Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1182348090.555329.173350@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> On 19 Jun., 18:47, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <f58ol9$qs...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <5Hidi.1090$P8....@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >>>>> <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:Jason-1606072200250001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>>>>> source: National Geographic--Nov 2004--article: "Was Darwin Wrong" >>>>>> Since that appears to be the only NG that you have it appears that y= >> ou >>>>>> purchased it based on the article "Was Darwin Wrong"? Of course we >>> both know >>>>>> that the answer in the NG was a resounding NO! >>>>> Yes, you are correct. I still enjoyed the article. Actually, the answ= >> er was: >>>>> No: the evidence for Evolution is overwhelming. >>>> If the article disagrees with your position, why do you insist on >>>> mentioning it? >>> There was some information in the article that I had not seen before and I >>> had some questions about those issues. The experiments re: abiogenesis >>> seemed to me to support creation science instead of supporting evolution. >>> The advocates of creation science claim that evolution does take place but >>> only within "kinds". For example, a horses may evolve (or change) but they >>> continue to be horses. Fruit flies may evolve into a new species of fruit >>> flies but they will not evolve into another type or "kind" of insect. The >>> advocates of creation science usually call it adaption instead of >>> evolution. >>> >>> The author of the article mentioned the results of hundreds (or perhaps >>> thousands) of experiments that had been done on fruit flies and bacteria. >>> The end result of all of those experiments was that the fruit flies >>> continues to be fruit flies and the bacteria continued to be bacteria.- S= >> kjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >>> - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >> The experiment with fruit flies produced speciation. You have been >> told that, but, as usual, you ignore facts. > > Yes, that is true. The researchers involved in fruit fly research did > produce a new species. Did the fruit flies evolve into a different type of > insect? The answer is NO. They produced a new species of fruit flies. > > If the fruit flies had evolved into a different type of insect--that would > be evidence for evolution. > > Most everyone has seen that famous chart that is inside many biology class > rooms. The chart shows a creature that looks like a monkey on the left > side of the chart and a human being on the right side of the chart. We know it. It is for schoolbooks to get the idea across. Actual scientists certainly would not bother with this. The > advocates of evolution do NOT claim that the monkey type creature evolved > into various other monkey type creatures. Firstly, apes, not monkeys. And secondly, not really apes but the ancestors of apes and humans. Instead, they claim that it > eventually evolved (after many steps) into human beings. Yes. Apes evolve into different apes, and still different apes that walk on hind legs, then apes with less hair, than apes with bigger brain cases and bigger brains... than apes we now call homo sapiens. The fruit fly > experiments are not evidence for evolution. If the fruit flies had evolved > into a different type insect Firstly, what insect would you like? Secondly, repeat that experiment for a few thousand years.... and you WILL have a different type of insect. --that would have been evidence for evolution. > That leads me to believe that the monkey type creature NEVER evolved into > mankind Apes, but never mind. Yes, we know that you knowingly ignore evidence because of your belief-system. Which hardly justifies it. You admitted that. --instead--those creatures evolved into a new species of monkeys in > much the same way that the fruit flies evolved into a new species of fruit > flies. The offspring in the first generations look very much like the parent generation. With time, the differences become greater.... You know this, you admit this (here!). So where is the problem? Show me ONE mayor difference between the great APES (not monkeys) and humans that can't be explained by evolution. (I know one... but I am interested if you can find it... not unsolvable. I know the problem and I know the answer. So lets see if you can find the question. A major difference between the great apes and humans. Not hard. Google will help) 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 <f54t8v$l7p$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <1182072308.567299.14820@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Jun 17, 3:02 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> In article <8KadnTbDRc_Jd-7bnZ2dnUVZ_jidn...