Evolution is Just Junk Science

June 22, 2007

On Jun 22, 1:09 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1182485614.548401.179...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> <phippsmar...@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.

>

> Probably so--the goal was to comply with the law and still teach the

> basics of creation

But you're not fooling anybody. Can't you see that?

Martin

June 22, 2007

On Jun 22, 1:12 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1182484794.281595.271...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> Phipps <martinphip...@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?

>

> 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.

So you admit that you spent two years at a Christian college and never

got an education?

Martin

June 22, 2007

In article <f5fm59$rbc$01$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

<tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote:

> 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)

I believe the evidence that indicates that a vagely horselike creature

named Hyracotheriums evolved (after 4 steps) into Equus (the modern genus

of horse).

I won't take a guess related to your other question. I am not a biologist.

June 22, 2007

On Jun 22, 1:13 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1182487085.316238.129...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> <phippsmar...@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.

> We don't need no education

You, yourself, are a clear indication of just how much of an education

the average Christian needs.

> We don't need no thought control

It's so ironic to see you calling for an end to religious dogma.

Martin

June 22, 2007

In article <1182495321.555271.296390@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jun 22, 1:12 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <1182484794.281595.271...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> >

> > Phipps <martinphip...@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?

> >

> > 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.

>

> So you admit that you spent two years at a Christian college and never

> got an education?

>

> Martin

I never stated that.

June 22, 2007

On Jun 22, 1:20 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1182484946.986225.38...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> Phipps <martinphip...@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.

> 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're lying, Jason. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory.

You just admitted that.

(On Jun 22, 1:09 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1182485614.548401.179...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > 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.

>

> Probably so)

> 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.

I just want them to learn the truth. You want to throw in some lies.

And you won't be satisfied until they actually believe the lies.

Lying is evil, Jason. There should be no lying in public schools.

Lying to children is a form of child abuse. It is fortunate that you

never had children.

Martin

June 22, 2007

On Jun 22, 1:23 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1182486131.260405.307...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> <phippsmar...@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?

> 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.

It's not a question of liberal vs. conservative: it's a question of

sane vs. insane.

Martin

June 22, 2007

On Jun 22, 1:31 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1182486326.266782.140...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> <phippsmar...@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.

>

> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

June 22, 2007

On Jun 22, 1:35 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1182486412.430495.33...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> <phippsmar...@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.

> 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.

Learn to read, Jason, and answer the questions put to you: do you or

do you not admit now that Darwin's theory of natural selection says

absolutely nothing about how the process of evolution started?

Martin

June 22, 2007

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:15:58 -0700, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com>

wrote:

- Refer: <1182485758.993469.154720@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>

>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.

"Imagine there's no Jason,

It's easy if you try..."

--

June 22, 2007

On Jun 22, 1:56 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <f5fhi9$4ll$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

>

> <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote:

> > Jason wrote:

> > > In article <3sOdnbBzB_DpmevbnZ2dnUVZ_oytn...@sti.net>, "David V."

> > > <s...@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.

Even though you've been told countless times? I said the same thing a

week ago and you accused me of "failing to answer". Do you now

understand why everybody here calls you an ignorant moron?

Martin

June 22, 2007

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:38:05 -0700, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com>

wrote:

- Refer: <1182487085.316238.129070@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>

>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

I, for one, am stunned rigid that his fellow Chrsitians are not

jumping on his criminal idiocy.

He presents the effects of Christian infection in such an appalling

light that you'd think at least one of them would try to put the

brakes on his single-handed destruction of their faith?

But: No!

They all must be as stonkingly stupid as he (as impossible as that may

seem), and twice as viciously evil.

--

June 22, 2007

On Jun 22, 2:22 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <f5flak$v8t$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

> <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote:

> > Jason wrote:

> > > In article <oinb731kfbqhj18s1coitm6sb01mu4v...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>

> > >> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 18:54:32 -0700, in alt.atheism

> > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> > >> <Jason-1706071854320...@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> > >>> 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...

> > >>>>> 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"

>

> > >>>>> 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.

Which proves what? The evidence exists but you've already said no

amount of evidence will convince you. You are proud of your

ignorance.

Martin

June 22, 2007

On Jun 22, 2:35 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <f5fnir$4uh$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

> <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote:

> > Jason wrote:

> > > In article <4pae73dujq21st0nto5fs1fb7dln5rh...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>

> > >> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:50:10 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

> > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> > >> <Jason-1806071650110...@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> > >>> In article <s21e735601fqvk6leab7pmsgcgin9js...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> > >>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>

> > >>>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:21:20 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

> > >>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> > >>>> <Jason-1706072021200...@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> > >>>>> In article <ifnb73lua0eg6thsdngnunfdkmrljbu...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> > >>>>> <l...@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?

> 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.

Nor can dwarves play for the NBA!

It is not discrimination when unqualified professors fail to get

tenure!

Martin

June 22, 2007

On Jun 22, 2:41 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <f5fo8b$4uh$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

> <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote:

> > Jason wrote:

> > > In article <f53du2$4m...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>

> > >> Jason wrote:

> > >>> 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!

> Someone referred me to a 20 page report. Even you would have speed read

> that boring report.

I read the whole thing and found it fascinating. It's a wonder you

made it out of high school.

You once claimed that you had read similar reports before. You

obviously haven't, not if you find them boring and couldn't even get

through this one, one that was aimed at a general audience.

Never mind the Bible. What is ONE thing you have told us that was

ever actually true?

Martin

June 22, 2007

On Jun 22, 2:47 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <f5flf3$v8t$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

> <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote:

> > 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 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".

>

> 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?

Then I guess a fertilized egg will never become a human being because,

so you claim, there is no way that a single cell could ever turn into

a human being.

June 22, 2007