Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1182314855.278076.182480@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 20, 10:32 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <1182296011.654703.17...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> >>> <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Jun 20, 1:55 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> In article <f58mf7$on...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>>>> <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>> In article >>> <1182228954.642933.319...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, George> > > > > Chen <georgech...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Jun 19, 1:12 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article >>> <1182217986.803825.125...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 19, 3:53 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In article <DOSdnUx-mdYuEuvbnZ2dnUVZ_vyun...@sti.net>, > "David V." >>>>>>>>>>> <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> I found this report on the internet: I deleted number 10 to >>>>>>>>>>>>> 335. If you want to see the entire list, google this term: >>>>>>>>>>>>> List of Intellectual Doubters of Darwinism >>>>>>>>>>>> So? 500 out of hundreds of thousands of real scientists around >>>>>>>>>>>> the world is an insignificant number. A quick glance of > the list >>>>>>>>>>>> showed a good number of those anti-evolutionists were not >>>>>>>>>>>> scientists or were not in the field of biology. >>>>>>>>>>>> They can doubt all they want and it's great they do because >>>>>>>>>>>> that's the way science works. It's part of the self correcting >>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism that religions lack. All they need to do is provide >>>>>>>>>>>> proof that evolution is wrong. So far they have not done > so. The >>>>>>>>>>>> instant they do it will be big news and it will be in every >>>>>>>>>>>> journal that has anything to do with biology. Their lack > of such >>>>>>>>>>>> proof speaks volumes. >>>>>>>>>>> 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. 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. At the very least, that was my >>> impression of >>>>>>>>>>> their opinions. I found it shocking that these famous > people do not >>>>>>>>>>> believe that life evolved from non-life on this earth: >>>>>>>>>>> Francis Crick was one of the discoverers of DNA >>>>>>>>>>> Taken from the above mentioned report: >>>>>>>>>>> "It should be noted that there are other scientists who are >>> committed >>>>>>>>>>> evolutionists, but have yet expressed doubt about various > mainstream >>>>>>>>>>> theories on the origin and diversification of life. For >>> example, Francis >>>>>>>>>>> Crick wrote "Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature" (1981) in > which he >>>>>>>>>>> expressed doubt that the origin of life was possible on earth. >>>>>>> Similarly, >>>>>>>>>>> Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe have sharply critiqued the >>>>>>> origin of >>>>>>>>>>> life on earth in favor of evolution from space (see > "Evolution from >>>>>>>>>>> Space") Robert Shapiro in his "Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the >>>>>>> Creation >>>>>>>>>>> of Life on Earth" (1986) also gave a similar critique > although he >>>>>>> did not >>>>>>>>>>> postulate that life came from space." >>>>>>>>>> You don't understand how science works: science progresses > because we >>>>>>>>>> doubt existing theories. Meanwhile, religion stagnates and will >>>>>>>>>> eventually disappear because your beliefs can no longer be > reconciled >>>>>>>>>> with the known facts. >>>>>>>>> Interesting point--According to the info. posted above--it > states that >>>>>>>>> Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe have sharply critiqued the >>> origin of >>>>>>>>> life on earth in favor of evolution from space..." What do they >>> mean? It >>>>>>>>> this a rehash of Erik von Dannkan's concepts re: ancient > astronauts? >>>>>>>> No, not at all. The argument is that an oxygen atmosphere > would have >>>>>>>> been toxic to early life so perhaps life originated in comets or on >>>>>>>> asteroids. It has been suggested that the earth's atmosphere only >>>>>>>> became rich in oxygen gas after plant life formed and > converted carbon >>>>>>>> dioxide into carbon and oxygen (through photosynthesis). > This is the >>>>>>>> argunent that most scientists favour because the idea of life > dropping >>>>>>>> down from space seems awfully far fetched, although not as > far fetched >>>>>>>> as ancient astronauts or some omnipotent fairy in the sky creating >>>>>>>> everything. >>>>>>> Thanks for your post. It's an interesting concept. Since an oxygen >>>>>>> atmosphere is toxic to early life--how come life has not evolved on >>>>>>> planets that have no oxygen? >>>>>> How do we know it hasn't? >>>>>> The Viking space mission did not discover any >>>>>>> signs of life on Mars. >>>>>> ...yet. >>>>>>> We found no signs of life on the moon. >>>>>> Life, in all likelihood, requires SOME form of an atmosphere or other >>>>>> means (such as immersion into a liquid) to prevent liquids from >>>>>> escaping, etc. There are other atmospheres than just > "oxygen-rich" ones. >>>>>> The moon has no atmosphere or liquid water (that we know of) and thus >>>>>> (probably) no life. Mars has a very thin atmosphere and thus isn't as >>>>>> likely as the earth to have life. Also things like temperature, >>>>>> pressure, etc. come into play. >>>>> The earth is at an excellent location from the sun. You believe it >>>>> happened by chance. I believe that it happened as a result of > intelligent >>>>> design. >>>> Without heat, water and air, you wouldn't be