@sti.net>, "David V." >>>>> >>>>> <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: >>>>>>> What defines a "major" mutation? Of the 100-odd mutations >>>>>>> each of us is walking around with, which are "major" ones, >>>>>>> which are "minor"? How is "major" defined? >>>>>> That's part of the problem with anti-evolutionists; when they use >>>>>> the word "mutation" they always think of an extra leg, two heads, >>>>>> or a catfish and a turtle mating to create a swamp monster. >>>>> In order for lower life forms (living cells) to evolve into higher life >>>>> forms (mammals)--major mutations would have been required. >>>> Apparently not. >>>> >>>> Martin >>> Martin, >>> I disagree. I mentioned in another post the evolution of Hyracotherium (a >>> vaguely horselike cerature) to Equus (the modern genus of horse). I left >>> out 4 steps. Lots of major mutations would have had to happen. >> Name one. > > Size. We covered that. Not a mayor mutation. A minor one. Didn't know about only one gene being responsible for that and for a certain span you don't even need mutation. You have another? > > > > >> Even more >>> major mutations would be needed before lower life forms (living cells) >>> could have evolved into higher life forms (mammals). >> No. Just tiny ones. Some might be rather unlikely in our sense of time, >> but taken the millenia and put in perspective, sometimes an "unlikely" >> becomes almost an "inevitable". >> >> Lets give an example: you have three dice. How much would you bet on >> three times six in one throw? Not much. How much would you bet on three >> times six in as often as you can throw them in one hour? See? >> So, while some changes in the phenotype might be unlikely, given the >> timespan, they are almost inevitable. >> Most of the time, except some occasions, it is rather like this: >> You roll the dice, you keep the sixes. The rest of the dice you roll >> again. Until you have your three sixes. >> care to address this? 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 <1182484946.986225.38170@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Martin, You don't realize it--but the advocates of evolution want to control the thoughts of children in public schools. They will even go to court to prevent children from learning about intelligent design. You are the one that is an advocate of THOUGHT CONTROL. I want children to learn about intelligent design and Evolution. You only want them to learn about evolution. Jason Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Martin Phipps 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 > What was that.... Pentium? hehe Tokay (IIRC, it gave 3,9 something....) -- 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 <1182486131.260405.307610@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 Probably not. Even if we won in one court, the advocates of evolution would do some judge shopping and find a liberal judge that would rule in their favor. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <1182486326.266782.140950@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 She did not lie to me. Can you prove that she lied to me? Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1182401170.353456.11160@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 21, 9:46 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <1182380564.943339.161...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> On Jun 21, 3:21 am, J...@nospam.com (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. >>>> So you have no way of refuting what we have to say but you accuse us >>>> of being liars and morons anyway. How nice. >>> To say that I do not agree with someone is vastly different than calling >>> someone a liar. >> You don't agree that we are telling you the truth when in fact we >> are. You, on the other hand, have alternated between saying that >> you'd believe in evolution if there was evidence and saying that no >> amount of evidence would change your stand on evolution. >> >> Martin > > I have stated that there are aspects of evolution (eg Natural Selection) > that I agree with. There are other aspects of evolution (eg abiogenesis > and common descent) that I do not agree with. How often do we all have to write this? Abiogenesis <> Evolution. The reason: Lack of > evidence. I believe that God created mankind; Evidence? So => Lack of evidence => Not believe Same applies... some plants and some > animals. After the process was finished, natural selection kicked in. At > least 90 or more people that have Ph.D degrees agree with me. Which we have covered.... They work in another field.... Thats like hiring the plumber to repair your car.... 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 <1182486412.430495.33400@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 Martin, I was discussing his book. This sentence was in at least one edition of his book: "...having been originally breathed by the creator into a few forms or into one...." source: last paragraph of Darwin's book. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <4pae73dujq21st0nto5fs1fb7dln5rhq7s@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:50:10 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1806071650110001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>> In article <s21e735601fqvk6leab7pmsgcgin9jsoe6@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:21:20 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>> <Jason-1706072021200001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>> In article <ifnb73lua0eg6thsdngnunfdkmrljbu0uv@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> ... >>>>>> Why do you subscribe to their newsletter when it is full of lies and >>>>>> make Christians look bad? >>>>> I enjoy reading the articles. >>>>> >>>> Why do you like being lied to? >>> I don't believe there are lies in the ICR newsletters. >>> >> They are lies. Your belief does not change that fact. >> >> You like the lies they tell you so you refuse to acknowledge that they >> are lies. That is your choice, but it reflects badly on you. > > I admire the 500 people on that list that I posted. They are willing to > fight the Evolution establishment. They