or academics have any real doubts about the validity of Darwinism, > naturalistic theories of the origins of life, or believe in the real > scientific possiblity of intelligent design of life or the universe. The > purpose of this document is to list individuals of high academic training > who have publicly expressed serious doubts about Darwinism, other > naturalistic theories of life's origin, or have expressed support for > intelligent design theory, either in scientific journals, books, > web-documents, letters, or other public statements. Our criteria for this > page is that each individual must either 1) have a PhD, 2) be a professor > at a university or 3) be moderately published in scientific journals, or > 4) is a member of a mainstream scientific society. I.e. they can have ANY of those 4 credentials. They do NOT have to have a PhD. Professors can have master's degrees. And what does "a member of a mainstream scientific society" mean? Not a whole lot. It also doesn't say "a professor at an accredited university" (diploma mills also have professors.) You really don't read this crap before you post it, do you? Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f5b87e$cf8$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In the way that John defined abiogenesis--it is an absolute proven >>> fact--read his definition. I define abiogenesis the same way that the >>> advocates of evoluition define it--(without God being involved). >> No, you define it in your own personal way. MANY creationists think that >> god actually produced the life 3 billion years ago and then just "let it >> run" via evolution. Abiogenesis happened. It's what CAUSED it to happen >> that's at issue. >> >> You'll find discussions to be a lot easier if you'd quit making up your >> own daffynitions for words. > > Are you stating that when an athiest makes use of the term "abiogenesis" > that the atheist is indicating that he believes that God was involved in > abiogenesis? No, I'm saying that abiogenesis has a specific definition: "a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter." Atheists may say that the CAUSE of the abiogenesis was something other than any god but the word itself doesn't involve the actual cause. When you use the word "fall" do you, in any way, imply what caused the object to fall? Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f5b8os$d9i$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> I hope that professor gets a job at a Christian college where he will not >>> be discriminated against and will be able to get tenure. >> If a professor at an xian college said "there is no god. The stars were >> formed by natural causes" and that professor didn't get tenure, was he >> "discriminated against?" >> >> Jason, you are SO damned funny. > > As far as I know, he was not assigned to teach classes related to creation > science or intelligent design. Answer the question: was the professor in the above hypothetical discriminated against? Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f5b8vs$d9i$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f596h8$9pt$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>> Even >>>>> if all of them do not work in fields directly related to evolution, it >>>>> does not mean they have no interest in this issue. I disagree with one of >>>>> your points--Some of those people that you menitoned have jobs not >>>>> directed related to evolution but have jobs indirectly related to >>>>> evolution. These are three examples: "Some of those people that you menitoned[sic] have jobs not directed related to evolution but have jobs indirectly related to evolution. These are three examples: >>>>> >>>>>>> 337. Prof. Vladimir Betina, PhD, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology. >>>>>>> Listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 338. Prof. Sung-Do Cha, PhD Physics. Listed on Answers in Genesis > creation >>>>>>> scientists page. >>>> How is physics related to evolution? >>> Perhaps Martin could answer this question. >> Perhaps YOU can answer it since YOU made the claim to begin with? >> >>>>>>> 339. Choong-Kuk Chang, PhD, Genetics, Princeton University. Described in >>>>>>> Creation Science In Korea. >>>>>>> >>> > > Yes, I think that these fields are indirectly related to evolution: > microbiology, biochemistry, and biology. > > I don't know whether or not Physics is indirectly related to evolution. But you claimed above (where I quoted you) that it WAS indirectly related. That wouldn't have been a lie, would it? > I believe that various people have misunderstood this fact: This is NOT a > list of scientists that are involved in evolution related fields. Instead, > the title of the list is: > > List of Intellectual Doubters of Darwinism No, you just made a claim; you were called on it; you are now backpedalling as fast and as furiously as you possibly can. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1182348182.409232.265850@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> On 19 Jun., 18:50, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <f58p6o$rf...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <dhia73p7j846pbim1ektn3h75dm58dr...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:50:26 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>>> <Jason-1606072150260...@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>>>> In article <7c29735s3e2ff7nlm8mqtbeq7lnihmu...