here now to ask that >>>> question, would you? >>>> Yes, I have answered your question. >>> Yes you did--thanks. Intelligent design is the reason we have heat, water >>> and air. >> Heat is infrared radiation. >> >> Water is bihydrogen monoxide. >> >> Air is mostly nitrogen. >> >> This is chemistry and physics. It's not magic. >> >> Martin > > Martin, > No, it's not magic. > Everything had a beginning. None of the elements came about as a result of > chance--they came about as a result of the actions of an intelligent > designer. Earth was placed the proper distance from the sun. Many of the > 500 people have looked at the same evidence that you have looked at. They > are as intelligent and as well educated as you are. They have Ph.D > degrees. They came to the conclusion that an intelligent designer was the > reason we have life on this earth. Many thousands of Americans have > learned about evolution as a direct result of taking high school and > college biology classes. Do the majority of those students that have > taken those biology courses agree with you or do they agree with me? > > Here are the results of a poll > ONLY 12 PERCENT OF AMERICANS BELIEVE THAT HUMANS EVOLVED FROM OTHER > LIFE-FORMS WITHOUT ANY INVOLVEMENT FROM GOD. > source: National Geographic (November, 2004) page 6 I would be really worried about the school system... > > I don't blame the advocates of evolution for putting pressure on the > editors of science journals to not publish articles written by the > advocates of creation science or Intelligent Design. YES. They ARE biased! Against missing evidence and bad science. GET that through your head! One of the reasons > they do it because they know that if there were articles in every issue > related to Intelligent Design that many of the readers would come to the > conclusion that ID made more sense than evolution. Hardly. Who do you think reads scientific journals? I do, for my speciality. But I would bet on it that you would not understand what the articles say. And I would have a hard time understanding lets say... a scientific journal on biochemistry. We are NOT talking national geographic here (nice journal. But not a scientific one, really. Well. It is science, but a scientific journal is something else) That is also one of the > main reasons they will fight in court to keep ID from being taught in the > public schools. Nonono.... The problem is not teaching it in schools. The problem is teaching it in SCIENCE CLASSES! (teach it in religion classes all you want. We have that here. No problem) Grasp that! It is NOT science. No scientific theory, no experiment, no observation. So => NOT science and NO place in science classes. Any questions? 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 Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Jun 22, 8:56 am, 655321 <DipthotDipt...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > In article > <Jason-2106071647110...@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > 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. I expect him next to claim that John Lennon's Imagine is a song written in praise of God. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Jun 22, 10:07 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > I don't want the thoughts of children to be controlled Lying is evil, Jason. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <1182482932.469900.96640@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 I learned enough to know that happiness is not intellectual knowledge. Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Jun 22, 10:12 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article > <DipthotDipthot-57D7A1.17564221062...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, > 655321 <DipthotDipt...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > > 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. But even children would realize that "intelligent design" is religion and not science. Apparently, the average child is smarter than you, Jason. Do you think the average child would be smarter than the judges who would be called upon to rule if a course on "intelligent design" meets the standards of the constitutionally guaranteed separation of church and state? Martin Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <NuWdnbF_S-B9ferbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> >>> Tell all of those Steves that I hope they have a wonderful life. They >>> should have a wonderful life since they are members of the evolution >>> establishment. If any of them are college professors--tell those Steves >>> not to worry--they will get their tenure when the time comes. Tell any of >>> those Steves that are closet creationists to keep it a secret so that they >>> will not become victims of discrimination by the evolution estabishment. >> You need to work on that persecution complex. When ID >> proponents do real science and find an actual flaw in the >> Theory of Evolution, they will be rewarded with Nobel prizes >> for correcting the knowledge base of the human race, just >> like anyone else is, when they prove a major error in >> scientific knowledge. The reason they are so petulant is >> that they have no intention of doing science (finding out >> how the universe really works). >> >> They have a preconceived conclusion and only want to find a >> way to force it upon others. That is not science. I think >> you also have some preconceived ideas you are trying to >> figure out how to persuade others to believe, rather than >> having an open mind about how the universe really works. >> That is why I.D. proponents seem reasonable to you. > > I had the college professor in mind that was denied tenure because he was > an advocate of creation science when I mentioned one of my points about > "closet creationists" in the above post. Your made some good point in your > post. ID proponents do need to do more real science. > > We've been over that. An astrology professor that believes the universe is 6000 years old? ID proponents need to do MORE real science? They could start by doing ANY science.... 