remind me of Copernicus and > Galileo since they were also willing to fight the establishment. How does > it feel to be a willing member of the Evolution establishment? > > Um... Being a member of the establishment is not automatically bad... Although it may seem so for people under the age of 25 or so... Why is it the "establishment"? Because it is scientifically coherent, has experiments and observations, explains the world as we see it and so on... What do the opponents of this "establishment" have? Evidence? None. Observations? None. Actual scientific theory? None (goddidit is not a valid scientific theory, therefor there is no debate). So, what you should ask yourself.... is the "establishment" probably there because it is the better one? And is opposing it maybe the way a 18 year old youngster would do it? Opposition for the sake of opposition? 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 <f54vvd$l7p$02$2@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <bra873tuptej1b6nio0c4q9amov1e7lc57@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 >>> <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >>>> >>>> <...> >>>>> I disagree. In my scenario, there was NO physical evidence. However, there >>>>> were 8 witnesses that heard him say, "I'm going to kill that woman." They >>>>> observed him take a gun in the apartment and heard a gunshot. They found >>>>> the man's dead wife. I would have believed the testimony of the witnesses. >>>>> I would have found him guilty. >>>>> >>>> I recommend the movie "12 Angry Men". >>> Juries make mistakes. I believe O.J's jury made a major mistake. I would >>> have found O.J. guilty. >>> >>> Dozens (or perhaps hundreds) of convicts have been released from prison as >>> a direct result of DNA tests that confirmed they were not guilty. That >>> means that lots of juries made incorrect decisions. >>> >>> When I serve on jury duty, my concern is justice for the victim. That is >>> the reason I would find the husband guilty. >>> >>> >> Then you would not be doing your job. Your concern should be justice as >> a whole and especially justice for the accused. Did he do it without a >> shred of doubt? THAT is the job. >> >> And, btw, the reason why we don't have this funny "jury"-system here. >> >> Tokay > > Yes, the ideal would be to have 12 unbiased people on the jury. In > reality, most people have biases. Even judges can have biases. > Judges have biases. But our system is rather rigid. It has to based on law. And let me tell you, we have laws coming out of your ears.... 12 people with no legal training deciding who is guilty and who is not? I'd rather have one judge WITH legal training and four higher courts I can appeal to... > In which country do you live? > > Germany. 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 <f5dbsn$qot$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f550vg$l7p$02$4@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >>> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <1182125258.409052.162860@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>>>> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 18, 2:08 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>> In article >>>>>>> > <46753e27$0$1181$61c65...@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>, >>>>>>> "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Jun 16, 9:26 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>>>> I hope those Arabic Christians realize that the true God is very >>>>> different >>>>>>>>> than a false God. >>>>>>>> Just as you believe your god to be true and others false, everyone else >>>>>>>> believes their gods true and your god false. If you go by majority >>>>>>>> decision, EVERY god must be false >>>>>>> Or--one of the Gods may be the true God. >>>>>> You better hope it's not Allah then. >>>>>> >>>>>> Martin >>>>> It's not. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> How do you know? >>>> >>>> I hate to say this AGAIN! >>>> >>>> Any evidence? Except your book, of course? >>>> >>>> Tokay >>> My belief system >>> >>> >> How is that evidence? A belief system is by definition NOT evidence for >> what it claims. It IS evidence for the existence of that belief system. >> But for nothing else. So, try again: Any evidence? >> >> Tokay > > Just fossil evidence that is discussed in two different books that I will > tell you about upon your request. > > You already did and you didn't read them or can't recall what was in them specifically. So, again: Any evidence? Tokay (Boy, his attentions span is really short) -- Germans are flummoxed by humor, the Swiss have no concept of fun, the Spanish think there is nothing at all ridiculous about eating dinner at midnight, and the Italians should never, ever have been let in on the invention of the motor car. Bill Bryson Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f55286$t78$02$2@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <qgvbk4-7cg.