Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Jun 22, 2:51 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182427767.298489.13...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 21, 3:56 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > 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. > > They can teach evolution and Intellegent Design. I'm sure they all do mention the latter, just not with a straight face. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Jun 22, 2:55 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182438453.643233.289...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > gudl...@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: > > > > > > > > > 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 concer= > > ned > > > > > that the students would realize that Intellegent Design made more > > > sense. > > > > > I thought you have faith that god will be guiding them, then why worry? > > > > I would not worry if public school teachers could be trusted to not teach > > > our children false information. > > > I thought you wanted creation science taught in science classes? > > Intelligent design should be taught in those states that approve it. Again, we are all agreed that they shouldn't claim that creationism is the truth, because that would mean giving students false information. Lying is evil, Jason. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Jun 22, 2:57 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <5dviiiF333gn...@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > > <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-2006071906240001@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <1182385932.728635.271...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > snip > > >> For now. We can expect that number to drop steadily as people around > > >> the world get better access to education. > > > > 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. I was exposed to the "God did it" theory in high school but it was later proven to be a lie. Lying is evil, Jason. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 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 You want the thoughts of children to be controlled all in all it's just another brick in the wall I don't want the thoughts of children to be controlled Public school teachers--leave those kids alone. all in all it's just another brick in the wall Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <DipthotDipthot-57D7A1.17564221062007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, 655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > 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? The basics of creation science. The term "intelligent designer" would be used instead of "God" since it is now illegal to teach religion in the public school system. They have a 170 page textbook that has no Biblical content. 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. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <1182476566.139983.309600@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 I did not state that I had seem her medical records in the above post. Re-read the above post. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <1182476678.577002.214360@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Darwin (according to at least one issue of his book) did appear to believe that God created life on this planet. However, as you know, many advocates of evolution do not believe that God was involved. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <1182476831.791204.220380@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Yes he does-- Martin believes in thought control all in all it's just another brick in the wall Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <1182476773.550612.218840@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 That's a good one. It's not right. Satan will never go to heaven. Atheists may eventually accept Jesus as their savior and end up in heaven. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <1182477462.000186.14340@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 22, 2:57 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <5dviiiF333gn...@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > > > > <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > >news:Jason-2006071906240001@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > In article <1182385932.728635.271...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > snip > > > >> For now. We can expect that number to drop steadily as people around > > > >> the world get better access to education. > > > > > > 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. > > I was exposed to the "God did it" theory in high school but it was > later proven to be a lie. Lying is evil, Jason. > > Martin Not in my high school--our high school teacher never mentioned God. It was against the law to mention God and she obeyed the law. Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In alt.atheism On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 11:51:19 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >They can teach evolution and Intellegent Design. > That's like teaching Spheroid Earth and Flat Earth. Oh--here are my answers to your 20 questions. AGAIN. This time: do what you said you were going to do and point out any problems. > 20 Questions for Evolutionists > > 1. Where has macro evolution ever been observed? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html > What's the mechanism >for getting new complexity such as new vital organs? Mutation. Natural selection >How, for example, >could a caterpillar evolve into a butterfly? It transforms, dumbshit. > > 2. Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there >if your theory is right? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html > 3. Who are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC220_1.html > 4. What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could >ever assemble itself? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF003.html > 5. How could organs as complicated as the eye http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html > or the ear http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB302.html > or the brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB303.html > How could a bacterial motor evolve? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html > > 6. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Oh for fucks sake, Hovind: this has nothing to do with evolution. 7 and 8 have nothing to do with evolution, either. That is in the field of COSMOLOGY and ASTROPHYSICS, moron. Stop believing Kent Hovind. He's a liar and a con-artist. > 9. How did sexual reproduction evolve? http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/dec98.html > > 10. If the big bang occurred, where did all the information It's not information. > 11. Why do so many of the earth's ancient cultures have flood legends? Because the started near rivers. > > 12. Where did matter come from? Where did god come from? > What about space, time, energy, and even the laws of physics? > > 13. How did the first living cell begin? No one really knows, but it's not a miracle. How did god begin? Yes, god began. No, god didn't not begin. Yes, god began. No, god didn't not begin. I'll keep repeating that until you understand that you can't special plead. > 14. Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did >it not have oxygen? Didn't. > > 15. Why aren't meteorites found in supposedly old rocks? We do find them there in their remnants. Search for "iridium layer" in google. You'll find something interesting. > > 16. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn't it take >vastly more intelligence to create a human? Why doesn't it take vastly more intelligence than that to create god? > Do you really believe that >hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough? Only if you want to strawman evolution, which clearly you do. > > 17. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA--which can >only be produced by DNA? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html > > 18. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got >there http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/moon/moon_formation.html >--any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data? Why aren't >students told the scientific reasons for rejecting all the evolutionary >theories for the moon's origin? There AREN'T any evolutionary theories for it because IT'S NOT PART OF EVOLUTION, YOU IGNORANT FUCK. IT'S PART OF ASTROPHYSICS/COSMOLOGY, YOU IGNORANT FUCK. > 19. Why won't qualified evolutionists enter into a written, scientific >debate? Because they don't want to dirty themselves with the laughable bullshit of creationists. > > 20. Would you like to explain the origin of any of the following >twenty-one features of the earth: No. I've humored you enough > If so, I will point out some obvious problems with your >explanation No, you won't. You will just point us to a place that closes its eyes and screams "gawddidit" over and over. --- 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 Don Kresch Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In alt.atheism On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 11:57:22 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >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. ID isn't a theory: it's religion. > 20 Questions for Evolutionists > > 1. Where has macro evolution ever been observed? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html > What's the mechanism >for getting new complexity such as new vital organs? Mutation. Natural selection >How, for example, >could a caterpillar evolve into a butterfly? It transforms, dumbshit. > > 2. Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there >if your theory is right? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html > 3. Who are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC220_1.html > 4. What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could >ever assemble itself? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF003.html > 5. How could organs as complicated as the eye http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html > or the ear http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB302.html > or the brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB303.html > How could a bacterial motor evolve? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html > > 6. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Oh for fucks sake, Hovind: this has nothing to do with evolution. 7 and 8 have nothing to do with evolution, either. That is in the field of COSMOLOGY and ASTROPHYSICS, moron. Stop believing Kent Hovind. He's a liar and a con-artist. > 9. How did sexual reproduction evolve? http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/dec98.html > > 10. If the big bang occurred, where did all the information It's not information. > 11. Why do so many of the earth's ancient cultures have flood legends? Because the started near rivers. > > 12. Where did matter come from? Where did god come from? > What about space, time, energy, and even the laws of physics? > > 13. How did the first living cell begin? No one really knows, but it's not a miracle. How did god begin? Yes, god began. No, god didn't not begin. Yes, god began. No, god didn't not begin. I'll keep repeating that until you understand that you can't special plead. > 14. Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did >it not have oxygen? Didn't. > > 15. Why aren't meteorites found in supposedly old rocks? We do find them there in their remnants. Search for "iridium layer" in google. You'll find something interesting. > > 16. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn't it take >vastly more intelligence to create a human? Why doesn't it take vastly more intelligence than that to create god? > Do you really believe that >hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough? Only if you want to strawman evolution, which clearly you do. > > 17. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA--which can >only be produced by DNA? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html > > 18. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got >there http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/moon/moon_formation.html >--any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data? Why aren't >students told the scientific reasons for rejecting all the evolutionary >theories for the moon's origin? There AREN'T any evolutionary theories for it because IT'S NOT PART OF EVOLUTION, YOU IGNORANT FUCK. IT'S PART OF ASTROPHYSICS/COSMOLOGY, YOU IGNORANT FUCK. > 19. Why won't qualified evolutionists enter into a written, scientific >debate? Because they don't want to dirty themselves with the laughable bullshit of creationists. > > 20. Would you like to explain the origin of any of the following >twenty-one features of the earth: No. I've humored you enough > If so, I will point out some obvious problems with your >explanation No, you won't. You will just point us to a place that closes its eyes and screams "gawddidit" over and over. --- 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 Martin Phipps Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Jun 22, 3:14 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182428758.173383.124...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@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. > 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". 1) It isn't atheists who want to control thoughts: atheism is about FREE thinking. 2) It is dishonest for you to suugest that Pink Floyd wrote this song to support your point of view. > 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. You claim to speak for every Christian, do you? Every Christian who would actually agree with you would be wrong. Period. > 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. That is a form of child abuse. Period. Martin Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In alt.atheism On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:02:27 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >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. There's no such thing as a "kind". Further, your response has nothing to do with what I said. 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 Martin Phipps Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Jun 22, 3:14 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > They placed those children in Christian schools where they could > learn about evolution and intelligent design. Are you an example of the product of "education" from Christian schools, Jason? How much do you know about evolution or biology in general? Big bang theory or physics in general? Biochemistry or chemistry in general? Archaeolology or antropology in general? Evolutionary psychology or psychology in general? Comparative mythology or history in general? Martin Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f54spi$kdh$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f539gg$u7n$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <brKdnS6w5O9iCenbnZ2dnUVZ_qfinZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." >>>>> <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>> In order for lower life forms (living cells) to evolve into higher life >>>>>>> forms (mammals)--major mutations would have been required. >>>>>> No, it would not. >>>>>> >>>>>>> example: Hyracotherium evolving into Equus >>>>>> Which is why a hyracotherium did not evolve into an equus. >>>>>> >>>>>> Evolution doesn't work that way.... and you know it. >>>>> Did you want me to mention all of the steps: >>>>> >>>>> step 1: Hyracotherium--"vaguely horselike creature" >>>>> step 2: Orohippus >>>>> step 3: Epihippus >>>>> step 4: Mesohippus >>>>> step 5: Dinohippus >>>>> step 6: Equus--"modern genus of horse" >>>> And that right there shows that "a hyracotherium did not evolve into an >>>> equus." In fact, there wasn't just those 6 steps. There was millions of >>>> steps where a hyracotherium evolved into antother hyracotherium that was >>>> just the tiniest bit different. Then that one evolved into another that >>>> was a tiniest bit different, etc. Eventually these differences added up >>>> enough to where we no longer called it a Hyracotherium but instead >>>> called it a Orohippus. But there wasn't any point where some animal was >>>> 2' tall and then all of a sudden its immediate offspring were 4' tall >>>> like cretinists like to make it look. >>>> >>>> It didn't take a major mutation but simply required thousands or >>>> millions of tiny ones. >>> I understand your points. Is it possible that some of the mutations were >>> major mutatations (eg related to size)? It's my understanding that the >>> Hyracotherium was about the same size as a German shepard dog--is that >>> true? >>> jason >>> >>> >> No idea about the size of that animal. >> >> But how is a bigger size a major mutation? Apart from the fact that just >> for size you don't even NEED mutation. > > In relation to size, for the sake of discussion, let's say the the only > canines that were in the world 1 billion years a ago were 10 pairs of > minature schnauzers. How long would it take for them to be the size of > Saint Bernards? How would I know? I am no biologist. Few hundred years, maybe thousands. on the outside, I would guess. Using artificial selection, that is. Natural selection? Who knows? Depends on setting. Do your own google search.... Tokay -- Germans are flummoxed by humor, the Swiss have no concept of fun, the Spanish think there is nothing at all ridiculous about eating dinner at midnight, and the Italians should never, ever have been let in on the invention of the motor car. Bill Bryson Quote