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 Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Jun 22, 10:23 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182476566.139983.309...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 22, 1:47 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > 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. > > I did not state that I had seem her medical records in the above post. > Re-read the above post. You re-read your own post, Jason. You apparently forgot that you claimed that her medical records are evidence. Why don't you just wake up to the fact that this Godbot lied to you? It's what you Christians do. Martin Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f5dsbt$5g3$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f5b8os$d9i$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> I hope that professor gets a job at a Christian college where he will not >>>>> be discriminated against and will be able to get tenure. >>>> If a professor at an xian college said "there is no god. The stars were >>>> formed by natural causes" and that professor didn't get tenure, was he >>>> "discriminated against?" >>>> >>>> Jason, you are SO damned funny. >>> As far as I know, he was not assigned to teach classes related to creation >>> science or intelligent design. >> Answer the question: was the professor in the above hypothetical >> discriminated against? > > The professor was denied tenune. If an investigation revealed that the > primary reason was due to the fact that he was an advocate of creation > science, it would be my conclusion that he was discriminated against for > his religious beliefs. > > Your attention span is amazingly short. We've been over this. An astrology professor would be hindered greatly in his job if he believed the world was 6000 years old.... 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 Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Jun 22, 10:26 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182476678.577002.214...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@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. > > 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. So admit now that Darwin's theory of natural selection says absolutely nothing about how the process of evolution started. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Jun 22, 10:28 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182476831.791204.220...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@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. > > Yes he does-- No, he doesn't. > Martin believes in thought control No, you lying piece of shit, I don't. I don't subscribe to ANY religious dogma. I respond to insults with insults. It's appropriate. Martin Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f58lrb$ev1$1@austar-news.austar.net.au>, Masked Avenger > <cootey_59@_yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> >>>>>>>> (Jason) let us all know that: >>>>>>>>> I found this report on the internet: >>>>>>>> So what? >>>>>>>> Please tell us what this proves. >>>>>>> That at least 500 people that have Ph.D degrees agree that life did not >>>>>>> evolve from non-life. I learned from the report that Francis Crick >>>>>>> expressed doubt that the origin of life was possible on earth. >>>>>> Nothing wrong with doubt. It is faith that kills brain cells. >>>>> Francis Crick is still an advocate of evolution. He probably done lots of >>>>> research before coming to the conclusion that life did not originate on >>>>> this earth. It would be interesting to learn how he believes that life did >>>>> originate. He is a very intelligent person. >>>> Intelligent enough to know that doubting abiogenesis is not the same >>>> as conclusding that it didn't happen. >>>> >>>> Martin >>> He believed that the abiogenesis did NOT happen on this earth. That >>> concept is vastly different than what you believe. >>> >> so it happened on 'another' world ..... fact is ....... it STILL >> happened ........ >> abiogenesis is abiogenesis no matter where it happens ....... >> What are you trying to prove ? ...... that you are possibly one of the >> stupidest people on usenet ? ......... >> >> sorry ...... you've already proved that ....... long ago ....... > > My point was that if abiogenesis did not happen on this earth--many of the > aspects of abiogenesis have to be revised. > > Um.. No? 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 Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Jun 22, 10:30 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182476773.550612.218...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 22, 1:58 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > 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? > That's a good one. It wasn't a joke. > It's not right. Satan will never go to heaven. I didn't say "Satan". I said "Satanists", ie people who worship Satan. People who worship Satan also believe in God. > Atheists may eventually > accept Jesus as their savior and end up in heaven. And Christians may eventually get a clue and accept reality. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Jun 22, 10:38 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182477462.000186.14...