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> [snips] >>>> >>>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:34:42 -0700, Jason wrote: >>>> >>>>> I don't want to be argumentative re: to the Big Bang. >>>> Yes, you do; you demonstrate it regularly. >>>> >>>>> However, I >>>>> continue to believe that it is speculation that the big bang was the >>>>> beginning of time. Do you believe that it is speculation or a fact? >>>> I think you need to ponder what the very concept of "time" actually means, >>>> and how it is defined. You seem to think it is some sort of magic thing >>>> which exists independent of everything around us. >>>> >>>> What's even stranger is, you seem to think that time is some sort of >>>> absolute - that regardless of any other factors, it marches steadily on >>>> anyhow, unaffected by space, motion and the like. Yet we know this is >>>> simply not true, that time is, in fact, variable - and is, in fact, >>>> impacted by motion. >>>> >>>>> That leads to another question: >>>>> Is a mathematical model evidence or speculation? >>>> Mathematics can describe; it cannot prescribe. Or, put another way, >>>> someone creating a mathematical model of something can show us that it is >>>> valid mathematically without it ever having any basis in describing the >>>> real world. >>>> >>>> As an example of this, there's an odd little bit of math I once read >>>> about that says if you cut up an orange just right, then re-assemble the >>>> parts, the results could be larger than the sun - yet contain no holes. >>>> Perhaps, in mathematics, this would be true, but it is based on the >>>> concept of infinite divisibility and infinitely small spaces - and that >>>> is something which simply does not apply to the real world. >>>> >>>> Such a model needs to actually be compared to the real world to see if it >>>> is, in fact, a correct modeling of the world, or simply a nice little >>>> mathematical puzzle. >>> Let's say that a mathematician develops a mathematical model. Several >>> years later, another mathematician develops a new mathematical model that >>> disproves the first mathematical model. Is that possible? >> No. You can't disprove a mathematical model. It is just that: A >> mathematical model. It doesn't need to have anything to do with the real >> world. >> >> If your answer >>> is yes, does not mean that mathematical model should never become a >>> theory? >> No. You mixed up "mathematical model" and "scientific theory". Again. >> >> Tokay > > Can a mathematical model become a theory? > > No. It is a mathematical model. If it works in maths, that does not mean it has anything to do with the real world. Maths can be supporting of a hypothesis or not... and that hypothesis can become a scientific theory. 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 <f53du2$4m0$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f51ago$cbb$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <981ck4-7cg.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >>>>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> [snips] >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:55:49 -0700, Jason wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> If it really did happen the way the advocates of abiogenesis claim > that it >>>>>>> happened, scientists should be able to design an experiment to make it >>>>>>> happen. Do you think that scientists will ever be able to perform > such an >>>>>>> experiment? >>>>>> So let's see if we have this right. >>>>>> >>>>>> Science demonstrates that, on a small scale, water causes erosion > of rock. >>>>>> We know water exists, we know rock exists, we know water can erode rock. >>>>>> >>>>>> By anyone else's standard, this would be sufficient to explain, oh, the >>>>>> formation of the Grand Canyon, as long as sufficient time is > available for >>>>>> the process to work. >>>>>> >>>>>> According to your standards, we cannot conclude this, as we have > all the >>>>>> requisite components but we haven't made an experiment that actually >>>>>> recreated the Grand Canyon - despite such an experiment requiring >>>>>> something on the order of a few million years to carry out. >>>>>> >>>>>> This, to you, is a sensible requirement is it? >>>>>> >>>>>> I suspect even you wouldn't think so... yet it is almost exactly what >>>>>> you're asking above. We have all the key elements, we have a pretty good >>>>>> idea - several, actually - of the steps to go from A to B... but we're >>>>>> also quite certain that in the best of cases, it would require > hellishly >>>>>> long times to duplicate the result. Yet you blithely expect it, as if >>>>>> such an expectation made any sense whatsoever. >>>>> I was told that a chemical process was what caused life to develop from >>>>> non-life. If that is correct, it seems to me that scientists should be >>>>> able to duplicate that process. >>>> The lottery balls coming up 2-26-34-39-61-62 are a simple matter of >>>> randomness. Now let's see how long it takes you to have the lottery >>>> machine run to generate those specific numbers. >>>> >>>> Clue-time: just because something can happen doesn't mean we can make it >>>> happen in a short period of time. >>>> >>>>> If scientists are not able to do it, it means that abiogenesis will >>>>> continue to be based more on speculation than on evidence. >>>> So if scientists can't make a sun, then how the sun works is "based more >>>> on speculation than on evidence"? >>> You changed the subject from chemistry experiments to the creation of > the sun. >> No, I used the sun as an extreme example of how not everything can be >> duplicated in a lab. >> >>> Chemistry experiments are easy to do. The creation of a sun is impossible. >>> There are thousands of colleges that have chemistry labs. Those chemistry >>> professors should consider conducting more experiments related to >>> abiogenesis. >> They are. >> >> Martin referred me to a website that mentioned various >>> chemistry experiments related to abiogenesis. >> And did you actually read any of them? Of course not. > > I speed read the detailed report. > > Stop that speed reading... you constantly miss the important parts. Again and again! 