Guest cactus Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Mike 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? A "good point" to Jason is something that someone else says that he disagrees with. He says that so that he can then ignore it and move on to whatever his next delusion happens to be. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <3sOdnbBzB_DpmevbnZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." > <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In relation to size, for the sake of discussion, let's say the >>> the only canines that were in the world 1 billion years a ago >>> were 10 pairs of minature schnauzers. How long would it take >>> for them to be the size of Saint Bernards? >> Why are you making the false assumption that they would get >> bigger, or smaller, or even change at all? What if only one of >> those 10 males was in a condition to produce viable offspring, >> and that males was shorter than normal? And then add to that the >> only female that could reproduce had longer than average wool. >> Then add to that a climate that is getting warmer. They're going >> to die out, not get bigger. >> >> The question that needs to be answered, honestly, is why do you >> so desperately need to debase evolution? It's been shown to you >> many times that your objections are not based on anything that >> has to do with evolution and every thing to do with blindly >> following a religious stance. Why can't you accept the fact of >> evolution? > > The Hyracotherium (a vaguely horselike creature) eventually (after 4 > steps) evolved into Equus (the modern genus of horse). The Hyracotherium > (according to my high school biology teacher) was about the size of a > german shepard dog. That led me to wander if a dog that was the size of a > minature schnauzer could also evolve into a canine that was the size of a > Saint Bernard. As of yet, I have not received an answer. > > Sure can. Artificial selection, and it won't take long. But natural selection? Depends if a bigger size would be actually an advantage. If not, then not. Tokay -- Germans are flummoxed by humor, the Swiss have no concept of fun, the Spanish think there is nothing at all ridiculous about eating dinner at midnight, and the Italians should never, ever have been let in on the invention of the motor car. Bill Bryson Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Jun 22, 7:33 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <BnBei.158$n9...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-2106071151200001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <1182427767.298489.13...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jun 21, 3:56 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> > 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. > > > 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. There is no eveidence for creation. We've asked you over and over to provide evidence. You've admitted there's no evidence on the ICR site and you've recommended their books instead, books you either no longer have or never read. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Jun 22, 7:38 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > 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. Do you consider yourself a typical example of Christian education? Martin Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f5b87e$cf8$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In the way that John defined abiogenesis--it is an absolute proven >>> fact--read his definition. I define abiogenesis the same way that the >>> advocates of evoluition define it--(without God being involved). >> No, you define it in your own personal way. MANY creationists think that >> god actually produced the life 3 billion years ago and then just "let it >> run" via evolution. Abiogenesis happened. It's what CAUSED it to happen >> that's at issue. >> >> You'll find discussions to be a lot easier if you'd quit making up your >> own daffynitions for words. > > Are you stating that when an athiest makes use of the term "abiogenesis" > that the atheist is indicating that he believes that God was involved in > abiogenesis? > > You do have trouble reading, do you? Try reading what is there for a change... Tokay -- Germans are flummoxed by humor, the Swiss have no concept of fun, the Spanish think there is nothing at all ridiculous about eating dinner at midnight, and the Italians should never, ever have been let in on the invention of the motor car. Bill Bryson Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1182296746.299166.319350@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 20, 2:27 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <1182260610.432907.155...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> >>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> On Jun 19, 2:42 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> In article <1182228233.943883.28...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, > Martin >>>>> <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Jun 19, 1:05 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>> In article >>> <1182219544.874919.109...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Jun 19, 7:52 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article <bj1e7353rt356ni2l9k8i00t5kr45j3...