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@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. > > 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. Good. Then you don't have to worry about teachers lying to student then, do you? It is explicitly against the law in the US. Martin Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1182417347.503673.197230@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> On 19 Jun., 20:44, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <f58lrb$ev...@austar-news.austar.net.au>, Masked Avenger >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> <cootey_59@_yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>>>>> (Jason) let us all know that: >>>>>>>>>>> I found this report on the internet: >>>>>>>>>> So what? >>>>>>>>>> Please tell us what this proves. >>>>>>>>> That at least 500 people that have Ph.D degrees agree that > life did not >>>>>>>>> evolve from non-life. I learned from the report that Francis Crick >>>>>>>>> expressed doubt that the origin of life was possible on earth. >>>>>>>> Nothing wrong with doubt. It is faith that kills brain cells. >>>>>>> Francis Crick is still an advocate of evolution. He probably > done lots of >>>>>>> research before coming to the conclusion that life did not > originate on >>>>>>> this earth. It would be interesting to learn how he believes > that life did >>>>>>> originate. He is a very intelligent person. >>>>>> Intelligent enough to know that doubting abiogenesis is not the same >>>>>> as conclusding that it didn't happen. >>>>>> Martin >>>>> He believed that the abiogenesis did NOT happen on this earth. That >>>>> concept is vastly different than what you believe. >>>> so it happened on 'another' world ..... fact is ....... it STILL >>>> happened ........ >>>> abiogenesis is abiogenesis no matter where it happens ....... >>>> What are you trying to prove ? ...... that you are possibly one of the >>>> stupidest people on usenet ? ......... >>>> sorry ...... you've already proved that ....... long ago ....... >>> My point was that if abiogenesis did not happen on this earth--many of the >>> aspects of abiogenesis have to be revised.- >> I see. In that case you must now be admitting that abiogenesis took >> place. > > After scientists conduct experiments that prove these steps happened--I > will believe it. > > STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) > STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual reproduction) > STEP 3 Animal cell colony (with cells depending upon each other for > survival) > STEP 4 Multicelled animal (with cells differentiated according to > function) > > Yaddayadda.... And by this post alone you show that you don't know what you are talking about. Misuse of words, wrong definitions.... Just one.... "Single animal cell" (what is a single animal cell?) (with DNA nucleus (in a single cell???) capable of secual reproduction) ("sexual" reproduction??? In a single cell?= Or the order.... Single Cell - Single animal cell (with nucleus for Bogs sake!) - Cell colony - Animal.... Oh boy... No wonder you don't think it works... It doesn't work that way. Those steps are wrong.... 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 Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Jun 22, 12:19 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182482932.469900.96...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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? > > I learned enough to know that happiness is not intellectual knowledge. In other words, you've learned that ignorance is bliss. You are not a ringing endorsement for ignorance, Jason. Martin Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1182417347.503673.197230@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> On 19 Jun., 20:44, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <f58lrb$ev...@austar-news.austar.net.au>, Masked Avenger >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> <cootey_59@_yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>>>>> (Jason) let us all know that: >>>>>>>>>>> I found this report on the internet: >>>>>>>>>> So what? >>>>>>>>>> Please tell us what this proves. >>>>>>>>> That at least 500 people that have Ph.D degrees agree that > life did not >>>>>>>>> evolve from non-life. I learned from the report that Francis Crick >>>>>>>>> expressed doubt that the origin of life was possible on earth. >>>>>>>> Nothing wrong with doubt. It is faith that kills brain cells. >>>>>>> Francis Crick is still an advocate of evolution. He probably > done lots of >>>>>>> research before coming to the conclusion that life did not > originate on >>>>>>> this earth. It would be interesting to learn how he believes > that life did >>>>>>> originate. He is a very intelligent person. >>>>>> Intelligent enough to know that doubting abiogenesis is not the same >>>>>> as conclusding that it didn't happen. >>>>>> Martin >>>>> He believed that the abiogenesis did NOT happen on this earth. That >>>>> concept is vastly different than what you believe. >>>> so it happened on 'another' world ..... fact is ....... it STILL >>>> happened ........ >>>> abiogenesis is abiogenesis no matter where it happens ....... >>>> What are you trying to prove ? ...... that you are possibly one of the >>>> stupidest people on usenet ? ......... >>>> sorry ...... you've already proved that ....... long ago ....... >>> My point was that if abiogenesis did not happen on this earth--many of the >>> aspects of abiogenesis have to be revised.- >> I see. In that case you must now be admitting that abiogenesis took >> place. > > After scientists conduct experiments that prove these steps happened--I > will believe it. > > STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) > STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual reproduction) > STEP 3 Animal cell colony (with cells depending upon each other for > survival) > STEP 4 Multicelled animal (with cells differentiated according to > function) > > Oh, and a second point.... What does this have to do with abiogenesis? 