Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <f5dsbt$5g3$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f5b8os$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? The professor was denied tenune. If an investigation revealed that the primary reason was due to the fact that he was an advocate of creation science, it would be my conclusion that he was discriminated against for his religious beliefs. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <1182419527.979191.51540@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > 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=F8rselstegn - > > Which does not mean that only 12 percent accept the theory of > evolution. Why do you keep bringing this up? It was silly the first > time; now it is just pathetic. > > > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - Believe it or not, one of the aspects of evolution is that humans evolved from other life-forms with any involvement from God. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <1182427308.899634.117560@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > 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. To not even believe there is a God is even worse than turning your back on God. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <1182419694.844670.209030@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > 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>, Ge= > orge > > >> >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= > .=2E. > > > > >> >> > > > > There was a war in heaven between the angels. God won the b= > attle > > >> >and the > > >> >> > > > > angel that started the war (and the angels that fought on h= > is > > >> >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 a= > nd > > >> >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, omnisci= > ent god > > >> >> > > > couldn't defeat Satin. Another strike against the existence o= > f the > > >> >big guy. > > > > >> >> > > For that matter, does it not occur to anyone that Satan is work= > ing FOR > > >> >> > > God in this story? I mean, the people who presumably disobey G= > od are > > >> >> > > presumably sent to Hell which is presumably run by Satan who th= > en goes > > >> >> > > ahead and makes life miserable for the people sent there. Is t= > here > > >> >> > > some logical reason why Satan would do this? Satan is just a v= > ersion > > >> >> > > 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 vi= > sit to > > >> >> > heaven to talk to God about Job. Satan was a former arch angel (o= > ne > > >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 t= > ake 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 de= > ath". > > > > >> >> 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 wo= > rld? > > >> >I feel sorry for all of the people that will go to hell instead of go= > ing > > >> >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. That is true. This is a summary of how I understand it. God created mankind; some plants and some animals. After the creation process was finished--natural selection kicked in. Natural Selection is the most important aspect of evolution theory. Therefore, I am in agreement with your Christian teachers. However, many of the advocates of evolution (especially many atheist college biology professors) believe that "humans evolved from other life-forms without any involvement from God." Since they do not believe in God, it's logical that they would believe that God was not involved. Many people in this newsgroup also believe that God was not involved. > > > > -- > > > > "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=F8rselstegn - > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <1182417474.204098.272040@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > 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=3D > > > rtin > > > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Jun 18, 5:01 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > >> > In article <qrqa73denflmffls0ra83nn8q8pl3e3...@4ax.com>, Jim07= > D7 > > > > > > > >> > <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > > > > >> > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > > > > > > >> > > >In article <1182075020.267569.195...@d30g2000prg.googlegrou= > ps.c=3D > > > om>, > > > > > > George > > > > > >> > > >Chen <georgech...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > >> > > <...> > > > > > > > >> > > >> As is the creation of a living cell from non-living base = > elem=3D > > > ents. > > > > > >> > > >> That is not how it happened. As you've been told already= > , the > > > > > >> > > >> proteins, RNA and lipid membranes all existed first (and = > all =3D > > > have > > > > > >> > > >> been > > > > > >> > > >> produced in laboratories). Even with all of these in exi= > stan=3D > > > ce, > > > > > >> > > >> it > > > > > >> > > >> apparently took millions of years for them to come togeth= > er u=3D > > > nder > > > > > >> > > >> the > > > > > >> > > >> right conditions and form the first cell. > > > > > > > >> > > >It took millions of years for them to come together natural= > ly. =3D > > > Would > > > > > >> > > >it > > > > > >> > > >take MUCH less time if everything that was needed came toge= > ther=3D > > > as a > > > > > >> > > >result of scientific experiments? > > > > > > > >> > > Yes, it will take much less time for a living cell to be for= > med, > > > > > >> > > probably a few weeks for a multi-step process, including the= > var=3D > > > 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 concentra= > tions > > > > > >> of each component would be required, what temperature would be i= > deal > > > > > >> 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=3D > > > t of > > > > > > the experiment. > > > > > > > This is pitiful. Jason, can you read for comprehension? In Martin's= > fir=3D > > > st > > > > > sentence he states that the exact conditions are not known. Let me = > reas=3D > > > sure > > > > > you that if the initial conditions were known it would only be a ma= > tter=3D > > > of > > > > > weeks until the conditions of life would be replicated. > > > > > > You appear to be stating that since the exact conditions were not kno= > wn, > > > > that it would be fruitless to conduct any experiments related to > > > > abiogenesis. My point was that scientists could experiment with vario= > us > > > > 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 w= > hich > > > > he expressed doubt that the origin of life was possible on earth. > > > > Similarly, Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe have sharply critiqu= > ed > > > > the origin of life on earth in favor of evolution from space (see > > > > "Evolution from Space") Robert Shapiro in his "Origins: A Skeptic's G= > uide > > > > 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=3D= > F8rsel=3D > > > stegn - > > > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=3DF8rselstegn - > > > > > 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=F8rselstegn - > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > I am glad that you now accept abiogenesis. It may be slow, but you > are making progress. Only if God was involved. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <f5dqr1$450$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f5b79s$blf$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> Are those 500 people that agree with me (that have Ph.D degrees) also > > stupid? > >> There aren't 500 people with PhD's that agree with you, liar. As it's > >> been pointed out, many of them don't even have ANY degree shown in that > >> list (some simply "wrote a book" and others are engineers, etc.) > > > > Are you stating that no engineers have Ph.D degrees? Are you stating that > > none of the people that write books have Ph.D degrees? > > Do you never read for comprehension? I said that there were NOT 500 > people with PhD's SHOWN in that list. Why would they not mention one of > their most important credentials? But you assumed that they ALL had > PhD's with no evidence to support that assumption (just like all the > other assumptions you make.) I re-read the summary and found out that I was wrong. As you stated, the summary does NOT state that everyone on that list has a Ph.D degree. Thanks for pointing out my error. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <1182426261.354417.263010@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 21, 1:56 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1182401302.727328.315...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 21, 9:56 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <1182379655.680290.141...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 21, 2:57 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > In article <1182348090.555329.173...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > On 19 Jun., 18:47, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > > In article <f58ol9$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 At the very least, he is a researcher. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <1182427787.758392.113320@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > 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. The taxonomic classification was developed in 1735. When the Bible was written, the classification had not yet been written. The Bible authors made use of the term "kinds" for every different type of animal. For example, all types of canines were one kind---all types of felines were one kind---All types of horses (Equus) were one kind. The advocates of creation science believe that evolution can take place but only within kinds. For example, a horse could evolve into another type of horse but would not evolve into into a non-horse creature. Fruit flies could evolve into another type of fruit fly but not into an insect that was NOT a fruit fly. This is related to the Bible. God created the various KINDS. The animals we have today evolved from the "kinds" that God created. For exaple, God may have created a vaguely horselike creature called Hyracotherium. He may also have created a creature that looked somewhat like a wolf. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <f5dtqr$74p$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > 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? I stated that I did not agree with the points that he made. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <1182427767.298489.13140@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 They can teach evolution and Intellegent Design. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <1182438453.643233.289060@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > 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>, M= > artin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 21, 7:19 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > In article <0a6j731p6dudeibqbemtth8idvv6epj...@4ax.com>, Free Lun= > ch > > > > > > <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 3= > 8% are > > > > > > "somewhat > > > > > > > >> > religious". That adds up to 75% of Americans. That is prob= > ably > > > > 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 som= > e "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 a= > nswer: > > > > > > > > > >No--it's more complicated--In much the same way that the > > Catholics in the > > > > > > > >days of Copernicus and Galileo believed they were correct rela= > ted > > > > 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. Y= > ou 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. =20 > > > > > > > > > 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 concer= > ned > > > > 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=F8rselstegn - > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > I thought you wanted creation science taught in science classes? Intelligent design should be taught in those states that approve it. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <1182429083.644196.269710@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 Yes Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <5dviiiF333gneU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-2006071906240001@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <1182385932.728635.271610@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > > 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"? In this case--teaching only one theory and not allowing Intelligent Design to be taught. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <f5e7s6$h2i$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > 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. I don't know about all Christian school except for one of the local Christian schools. They teach both evolution and creation science. The reason they teach evolution is because they don't want the students to be at a disadvantage when they take biology classes in state colleges. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <1182428758.173383.124720@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 Thanks--I heard the song on the car radio yesterday. It was one of the best songs that has ever been recorded. When I heard it, it made me think of how the the advocates of evolution want "thought control". They will go to court to prevent intelligent design from being taught. That is "thought control" since they don't want competition. You may NOT realize but it is thought control but almost every Christian in that state would agree that it was thought control. It's my guess that many of those Christian parents pulled their children out of the the public schools after that court decision. They placed those children in Christian schools where they could learn about evolution and intelligent design. You want to have education You want to have thought control all in all it was just bricks in the wall Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <5dvilhF35tcs6U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > "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. It's words from a famous song. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <5dvilhF35tcs6U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > "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. It's words from a famous song. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2106071151200001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1182427767.298489.13140@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 > > They can teach evolution and Intellegent Design. You never did tell me what science there is in ID. I assume that as an ID supporter you would know such things. For example, what is the difference between intelligent and non-intelligent design? How do we test for a theory of ID? How do we search for the designer? What steps can we use to find the designer? This is an honest question and one that all ID proponents must answer if there is to be a theory of ID. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2106071155230001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1182438453.643233.289060@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> 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>, >> > > > M= >> artin >> > >> > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > > > On Jun 21, 7:19 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > > > > In article <0a6j731p6dudeibqbemtth8idvv6epj...@4ax.com>, Free >> > > > > > Lun= >> ch >> > > > > > <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 >> > > > > > > >> > 3= >> 8% are >> > > > > > "somewhat >> > > > > > > >> > religious". That adds up to 75% of Americans. That is >> > > > > > > >> > prob= >> ably >> > > > 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 >> > > > > > > >> som= >> e "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 >> > > > > > > >a= >> nswer: >> > >> > > > > > > >No--it's more complicated--In much the same way that the >> > Catholics in the >> > > > > > > >days of Copernicus and Galileo believed they were correct >> > > > > > > >rela= >> ted >> > > > 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. >> > > > > > > Y= >> ou 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. =20 >> > >> > > > > > > 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 >> > > > concer= >> ned >> > > > 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=F8rselstegn - >> > >> > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >> >> I thought you wanted creation science taught in science classes? > > Intelligent design should be taught in those states that approve it. He would love to drop the charade and teach that god created it all in six days, that he made man from the dust of the earth. Talk about hard to do:-). There was a global flood, Adam named all of the animals and other nonsensical things. Being taught such garbage will improve the science education level in the country :-))))). Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2106071214400001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1182428758.173383.124720@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 > > Thanks--I heard the song on the car radio yesterday. It was one of the > best songs that has ever been recorded. When I heard it, it made me think > of how the the advocates of evolution want "thought control". They will go > to court to prevent intelligent design from being taught. That is "thought > control" since they don't want competition. You may NOT realize but it is > thought control but almost every Christian in that state would agree that > it was thought control. It's my guess that many of those Christian parents > pulled their children out of the the public schools after that court > decision. They placed those children in Christian schools where they could > learn about evolution and intelligent design. > > You want to have education > You want to have thought control > all in all it was just bricks in the wall Those children are sure as hell not learning anything about evolution. The really sad part is that they aren't learning about astronomy, astro-physics, or any other science that contradicts the "WordaGod". Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2106071213590001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <f5e7s6$h2i$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > I don't know about all Christian school except for one of the local > Christian schools. They teach both evolution and creation science. The > reason they teach evolution is because they don't want the students to be > at a disadvantage when they take biology classes in state colleges. You mean they want to be let in the door at most colleges. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2106071157230001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <5dviiiF333gneU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-2006071906240001@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <1182385932.728635.271610@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >> > Martin >> > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> 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"? > > In this case--teaching only one theory and not allowing Intelligent Design > to be taught. There is only one scientific theory and it is evolution. If you want the ID taught all you folks have to do is do the research to make it a scientific theory. I will have to say that after the trial at Dover ID is at a disadvantage. Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In alt.atheism On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 11:30:27 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <1182427787.758392.113320@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> 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. > >The taxonomic classification was developed in 1735. When the Bible was >written, the classification had not yet been written. The Bible authors >made use of the term "kinds" for every different type of animal. Yet, somehow, the bible is supposed to be scientifically inerrant (according to some). > For >example, all types of canines were one kind---all types of felines were >one kind---All types of horses (Equus) were one kind. The advocates of >creation science believe that evolution can take place but only within >kinds. For example, a horse could evolve into another type of horse but >would not evolve into into a non-horse creature. Yet we have the progression from land-based mammals to whales pretty well documented. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:27:13 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: - Refer: <f5dqr1$450$1@news04.infoave.net> >Jason wrote: >> In article <f5b79s$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.) Oh no! Jason knowingly lied! Tell me it is not true... -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 11:12:05 -0400, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: - Refer: <5dvip3F3652fcU1@mid.individual.net> > >"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? That Jason is sane, perhaps? -- 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.