Guest 655321 Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. No one is trying to prevent it from being taught. It just doesn't belong in a science class, as there is no science to ID. It's really that simple. ID is subject to debate among theologians, who can debate whether six days meant six literal 24-hour days, or some other subjective amount of time; and how many angels can fit on the head of a pin; and when exactly Jesus is supposed to come back and send some babies to heaven and some to hell. Stuff like that. > That is "thought > control" since they don't want competition. Fool. Scientific pursuit is rife with competition. ID is not science. You know that, but I just know that you will repeat these lies over and over again. I just know it. I'd lay down a tenner on it. > You may NOT realize but it is > thought control but almost every Christian in that state would agree that > it was thought control. Just the idiots who don't know what thought control is. > It's my guess HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAAHAAAH! > 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. Hopefully they'd learn that ID is not scientific and doesn't belong in a science class. -- 655321 Quote
Guest The Chief Instigator Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) writes: >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. You're not old enough to appreciate Pink Floyd. -- Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273 LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15) NEXT GAME: October 2007, date/place/opponent TBA Quote
Guest 655321 Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. There is no such thing as "creation science." That's an oxymoron. And you know that. If one were to assume a divine creation, the question of which divine entity (or entities) did the creating, when this presumed creation was done, why it was done, and so on, are definitely not scientific questions. It's not science. And you know that. But you will continue to lie. I'll bet you $10 that you will continue to lie. > The > reason they teach evolution is because they don't want the students to be > at a disadvantage when they take biology classes in state colleges. The reason they teach evolution is that it's an observed, scientifically-relevant process worth studying. Many Christians acknowledge that evolution is an ongoing, observable occurrence. They realize that there's no such thing as "creation science," and that such a topic is a theological one, and ergo has no place in a science class. But you know that... and you will continue to lie. -- 655321 Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <BnBei.158$n9.74@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "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. The course would be to cover the basics of Intelligent Design. They have a textbook entitled, "Of Panda and People". The textbook has 170 pages and no Biblical content. The textbook contains interpretations of classic evidences in harmony with the creation model. As far as I know, God is not mentioned as the intelligent designer as far as the course is concerned. Instead, the term "intelligent designer" is used instead of "God". This was done so the book and course could not be called "religion" by the advocates of evolution. The plan did not work. The advocates of evolution do not would children to learn about intelligent design since they are afraid that children would realize that it makes more sense than evolution. The advocates of evolution do not want competition. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <IsBei.162$n9.95@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "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". Most of the rich people in the city where I live send their children to a Catholic Prep School. Those children receive a much better education than the children that attend public schools. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <szkabutorxe.fsf@eris.io.com>, The Chief Instigator <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote: > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) writes: > > >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. > > You're not old enough to appreciate Pink Floyd. It was one of my favorite songs. What year was the song recorded? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <7TCei.21245$C96.2445@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, 655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > > 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. > > No one is trying to prevent it from being taught. It just doesn't > belong in a science class, as there is no science to ID. > > It's really that simple. ID is subject to debate among theologians, who > can debate whether six days meant six literal 24-hour days, or some > other subjective amount of time; and how many angels can fit on the head > of a pin; and when exactly Jesus is supposed to come back and send some > babies to heaven and some to hell. > > Stuff like that. > > > That is "thought > > control" since they don't want competition. > > Fool. Scientific pursuit is rife with competition. > > ID is not science. > > You know that, but I just know that you will repeat these lies over and > over again. > > I just know it. I'd lay down a tenner on it. > > > You may NOT realize but it is > > thought control but almost every Christian in that state would agree that > > it was thought control. > > Just the idiots who don't know what thought control is. > > > It's my guess > > HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAAHAAAH! > > > 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. > > Hopefully they'd learn that ID is not scientific and doesn't belong in a > science class. > > -- > 655321 WE DON'T NEED NO THOUGHT CONTROL Children should be taught intelligent design and evolution. Let the children have freedom to THINK and figure out whether evolution or ID makes more sense. WE DON'T NEED NO THOUGHT CONTROL ALL IN ALL IT'S JUST ANOTHER BRICK IN THE WALL Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 In article <AwBei.164$n9.112@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "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. Yes, I agree that after the trial at Dover, ID is at a disadvantage. The forces representing THOUGHT CONTROL won that battle. All in all it's just another brick in the wall. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <djsl731c4f3111ustp2qbcti0nd41dj3hc@4ax.com>, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > 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. I am not an expert re: to all kinds. Several months ago, I saw a dog that looked just like a sheep. Needless to say, that shocked me. I read that there is a dog that looks more like a cat than a dog. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <F8Dei.41323$5j1.2323@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>, 655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f5e7s6$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. > > There is no such thing as "creation science." That's an oxymoron. > > And you know that. If one were to assume a divine creation, the > question of which divine entity (or entities) did the creating, when > this presumed creation was done, why it was done, and so on, are > definitely not scientific questions. > > It's not science. And you know that. > > But you will continue to lie. > > I'll bet you $10 that you will continue to lie. > > > The > > reason they teach evolution is because they don't want the students to be > > at a disadvantage when they take biology classes in state colleges. > > The reason they teach evolution is that it's an observed, > scientifically-relevant process worth studying. > > Many Christians acknowledge that evolution is an ongoing, observable > occurrence. They realize that there's no such thing as "creation > science," and that such a topic is a theological one, and ergo has no > place in a science class. > > But you know that... and you will continue to lie. > -- > 655321 Believe it or not, lots of Christians accept both evolution and creation science. They believe that God created mankind; some animals and some plants. After the creation process was finished, Natural Selection kicked in. As you know, Natural Selection is a major aspect of Evoluition. That's how I believe it happened. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <BqBei.160$n9.50@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "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 :-))))). Yes, that is true but would not work since it's illegal to teach religion. That's the reason God is not mentioned in their text book or curriculum guide. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2106071633200001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <BnBei.158$n9.74@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "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. > > The course would be to cover the basics of Intelligent Design. They have a > textbook entitled, "Of Panda and People". The textbook has 170 pages and > no Biblical content. The textbook contains interpretations of classic > evidences in harmony with the creation model. As far as I know, God is not > mentioned as the intelligent designer as far as the course is concerned. > Instead, the term "intelligent designer" is used instead of "God". This > was done so the book and course could not be called "religion" by the > advocates of evolution. The plan did not work. The advocates of evolution > do not would children to learn about intelligent design since they are > afraid that children would realize that it makes more sense than > evolution. The advocates of evolution do not want competition. Absolute rubbish!! If this is the best you can do, then stop posting. "Of Pandas and People"doesn't answer those questions either, that is why there is no theory of intelligent design. The supporters of evolution theory don't want any teaching in a science class that isn't science! If you can't show me where I'm wrong, just shut the f k up. Why don't you give ma a few of those 'classic' evidences, other than thisis so grand a designer must have done it. That isn't science. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2106071710590001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <BqBei.160$n9.50@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-2106071155230001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <1182438453.643233.289060@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, >> > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: >> > >> >> On 21 Jun., 10:25, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > In article <1182410472.795311.82...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > hhyaps...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> > > On Jun 21, 1:01 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > > > In article >> >> > > > <1182400221.178506.105...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >> >> > > > M= >> >> artin >> >> > >> >> > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > On Jun 21, 7:19 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > > > > > In article <0a6j731p6dudeibqbemtth8idvv6epj...@4ax.com>, >> >> > > > > > Free >> >> > > > > > Lun= >> >> ch >> >> > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:38:44 -0700, in >> >> > > > > > > alt.talk.creationism >> >> > > > > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> > > > > > > <Jason-2006071238450...@66-52-22-61.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> > > > > > > >In article <f5baj2$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 :-))))). > > Yes, that is true but would not work since it's illegal to teach religion. > That's the reason God is not mentioned in their text book or curriculum > guide. Then how do you propose a scientific theory that has a designer but have no way to identify this designer? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2106071638310001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <IsBei.162$n9.95@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "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". > > Most of the rich people in the city where I live send their children to a > Catholic Prep School. Those children receive a much better education than > the children that attend public schools. The Catholic's believe in evolution. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2106071708390001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <F8Dei.41323$5j1.2323@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>, 655321 > <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <f5e7s6$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. >> >> There is no such thing as "creation science." That's an oxymoron. >> >> And you know that. If one were to assume a divine creation, the >> question of which divine entity (or entities) did the creating, when >> this presumed creation was done, why it was done, and so on, are >> definitely not scientific questions. >> >> It's not science. And you know that. >> >> But you will continue to lie. >> >> I'll bet you $10 that you will continue to lie. >> >> > The >> > reason they teach evolution is because they don't want the students to >> > be >> > at a disadvantage when they take biology classes in state colleges. >> >> The reason they teach evolution is that it's an observed, >> scientifically-relevant process worth studying. >> >> Many Christians acknowledge that evolution is an ongoing, observable >> occurrence. They realize that there's no such thing as "creation >> science," and that such a topic is a theological one, and ergo has no >> place in a science class. >> >> But you know that... and you will continue to lie. >> -- >> 655321 > > Believe it or not, lots of Christians accept both evolution and creation > science. > > They believe that God created mankind; some animals and some plants. After > the creation process was finished, Natural Selection kicked in. As you > know, Natural Selection is a major aspect of Evoluition. > > That's how I believe it happened. No, those that support evolution, deny the creationist point of view. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2106071650280001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <AwBei.164$n9.112@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "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. > > Yes, I agree that after the trial at Dover, ID is at a disadvantage. The > forces representing THOUGHT CONTROL won that battle. All in all it's just > another brick in the wall. Gee, didn't follow the trial very closely, did you? The ID supporters stunk up the court room. Read about the trial. It should make you sick that you support such a worthless 'theory'. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <4EEei.471$p7.108@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-2106071710590001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <BqBei.160$n9.50@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> "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 :-))))). > > > > Yes, that is true but would not work since it's illegal to teach religion. > > That's the reason God is not mentioned in their text book or curriculum > > guide. > > Then how do you propose a scientific theory that has a designer but have no > way to identify this designer? Even the children could figure out the name of the designer or they could ask their parents for the name of the designer. Quote