@4ax.com>, > Free Lunch >>>>>>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:20:53 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>>>>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>>>>>>> <Jason-1806071620540...@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>>>>>>>> In article <EKydnfhTRM1rSuvbnZ2dnUVZ_qupn...@sti.net>, > "David V." >>>>>>>>>>> <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your post. The end goal of the person that >>> compiled >>>>>>>>>>>>> the list was to let people know that not every > person that >>>>>>>>>>>>> has a Ph.D degree is an advocate of evolution. >>>>>>>>>>>> No, it was not. It was an attempt to claim that these > "smart" >>>>>>>>>>>> people do not agree with science so science must be >>> wrong. It is >>>>>>>>>>>> an attempt to create a controversy where there is none. >>>>>>>>>>>>> This tread has been going on for a couple of weeks and >>> several >>>>>>>>>>>>> posters stated or at least implied that > intelligent people >>>>>>>>>>>>> are advocates of evolution and only uneducated or stupid >>>>>>>>>>>>> people are advocates of creation science or ID. >>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone here will tell you that it is entirely possible, and >>>>>>>>>>>> probable, that some very intelligent people will be >>> fooled by the >>>>>>>>>>>> creationists attempts to debase evolution. >>>>>>>>>>> I doubt that people like Francis Crick were fooled by >>>>> creationists. He >>>>>>>>>>> continues to be an advocate of evolution but expressed >>> doubt that the >>>>>>>>>>> origin of life was possible on earth. He probably came > to that >>>>> decision >>>>>>>>>>> after lots of research. >>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>> Crick is not a creationist nor do his questions help the >>> creationist >>>>>>>>>> liars who have conned you. >>>>>>>>> I did not state that he is a creationist. >>>>>>>> You implied it. >>>>>>> Re-read the above informaiton: One of the sentences is: "He > continues to >>>>>>> be an advocate of evolution..." >>>>>>> Am I implying in that sentence that he is a creationist? >>>>>> Then why mention him at all? He is an advocate of evolution and >>>>>> doesn't believe in creationism so the mere fact that he had doubts as >>>>>> to abiogenesis doesn't support your false argument one whit. Doubt is >>>>>> an inherent part of the scientific method. Deal with it. >>>>> Do you doubt any of the aspects of abiogenesis? >>>> As you already know, abiogenesis is not a theory but the idea that >>>> there once was no life and there is now life. >>>> John Baker: Actually, Jason, abiogenesis is an absolute proven fact. >>>> Whether it came about through divine intervention or by purely >>>> natural >>>> means, at some point in the planet's history, life did arise from >>>> non-life. We both agree on that. We just disagree about how it >>>> happened. >>>> Jason: Excellent point. >>> John did make an excellent point but that does not mean that I believe >>> that life came about purely by natural means. I just re-read what John >>> stated and he summarized our various arguments very well. >> No, but it does mean that you agree that abiogenesis occured even >> though you say it didn't. If it happened once then scientists can >> make it happen again. Isn't that what you said? >> >> Martin > > Martin, > When I made the point: "If it happened once then scientists should be able > to make it happen again"--this is the point that I was trying to make: > > Since the scientists have not made it happen again--the reason is because > that was not the way life came to be. In other words, God created life and > that is the reason scientists are not able to make it happen again. > > A<>B therefor A=C? Oh boy.... Tokay -- Germans are flummoxed by humor, the Swiss have no concept of fun, the Spanish think there is nothing at all ridiculous about eating dinner at midnight, and the Italians should never, ever have been let in on the invention of the motor car. Bill Bryson Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Jun 22, 7:47 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <7TCei.21245$C96.2...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, 655321 > <DipthotDipt...@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 > 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 I'd be owing 655321 if I had bothered to take his bet. Science is not thought control. Atheism is free thinking: you're endorsing atheism when you tell people to think for themselves, free of dogmatic beliefs. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Jun 22, 8:10 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <BqBei.160$n9...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > He would love to drop the charade and teach that god created it all in six > > days, that he made man from the dust of the earth. Talk about hard to > > do:-). There was a global flood, Adam named all of the animals and other > > nonsensical things. Being taught such garbage will improve the science > > education level in the country :-))))). > > Yes, that is true but would not work since it's illegal to teach religion. It is legal to teach ABOUT religion but illegal (in the United States) to suggest that any religion is the one true religion in a government run school. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Jun 22, 8:36 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <4EEei.471$p7....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-2106071710590001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <BqBei.160$n9...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. So it is a lie to say that "Intelligent design" is a scientific theory and not just thinly disguised religion, isn't it? As you say, even children could see through this. 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.