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 <4677E977.686033AC@osu.edu>, Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In [respose to] article >>> <1182230648.471813.37850@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, >>> George Chen <georgechen2@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. Omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent..... What was the question again? > Instead, it is the fault of the people that turned their backs on God. How can this be? Omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent.... > 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. > Jason No god = no heaven = no hell 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 <f5fhi9$4ll$03$2@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > 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. Thanks--I was not aware that could easily happen. How come we don't see major changes in the size of German shepard dogs? Have they grown in size during the past two hundred (or more) years? > > Tokay Quote
Guest cactus Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1182484946.986225.38170@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> 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 > > Martin, > You don't realize it--but the advocates of evolution want to control the > thoughts of children in public schools. They will even go to court to > prevent children from learning about intelligent design. You are the one > that is an advocate of THOUGHT CONTROL. I want children to learn about > intelligent design and Evolution. You only want them to learn about > evolution. > Jason > > If you want children to learn about "intelligent design" teach it to them in church. Keep it out of the public schools. You have every right to teach your children whatever you please, but don't inflict it on mine. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <f5fl6u$v8t$00$2@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <1182314683.191160.177330@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jun 20, 10:21 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>> In article <61tg73pp1ms1isdnmlviruvoff96opv...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:46:12 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >>>> <Jason-1806072146120...@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >>>>> In article <5j8e73hj9cu6m5h2r2m91f5nssdq298...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>>>>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 22:22:50 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >>>>>> <Jason-1706072222500...@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >>>>>>> In article > > <1182140066.278306.60...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >>>>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 12:46 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>>>>>>> In article <f54spi$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 That's a good idea--I'll google it. I thought that Martin already knew the best site. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <f5flak$v8t$00$3@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <oinb731kfbqhj18s1coitm6sb01mu4vuh4@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 18:54:32 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-1706071854320001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >>> In article <5Hidi.1090$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? It's a case by case basis 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) I have not seen evidence that has convinced me that it happened this way. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <f5fnir$4uh$00$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <4pae73dujq21st0nto5fs1fb7dln5rhq7s@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:50:10 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-1806071650110001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >>> In article <s21e735601fqvk6leab7pmsgcgin9jsoe6@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:21:20 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >>>> <Jason-1706072021200001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >>>>> In article <ifnb73lua0eg6thsdngnunfdkmrljbu0uv@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> ... > >>>>>> Why do you subscribe to their newsletter when it is full of lies and > >>>>>> make Christians look bad? > >>>>> I enjoy reading the articles. > >>>>> > >>>> Why do you like being lied to? > >>> I don't believe there are lies in the ICR newsletters. > >>> > >> They are lies. Your belief does not change that fact. > >> > >> You like the lies they tell you so you refuse to acknowledge that they > >> are lies. That is your choice, but it reflects badly on you. > > > > I admire the 500 people on that list that I posted. They are willing to > > fight the Evolution establishment. They remind me of Copernicus and > > Galileo since they were also willing to fight the establishment. How does > > it feel to be a willing member of the Evolution establishment? > > > > > > Um... Being a member of the establishment is not automatically bad... > Although it may seem so for people under the age of 25 or so... > > Why is it the "establishment"? Because it is scientifically coherent, > has experiments and observations, explains the world as we see it and so > on... > > What do the opponents of this "establishment" have? Evidence? None. > Observations? None. Actual scientific theory? None (goddidit is not a > valid scientific theory, therefor there is no debate). > > So, what you should ask yourself.... is the "establishment" probably > there because it is the better one? And is opposing it maybe the way a > 18 year old youngster would do it? Opposition for the sake of opposition? > > Tokay I understand your point. There are advantages to being part of the establishment. Professors can get tenure. On the other hand, professors that are not part of the establishment can not get tenure. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <f5fnpd$4uh$00$2@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f54vvd$l7p$02$2@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <bra873tuptej1b6nio0c4q9amov1e7lc57@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > >>> <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > >>>> > >>>> <...> > >>>>> I disagree. In my scenario, there was NO physical evidence. However, there > >>>>> were 8 witnesses that heard him say, "I'm going to kill that woman." They > >>>>> observed him take a gun in the apartment and heard a gunshot. They found > >>>>> the man's dead wife. I would have believed the testimony of the witnesses. > >>>>> I would have found him guilty. > >>>>> > >>>> I recommend the movie "12 Angry Men". > >>> Juries make mistakes. I believe O.J's jury made a major mistake. I would > >>> have found O.J. guilty. > >>> > >>> Dozens (or perhaps hundreds) of convicts have been released from prison as > >>> a direct result of DNA tests that confirmed they were not guilty. That > >>> means that lots of juries made incorrect decisions. > >>> > >>> When I serve on jury duty, my concern is justice for the victim. That is > >>> the reason I would find the husband guilty. > >>> > >>> > >> Then you would not be doing your job. Your concern should be justice as > >> a whole and especially justice for the accused. Did he do it without a > >> shred of doubt? THAT is the job. > >> > >> And, btw, the reason why we don't have this funny "jury"-system here. > >> > >> Tokay > > > > Yes, the ideal would be to have 12 unbiased people on the jury. In > > reality, most people have biases. Even judges can have biases. > > > > Judges have biases. But our system is rather rigid. It has to based on > law. And let me tell you, we have laws coming out of your ears.... > > 12 people with no legal training deciding who is guilty and who is not? > > I'd rather have one judge WITH legal training and four higher courts I > can appeal to... > Not me. In America, we have various liberal judges. The ACLU knows the names of the most liberal judges in America. They take the cases to those liberal judges since they know they will rule in their favor. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <f5fo0r$4uh$00$4@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f55286$t78$02$2@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <qgvbk4-7cg.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > >>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> [snips] > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:34:42 -0700, Jason wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I don't want to be argumentative re: to the Big Bang. > >>>> Yes, you do; you demonstrate it regularly. > >>>> > >>>>> However, I > >>>>> continue to believe that it is speculation that the big bang was the > >>>>> beginning of time. Do you believe that it is speculation or a fact? > >>>> I think you need to ponder what the very concept of "time" actually means, > >>>> and how it is defined. You seem to think it is some sort of magic thing > >>>> which exists independent of everything around us. > >>>> > >>>> What's even stranger is, you seem to think that time is some sort of > >>>> absolute - that regardless of any other factors, it marches steadily on > >>>> anyhow, unaffected by space, motion and the like. Yet we know this is > >>>> simply not true, that time is, in fact, variable - and is, in fact, > >>>> impacted by motion. > >>>> > >>>>> That leads to another question: > >>>>> Is a mathematical model evidence or speculation? > >>>> Mathematics can describe; it cannot prescribe. Or, put another way, > >>>> someone creating a mathematical model of something can show us that it is > >>>> valid mathematically without it ever having any basis in describing the > >>>> real world. > >>>> > >>>> As an example of this, there's an odd little bit of math I once read > >>>> about that says if you cut up an orange just right, then re-assemble the > >>>> parts, the results could be larger than the sun - yet contain no holes. > >>>> Perhaps, in mathematics, this would be true, but it is based on the > >>>> concept of infinite divisibility and infinitely small spaces - and that > >>>> is something which simply does not apply to the real world. > >>>> > >>>> Such a model needs to actually be compared to the real world to see if it > >>>> is, in fact, a correct modeling of the world, or simply a nice little > >>>> mathematical puzzle. > >>> Let's say that a mathematician develops a mathematical model. Several > >>> years later, another mathematician develops a new mathematical model that > >>> disproves the first mathematical model. Is that possible? > >> No. You can't disprove a mathematical model. It is just that: A > >> mathematical model. It doesn't need to have anything to do with the real > >> world. > >> > >> If your answer > >>> is yes, does not mean that mathematical model should never become a > >>> theory? > >> No. You mixed up "mathematical model" and "scientific theory". Again. > >> > >> Tokay > > > > Can a mathematical model become a theory? > > > > > > No. It is a mathematical model. If it works in maths, that does not mean > it has anything to do with the real world. > > Maths can be supporting of a hypothesis or not... and that hypothesis > can become a scientific theory. > > Tokay thanks--someone else told me the same information. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <f5fo8b$4uh$00$5@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f53du2$4m0$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <f51ago$cbb$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>> In article <981ck4-7cg.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > >>>>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> [snips] > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:55:49 -0700, Jason wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> If it really did happen the way the advocates of abiogenesis claim > > that it > >>>>>>> happened, scientists should be able to design an experiment to make it > >>>>>>> happen. Do you think that scientists will ever be able to perform > > such an > >>>>>>> experiment? > >>>>>> So let's see if we have this right. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Science demonstrates that, on a small scale, water causes erosion > > of rock. > >>>>>> We know water exists, we know rock exists, we know water can erode rock. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> By anyone else's standard, this would be sufficient to explain, oh, the > >>>>>> formation of the Grand Canyon, as long as sufficient time is > > available for > >>>>>> the process to work. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> According to your standards, we cannot conclude this, as we have > > all the > >>>>>> requisite components but we haven't made an experiment that actually > >>>>>> recreated the Grand Canyon - despite such an experiment requiring > >>>>>> something on the order of a few million years to carry out. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This, to you, is a sensible requirement is it? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I suspect even you wouldn't think so... yet it is almost exactly what > >>>>>> you're asking above. We have all the key elements, we have a pretty good > >>>>>> idea - several, actually - of the steps to go from A to B... but we're > >>>>>> also quite certain that in the best of cases, it would require > > hellishly > >>>>>> long times to duplicate the result. Yet you blithely expect it, as if > >>>>>> such an expectation made any sense whatsoever. > >>>>> I was told that a chemical process was what caused life to develop from > >>>>> non-life. If that is correct, it seems to me that scientists should be > >>>>> able to duplicate that process. > >>>> The lottery balls coming up 2-26-34-39-61-62 are a simple matter of > >>>> randomness. Now let's see how long it takes you to have the lottery > >>>> machine run to generate those specific numbers. > >>>> > >>>> Clue-time: just because something can happen doesn't mean we can make it > >>>> happen in a short period of time. > >>>> > >>>>> If scientists are not able to do it, it means that abiogenesis will > >>>>> continue to be based more on speculation than on evidence. > >>>> So if scientists can't make a sun, then how the sun works is "based more > >>>> on speculation than on evidence"? > >>> You changed the subject from chemistry experiments to the creation of > > the sun. > >> No, I used the sun as an extreme example of how not everything can be > >> duplicated in a lab. > >> > >>> Chemistry experiments are easy to do. The creation of a sun is impossible. > >>> There are thousands of colleges that have chemistry labs. Those chemistry > >>> professors should consider conducting more experiments related to > >>> abiogenesis. > >> They are. > >> > >> Martin referred me to a website that mentioned various > >>> chemistry experiments related to abiogenesis. > >> And did you actually read any of them? Of course not. > > > > I speed read the detailed report. > > > > > > Stop that speed reading... you constantly miss the important parts. > Again and again! > > Tokay Someone referred me to a 20 page report. Even you would have speed read that boring report. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <f5flf3$v8t$00$4@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f58ol9$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 The advocates of evolution claim that a one celled life form evolved into mankind. I don't think that it happened. It's more likely that the one celled life form evolved into another one celled life form. See my point? Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Jun 22, 12:37 pm, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <1182417347.503673.197...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > > gudl...@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?) Um... an ameoba is an animal and it is single celled. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Jun 22, 12:37 pm, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <1182417347.503673.197...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > > gudl...@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?= It would be possible for single cells to be male and female. And don't forget that plants reproduce sexuallly (although they are also capable of asexual reproduction). 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.