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>>>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> Belief is _never_ evidence under any circumstance. >>>>>>>> Do you comprehend that simple fact? >>>>>>> When I was called for jury duty, we all had to listen to the judge = >> tell us >>>>>>> some of the same information that you mentioned in your post. >>>>>> Yet your posts show a total disregard for justice. You have made it >>>>>> clear that you would rather hang an innocent man than not find anyone >>>>>> guilty of a crime. >>>>> I would make the judgement based on the physical evidence and the >>>>> testimonies of the witnesses. I agree that I would be pro-prosecution= >> but >>>>> would not want to be responsible for sending an innocent man to priso= >> n=2E >>>>> That is the reason I would listen to the testimony and examine the >>>>> physical evidence. >>>> What physical evidence? You already claimed you'd send the man to prison >>>> for life based on nothing more than 8 people saying "we heard him say >>>> 'I'll kill her' and then saw him walk into the room and fire a gun." >>> In that case, there would have been NO physical evidence to examine. In >>> the above post, the question appeared to me to be unrelated to the >>> scenario that I mentioned in another post. In most cases, physical >>> evidence is involved. Yes, I would have voted to convict the husband of >>> that murder. >>> jason- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >>> >>> - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >> You have totally and, no doubt, delibrately missed the point that >> there was no evidence of a murder let alone evidence against the >> person charged. > > I disagree. I'll give you an example. This really happened: A young man > attended a party. Almost everyone that attended that party were students > at the local state college. When the party was almost over, the young man > was observed leaving the party with a young girl that was a college > student at the state college. That young girl MAY have been murdered by > that young man. Her body has NEVER been found. The cops searched the land > fills since they believed he may have placed her body in a dumpster after > he murdered her. They did not find her body. They were building a new > facility at the college so he MAY have buried her under the soft dirt. If > so, she is still under that building. The cops know that he murdered that > girl. The police captain appeared on television and stated that they would > arrest the young man and charge him with first degree murder if they were > able to find the body. I.e. "no body, no arrest." Several days ago, the cops dug up the yard of his > parents and did not find a body. The witnesses at that party would be the > main evidence--if the body had been found. No, they wouldn't have. The BODY would have been the main evidence. A lady that he attempted to > date rape--may also be a witness. I know the father of that woman that was > almost date raped. > Jason > > Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1182379707.534130.141710@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 21, 3:11 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <1182348182.409232.265...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, >>> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >>>> On 19 Jun., 18:50, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> In article <f58p6o$rf...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>>>> <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>> In article <dhia73p7j846pbim1ektn3h75dm58dr...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>>>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:50:26 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >>>>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>>>>> <Jason-1606072150260...@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>>>>>> In article <7c29735s3e2ff7nlm8mqtbeq7lnihmu...@4ax.com>, > Free Lunch >>>>>>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>> Belief is _never_ evidence under any circumstance. >>>>>>>>>> Do you comprehend that simple fact? >>>>>>>>> When I was called for jury duty, we all had to listen to the > judge = >>>> tell us >>>>>>>>> some of the same information that you mentioned in your post. >>>>>>>> Yet your posts show a total disregard for justice. You have made it >>>>>>>> clear that you would rather hang an innocent man than not > find anyone >>>>>>>> guilty of a crime. >>>>>>> I would make the judgement based on the physical evidence and the >>>>>>> testimonies of the witnesses. I agree that I would be > pro-prosecution= >>>> but >>>>>>> would not want to be responsible for sending an innocent man > to priso= >>>> n=2E >>>>>>> That is the reason I would listen to the testimony and examine the >>>>>>> physical evidence. >>>>>> What physical evidence? You already claimed you'd send the man > to prison >>>>>> for life based on nothing more than 8 people saying "we heard him say >>>>>> 'I'll kill her' and then saw him walk into the room and fire a gun." >>>>> In that case, there would have been NO physical evidence to examine. In >>>>> the above post, the question appeared to me to be unrelated to the >>>>> scenario that I mentioned in another post. In most cases, physical >>>>> evidence is involved. Yes, I would have voted to convict the husband of >>>>> that murder. >>>> You have totally and, no doubt, delibrately missed the point that >>>> there was no evidence of a murder let alone evidence against the >>>> person charged. >>> I disagree. >> You can disagree that 2+2=4 but that doesn't make it 5. >> >> Martin > > That is true. Even if all other members of the jury disagreed with me--I > would still have voted to convict him based on the testimony (evidence) of > the witnesses that observed him enter the apartment with a gun and hearing > a shot. The O.J. defense of "some other guy did it" would not work with > me. There wasn't even evidence in your hypothetical (if ALL there was was 8 people saying "we heard a threat and a gunshot.") that anything was done to begin with. You seem to keep ignoring the fact that a body IS evidence. So was there evidence here or JUST testimony? Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 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. If a "good point" is not one that's correct, then what, exactly, is so good about it? Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <igij73lncmssoprskphcef08i3nd0db3un@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 18:44:35 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2006071844360001@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>> In article <1182380497.144640.154380@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> 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. Translation: if I believe it, it's true god. If I don't believe it, it's a false god. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On 21 Jun., 07:01, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182400221.178506.105...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin snip > > > > 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. It does happen. Courses in different religious beliefs are taught. It is actually fairly important that educated people have such knowledge. As long as it is not taught as legitimate science or objective truth, there would be no problem. >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.- Once again you make a charge of dishonesty with no foundation. On the other hand the charge is so incredibly funny that no harm is done, not even to your credibility since you have none. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On 21 Jun., 08:21, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182401170.353456.11...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > snip > > > 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 How many times now has it been explained that abiogenesis is not a part of evolution? > and common descent) that I do not agree with. The reason: Lack of > evidence. That is a lie. You have been repeatedly given a great deal of evidence. You continue to ignore that and to repeat your lie. >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- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On 21 Jun., 10:25, 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.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2006071906240001@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1182385932.728635.271610@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: snip >> 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. How is the teaching of science "brainwashing"? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in snip > The children in Christian schools and that are home schooled can still > hear the truth about how life came to be on this planet. You mean YOUR version of it. Just what American needs - More idiots. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote snip > > 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 I think you've totally lost it. I hope you don't have any children. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote snip > > 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. That is a blatant lie. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote snip > I would not worry if public school teachers could be trusted to not teach > our children false information. What false information would that be? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Frank Mayhar Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 22:01:09 -0700, Jason wrote: > 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. Suuure, whatever you say, Skippy. Did you know that "gullible" isn't in the dictionary? -- Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/ Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/ http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/ http://www.zazzle.com/fmayhar Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 Jason wrote: > The children in Christian schools and that are home schooled can still > hear the truth about how life came to be on this planet. But they probably won't, if they're in an xian school. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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 Unfortunately, you're right (in that "we don't need no education" is the same as "we need education.") You need LOTS of education. Quote
Guest Frank Mayhar Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 01:25:14 -0700, Jason wrote: > I would not worry if public school teachers could be trusted to not > teach our children false information. I agree. So-called "teachers" who try to teach religion in the place of science are, in a word, vile. That _is_ what you meant, is it not? -- Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/ Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/ http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/ http://www.zazzle.com/fmayhar Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <1182417347.503673.197230@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > 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. After scientists conduct experiments that prove these steps happened--I will believe it. STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual reproduction) STEP 3 Animal cell colony (with cells depending upon each other for survival) STEP 4 Multicelled animal (with cells differentiated according to function) Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <f5dsmh$62a$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f5b8vs$d9i$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <f596h8$9pt$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Jason wrote: > >>>> Even > >>>>> if all of them do not work in fields directly related to evolution, it > >>>>> does not mean they have no interest in this issue. I disagree with one of > >>>>> your points--Some of those people that you menitoned have jobs not > >>>>> directed related to evolution but have jobs indirectly related to > >>>>> evolution. These are three examples: > > "Some of those people that you menitoned[sic] have jobs not directed > related to evolution but have jobs indirectly related to evolution. > These are three examples: > > >>>>> > >>>>>>> 337. Prof. Vladimir Betina, PhD, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology. > >>>>>>> Listed on Answers in Genesis creation scientists page. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 338. Prof. Sung-Do Cha, PhD Physics. Listed on Answers in Genesis > > creation > >>>>>>> scientists page. > >>>> How is physics related to evolution? > >>> Perhaps Martin could answer this question. > >> Perhaps YOU can answer it since YOU made the claim to begin with? > >> > >>>>>>> 339. Choong-Kuk Chang, PhD, Genetics, Princeton University. Described in > >>>>>>> Creation Science In Korea. > >>>>>>> > >>> > > > > Yes, I think that these fields are indirectly related to evolution: > > microbiology, biochemistry, and biology. > > > > I don't know whether or not Physics is indirectly related to evolution. > > But you claimed above (where I quoted you) that it WAS indirectly > related. That wouldn't have been a lie, would it? > > > I believe that various people have misunderstood this fact: This is NOT a > > list of scientists that are involved in evolution related fields. Instead, > > the title of the list is: > > > > List of Intellectual Doubters of Darwinism > > No, you just made a claim; you were called on it; you are now > backpedalling as fast and as furiously as you possibly can. I re-read the introduction to the list. When I first read the summary, I was under the impression that every person on that list had a Ph.D degree. Someone pointed out that I was wrong about that so I re-read the summary. I found out that I was wrong. Some of those people on the list do not have Ph.D degrees. The summary does NOT state that everyone on that list is involved in fields directly or indirenctly related to evolution. Upon request, I'll repost the summary. jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <f5dto1$74p$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <1182379707.534130.141710@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jun 21, 3:11 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>> In article <1182348182.409232.265...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > >>> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > >>>> On 19 Jun., 18:50, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>>> In article <f58p6o$rf...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >>>>> <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >>>>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>>>> In article <dhia73p7j846pbim1ektn3h75dm58dr...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >>>>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:50:26 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >>>>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >>>>>>>> <Jason-1606072150260...@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >>>>>>>>> In article <7c29735s3e2ff7nlm8mqtbeq7lnihmu...@4ax.com>, > > Free Lunch > >>>>>>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>>>>> Belief is _never_ evidence under any circumstance. > >>>>>>>>>> Do you comprehend that simple fact? > >>>>>>>>> When I was called for jury duty, we all had to listen to the > > judge = > >>>> tell us > >>>>>>>>> some of the same information that you mentioned in your post. > >>>>>>>> Yet your posts show a total disregard for justice. You have made it > >>>>>>>> clear that you would rather hang an innocent man than not > > find anyone > >>>>>>>> guilty of a crime. > >>>>>>> I would make the judgement based on the physical evidence and the > >>>>>>> testimonies of the witnesses. I agree that I would be > > pro-prosecution= > >>>> but > >>>>>>> would not want to be responsible for sending an innocent man > > to priso= > >>>> n=2E > >>>>>>> That is the reason I would listen to the testimony and examine the > >>>>>>> physical evidence. > >>>>>> What physical evidence? You already claimed you'd send the man > > to prison > >>>>>> for life based on nothing more than 8 people saying "we heard him say > >>>>>> 'I'll kill her' and then saw him walk into the room and fire a gun." > >>>>> In that case, there would have been NO physical evidence to examine. In > >>>>> the above post, the question appeared to me to be unrelated to the > >>>>> scenario that I mentioned in another post. In most cases, physical > >>>>> evidence is involved. Yes, I would have voted to convict the husband of > >>>>> that murder. > >>>> You have totally and, no doubt, delibrately missed the point that > >>>> there was no evidence of a murder let alone evidence against the > >>>> person charged. > >>> I disagree. > >> You can disagree that 2+2=4 but that doesn't make it 5. > >> > >> Martin > > > > That is true. Even if all other members of the jury disagreed with me--I > > would still have voted to convict him based on the testimony (evidence) of > > the witnesses that observed him enter the apartment with a gun and hearing > > a shot. The O.J. defense of "some other guy did it" would not work with > > me. > > There wasn't even evidence in your hypothetical (if ALL there was was 8 > people saying "we heard a threat and a gunshot.") that anything was done > to begin with. You seem to keep ignoring the fact that a body IS > evidence. So was there evidence here or JUST testimony? A body is evidence. Two legs that are the same size are evidence. Her medical records (eg X-rays) related to the car accident are evidence. The testimony of the doctor that removed two inches of crushed leg bone is evidence. 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.