Guest 655321 Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <Jason-2106071708390001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <F8Dei.41323$5j1.2323@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>, 655321 > <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <f5e7s6$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. > > > > There is no such thing as "creation science." That's an oxymoron. > > > > And you know that. If one were to assume a divine creation, the > > question of which divine entity (or entities) did the creating, when > > this presumed creation was done, why it was done, and so on, are > > definitely not scientific questions. > > > > It's not science. And you know that. > > > > But you will continue to lie. > > > > I'll bet you $10 that you will continue to lie. > > > > > The > > > reason they teach evolution is because they don't want the students to be > > > at a disadvantage when they take biology classes in state colleges. > > > > The reason they teach evolution is that it's an observed, > > scientifically-relevant process worth studying. > > > > Many Christians acknowledge that evolution is an ongoing, observable > > occurrence. They realize that there's no such thing as "creation > > science," and that such a topic is a theological one, and ergo has no > > place in a science class. > > > > But you know that... and you will continue to lie. > > -- > > 655321 > > Believe it or not, lots of Christians accept both evolution and creation > science. I knew you'd continue to lie! "Creation science" is an oxymoron, a self-contained two-word lie. > They believe that God created mankind; some animals and some plants. After Fine. That's their faith talking. Not science. > the creation process was finished, Natural Selection kicked in. As you Fine. That's their faith talking. Not science. > know, Natural Selection is a major aspect of Evoluition. It's an aspect. > That's how I believe it happened. Whatever. Just stop lying and using the phrase "creation science." -- 655321 "We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi Quote
Guest 655321 Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <Jason-2106071647110001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <7TCei.21245$C96.2445@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, 655321 > <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > > > Jason wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > No one is trying to prevent it from being taught. It just doesn't > > belong in a science class, as there is no science to ID. > > > > It's really that simple. ID is subject to debate among theologians, who > > can debate whether six days meant six literal 24-hour days, or some > > other subjective amount of time; and how many angels can fit on the head > > of a pin; and when exactly Jesus is supposed to come back and send some > > babies to heaven and some to hell. > > > > Stuff like that. > > > > > That is "thought > > > control" since they don't want competition. > > > > Fool. Scientific pursuit is rife with competition. > > > > ID is not science. > > > > You know that, but I just know that you will repeat these lies over and > > over again. > > > > I just know it. I'd lay down a tenner on it. > > > > > You may NOT realize but it is > > > thought control but almost every Christian in that state would agree that > > > it was thought control. > > > > Just the idiots who don't know what thought control is. > > > > > It's my guess > > > > HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAAHAAAH! > > > > > 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. > > > > Hopefully they'd learn that ID is not scientific and doesn't belong in a > > science class. > > WE DON'T NEED NO THOUGHT CONTROL Then, by definition, we "don't need no" [sic] religious education, which, by definition, lays down the law on what one is supposed to believe and think. Whereas science is about inquiry. > Children should be taught intelligent design and evolution. Let the What is there to teach about ID, exactly? How many versions of creation are to be taught? How far down the theological road do you want to drag the children in the science class? > children have freedom to THINK and figure out whether evolution or ID > makes more sense. They learn enough about it in church and from their parents, right? You just want them to confuse religion with science. You want to control their thoughts. > WE DON'T NEED NO THOUGHT CONTROL You want exactly that. -- 655321 "We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi Quote
Guest 655321 Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <Jason-2106071107440001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Only if God was involved. What sort of animal is that? -- 655321 "We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Jun 22, 1:47 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f5dto1$74...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <1182379707.534130.141...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jun 21, 3:11 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >>> In article <1182348182.409232.265...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > >>> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > >>>> On 19 Jun., 18:50, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >>>>> In article <f58p6o$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. You admitted to never seeing her medical records. You said you didn't have to, that you believed her anyway. Don't lie now about having seen X-rays. > The > testimony of the doctor that removed two inches of crushed leg bone is > evidence. What testimony? Only evil men lie, Jason. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Jun 22, 1:55 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182419527.979191.51...@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > gudl...@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. > > Believe it or not, one of the aspects of evolution is that humans evolved > from other life-forms with any involvement from God. And this completely contradicts your earlier claim that Darwin believed God started the process. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Jun 22, 1:58 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182427308.899634.117...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > gudl...@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? > > > > 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. So atheists are worse than Satanists in your opinion? Is that right? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Jun 22, 2:07 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182419694.844670.209...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > 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 BZZT. God doesn't exist. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Jun 22, 2:14 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182426261.354417.263...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmar...@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. > > At the very least, he is a researcher. And, techically, so is a kid who uses google ever day in so far as researching is his hobby. Martin Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.