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 George Chen Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 > Jason wrote: > > In article <1182314855.278076.182...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> On Jun 20, 10:32 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>> Intelligent design is the reason we have heat, water > >>> and air. > >> Heat is infrared radiation. > > >> Water is bihydrogen monoxide. > > >> Air is mostly nitrogen. > > >> This is chemistry and physics. It's not magic. > > > No, it's not magic. You made this admission days ago but the implication of what you said still hasn't sunk in. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <lmlf731t5uqq30q5nh5th8hmscbafmr64p@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> In alt.atheism On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:25:44 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >>> In article <8dqd731jtkebp0pda39adp7rcb1r97qem9@4ax.com>, Don Kresch >>> <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >>> >>>> In alt.atheism On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 00:22:41 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >>>> (Jason) let us all know that: >>>> >>>>> I found this report on the internet: >>>> So what? >>>> >>>> Please tell us what this proves. >>>> >>>> >>>> Don >>>> >>> >>> That at least 500 people that have Ph.D degrees agree that life did not >>> evolve from non-life. >> So what? Please tell us what that proves. >> >> >> Don > > Don, > It proves that at least 500 people that have Ph.D degrees realize there > are some serious problems with aspects of evolution theory. Galilio and > Copernicus had to fight the establishment alone. We have 500 people > fighting the evolution establishment in our behalf. > Jason > > This must be a bot. Or he has a VERY limited attention span. I don't want to think about how often we all have told him that "nonlife->life" is NOT evolution. Oh, on a side point.... this "creationism" once WAS the scientific "establishment". And has only itself to blame that it is so no longer in the scientific community. No experiments, no observations... and they had PLENTY of time.... Proper science beat it fair and square. And those 500.... they may have doubts about abiogenesis. That is ALL the title says..... That neither makes them automatically opponents to evolutionary theory (because that is something else) nor does that make them automatically proponents of creationism. 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 <1182314683.191160.177330@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 20, 10:21 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <61tg73pp1ms1isdnmlviruvoff96opv...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:46:12 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>> <Jason-1806072146120...@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>> In article <5j8e73hj9cu6m5h2r2m91f5nssdq298...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 22:22:50 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>>> <Jason-1706072222500...@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>>>> In article > <1182140066.278306.60...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>>>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 12:46 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article <f54spi$kdh$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >>>>>>>>> <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In article <f539gg$u7...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>>>>>>>>>> <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <brKdnS6w5O9iCenbnZ2dnUVZ_qfin...@sti.net>, >>> "David V." >>>>>>>>>>>>> <s...@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? >>>>>>>> Did your creation-believing biology professor fail to tell you that >>>>>>>> dog breeds have developed over the past 10 000 years as a result of >>>>>>>> selective breeding by mankind? Some teacher, huh? >>>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>> You failed to answer my hypothethcal question. Let's say the > dogs were NOT >>>>>>> minature schnauzers but were the same size of minature schnauzers. >>>>>> There were no dogs a billion years ago. The precursors of dogs came far >>>>>> more recently. >>>>> With leads to another question: What was the precursor of dogs? >>>> God made you really stupid. I thought that every kid learned that by >>>> about third grade: wolves. >>> What was the precursor of wolves? >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canidae >> >> "Miacids evolved into the Canidae family about 40 million years ago in >> the late Eocene to early Oligocene. Wolves, foxes, coyotes, jackals >> and eventually dogs all evolved from the Canidae family. The Canidae >> family evolved into three subfamilies: Hesperocyoninae (~38-15 Ma), >> Borophaginae (~36-2 Ma), and the Caninae lineage that led to present- >> day Canidae inclusive of modern-day wolves, foxes, coyotes, jackals >> and dogs (Canis familiaris). Similar to the ancestry of the dog was >> the Hesperocyoninae lineage that led to the coyote-sized Mesocyon of >> the Oligocene (38-24 Ma). Tomarctus, a wolf/dog-like carnivore, was a >> Borophaginae that roamed North America some 10 million years ago. From >> the time of Tomarctus, dog-like carnivores have expanded throughout >> the world. Cynodictis, also a Borophaginae, emerged about 20 million >> year ago in the Oligocene and also resembled the modern dog. Its fifth >> toe showed signs of shorting (signs of the development of the >> dewclaw). The fox-like Leptocyon was a descendant that branched off >> from the Caninae lineage. Although the civet resembles a cat more than >> a dog it is said to be a living resemblance of the Cynodictis." >> >> Martin > > Can you refer me to a site that has a picture of a Miacid? Have the bones > of miacids been found? > > He did, but since you can use Usenet, you should be able to use Google as well. Unless you have a really old and outdated connection. Like 9.600 baud. (Never had one of those. I came in when there were 14.400 around.) So, You have google, you have wikipedia... Why are you asking? 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 <oinb731kfbqhj18s1coitm6sb01mu4vuh4@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 18:54:32 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1706071854320001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>> In article <5Hidi.1090$P8.601@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >>> <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >>>> news:Jason-1606072200250001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>>> In article <brKdnS6w5O9iCenbnZ2dnUVZ_qfinZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." >>>>> <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>> In order for lower life forms (living cells) to evolve into > higher life >>>>>>> forms (mammals)--major mutations would have been required. >>>>>> No, it would not. >>>>>> >>>>>>> example: Hyracotherium evolving into Equus >>>>>> Which is why a hyracotherium did not evolve into an equus. >>>>>> >>>>>> Evolution doesn't work that way.... and you know it. >>>>> Did you want me to mention all of the steps: >>>>> >>>>> step 1: Hyracotherium--"vaguely horselike creature" >>>>> step 2: Orohippus >>>>> step 3: Epihippus >>>>> step 4: Mesohippus >>>>> step 5: Dinohippus >>>>> step 6: Equus--"modern genus of horse" >>>>> >>>>> source: National Geographic--Nov 2004--article: "Was Darwin Wrong" >>>> Since that appears to be the only NG that you have it appears that you >>>> purchased it based on the article "Was Darwin Wrong"? Of course we > both know >>>> that the answer in the NG was a resounding NO! >>> Yes, you are correct. I still enjoyed the article. Actually, the answer was: >>> No: the evidence for Evolution is overwhelming. >>> >> So why do you ignore the evidence and subscribe to the lies of the ICR? > > Because of my belief system. > > So you confess that you knowingly ignore the evidence? Tokay -- Germans are flummoxed by humor, the Swiss have no concept of fun, the Spanish think there is nothing at all ridiculous about eating dinner at midnight, and the Italians should never, ever have been let in on the invention of the motor car. Bill Bryson Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f58ol9$qse$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <5Hidi.1090$P8.601@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >>> <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> "Jason" <Jason@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 you >>>> 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 answer 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. > > Um... you do realize that "bacteria" is an incredibly huge family? That would be like "mammals will be mammals and bacteria will be bacteria". 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 Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <1182485384.914431.290990@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 22, 8:10 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <BqBei.160$n9...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > He would love to drop the charade and teach that god created it all in six > > > days, that he made man from the dust of the earth. Talk about hard to > > > do:-). There was a global flood, Adam named all of the animals and other > > > nonsensical things. Being taught such garbage will improve the science > > > education level in the country :-))))). > > > > Yes, that is true but would not work since it's illegal to teach religion. > > It is legal to teach ABOUT religion but illegal (in the United States) > to suggest that any religion is the one true religion in a government > run school. > > Martin Martin, Many teachers don't want to lose their jobs so they don't discuss religion. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <1182485614.548401.179940@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 22, 8:36 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <4EEei.471$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 Probably so--the goal was to comply with the law and still teach the basics of creation science. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <1182484794.281595.271210@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Every person is different. I only spent two years in a Christian college. Someone that spent at least 4 or more years in Christian schools would be a better example. Some of the professors at the Christian college were atheists--my biology professor was an atheist. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <1182487085.316238.129070@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 22, 12:19 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1182482932.469900.96...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > 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? > > > > I learned enough to know that happiness is not intellectual knowledge. > > In other words, you've learned that ignorance is bliss. You are not a > ringing endorsement for ignorance, Jason. > > Martin We don't need no education We don't need no thought control 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.