Evolution is Just Junk Science

[Guest gudloos@yahoo.com]

On 21 Jun., 20:30, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1182427787.758392.113...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > On 21 Jun., 03:56, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > In article <1182379655.680290.141...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> > snip

>

> > > > > > The experiment with fruit flies produced speciation. You have been

> > > > > > told that, but, as usual, you ignore facts.

>

> > > > > Yes, that is true. The researchers involved in fruit fly research did

> > > > > produce a new species. Did the fruit flies evolve into a different

> type of

> > > > > insect? The answer is NO. They produced a new species of fruit flies.

>

> > > > A new species IS a new kind.

>

> > > > Martin

>

> > > Martin,

> > > It may be in relation to evolution theory. It is not according to the

> > > advocates of creation science. In this case, the fruit fly would have had

> > > to evolve into a different type of insect before it was considered a new

> > > kind. "Genus" may be the term that I was looking for but am not 100% sure.

> > > If that is the correct term--the fruit fly would have to evolve into

> > > another genus before it became a new "kind".-

>

> > They said there was no speciation. There was. Redefining the terms

> > is not only dishonest; it is ridiculous.

>

> The taxonomic classification was developed in 1735. When the Bible was

> written, the classification had not yet been written. The Bible authors

> made use of the term "kinds" for every different type of animal.

 

Totally irrelevant. We were discussing modern science not ancient

beliefs. You cannot (honestly) claim to be criticizing a scientific

theory from a scientific point of view and then shift over to what the

Bible says. Speciation occurred and that is what creation scientists

have insisted does not take place.

[Guest gudloos@yahoo.com]

On 21 Jun., 20:48, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <f5dtqr$74...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

>

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

> > Jason wrote:

>

> > > I'll give you an example--someone provided a very detailed excellent

> > > summary of abiogenesis. It was an "excellent post" and he made some "good

> > > points". I did not agree with all of his points--but he did make excellent

> > > points related to his point of view. When I attended the creation science

> > > versus evolution debate, I conceeded that the professor made some good

> > > points but I did not agree that he was correct related to his points.

>

> > If a "good point" is not one that's correct, then what, exactly, is so

> > good about it?

>

> I stated that I did not agree with the points that he made.

 

So you did not think it was a good point, or you did but have

irrationally decided to ignore it. Which is it, lying or stupidity?

[Guest gudloos@yahoo.com]

On 21 Jun., 20:51, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1182427767.298489.13...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

snip

> > The Judges of today are in place to prevent such a travesty of justice

> > from occuring again: Scopes LOST the right to teach the truth about

> > evolution to his students. Eventually teachers won the right to teach

> > the truth: you want to take that right away from them and have them

> > teach creationism instead.

>

> > Martin

>

> They can teach evolution and Intellegent Design.-

 

No, intelligent design cannot be taught in a science class for the

very simple reason that it is not science but religion.

[Guest gudloos@yahoo.com]

On 21 Jun., 20:55, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1182438453.643233.289...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,

>

>

>

>

>

> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > On 21 Jun., 10:25, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > In article <1182410472.795311.82...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,

>

> > > hhyaps...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > > On Jun 21, 1:01 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > > In article <1182400221.178506.105...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, M=

> > artin

>

> > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > > On Jun 21, 7:19 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > > > > In article <0a6j731p6dudeibqbemtth8idvv6epj...@4ax.com>, Free Lun=

> > ch

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

> > > > > > > > On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:38:44 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

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

> > > > > > > > <Jason-2006071238450...@66-52-22-61.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> > > > > > > > >In article <f5baj2$e5...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

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

>

> > > > > > > > >> Jason wrote:

> > > > > > > > >> > My answer is above. I just checked the results of another =

> > poll

> > > > > in my Time

> > > > > > > > >> > Almanac. The poll indicates that 37% are "religious" and 3=

> > 8% are

> > > > > > > "somewhat

> > > > > > > > >> > religious". That adds up to 75% of Americans. That is prob=

> > ably

> > > > > the main

> > > > > > > > >> > reason for the 88% figure that you mentioned in your post.=

> > We

> > > > > are winning

> > > > > > > > >> > the battle related to many of those people. We are losing

> > > the battle

> > > > > > > > >> > related to the professors employed by state colleges. Those

> > > > > > > colleges treat

> > > > > > > > >> > the advocates of creation science and ID as second class

> > > > > citizens. They

> > > > > > > > >> > are the establishment that I was speaking of in my above

> > > post. The

> > > > > > > > >> > research facilities are also the establishment that I had =

> > in

> > > > > mind in the

> > > > > > > > >> > above post--they also treat IDers as second class citizens.

> > > Journal

> > > > > > > > >> > editors and the members of the peer review committees are

> > > part of the

> > > > > > > > >> > establishment

>

> > > > > > > > >> Why is it that people who should be in a position to know the

> > > answers

> > > > > > > > >> (college professors, journalists, etc) are supposedly in som=

> > e "mass

> > > > > > > > >> conspiracy" when they claim A and the less-educated claim

> > > "No, it's B"?

>

> > > > > > > > >> Does it REALLY make more sense that they're all lying to us =

> > or that

> > > > > > > > >> maybe - just maybe - you don't really know as much about the

> > > issue as

> > > > > > > > >> you think you do?

>

> > > > > > > > >The college professors, editors of journals, etc. are part of =

> > the

> > > > > > > > >establishment that I mentioned in my post. Are they lying to us

> > > or don't

> > > > > > > > >really know as much about the issue as you think they do? My a=

> > nswer:

>

> > > > > > > > >No--it's more complicated--In much the same way that the

> > > Catholics in the

> > > > > > > > >days of Copernicus and Galileo believed they were correct rela=

> > ted

> > > > > to their

> > > > > > > > >theories--the advocates of evolution believe they are correct

> > > related to

> > > > > > > > >their theories.

>

> > > > > > > > No, they aren't the same at all. You and the religionists of the

> > > time of

> > > > > > > > Galileo had no evidence. Galileo and scientists of today do.. Y=

> > ou are

> > > > > > > > telling lies.

>

> > > > > > > > > At the very least, they should allow students to attend

> > > > > > > > >classes that have are taught by Professors that are advocates =

> > of

> > > > > > > > >Intelligent Design. Those could be optional classes that are

> > > not required

> > > > > > > > >classes. Do you think that state colleges would allow such

> > > classes to be

> > > > > > > > >taught? The answer is NO. At least one of those colleges

> > > (Columbia) will

> > > > > > > > >allow a professor to teach a class related to the history of

> > > > > withcraft but

> > > > > > > > >they would never allow a professor to teach a class related to

> > > > > Intelligent

> > > > > > > > >Design. The advocates of evolution do not want students to

> > > learn about

> > > > > > > > >Intelligent Design in state colleges. =20

>

> > > > > > > > There is no science called intelligent design. It is a religious

> > > > > > > > doctrine and must be taught in religion classes.

>

> > > > > > > That is not a problem. Call the class: The religion of Intelligent

> > > Design.

>

> > > > > > As long as they don't try to pass it off as truth I can see them

> > > > > > devoting a few minutes to this topic.

>

> > > > > > Martin

>

> > > > > It won't happen. The advocates of evolution would never allow classes=

> > re:

> > > > > to Intelligent Design to be taught at state colleges. They are concer=

> > ned

> > > > > that the students would realize that Intellegent Design made more

>

> > > sense.- Hide quoted text -

>

> > > > > - Show quoted text -

>

> > > > I thought you have faith that god will be guiding them, then why worry?

>

> > > I would not worry if public school teachers could be trusted to not teach

> > > our children false information.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -

>

> > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -

>

> > I thought you wanted creation science taught in science classes?

>

> Intelligent design should be taught in those states that approve it.- Skjul tekst i anf

[Guest gudloos@yahoo.com]

On 21 Jun., 20:57, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <5dviiiF333gn...@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"

>

> <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote:

> > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message

> >news:Jason-2006071906240001@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> > > In article <1182385932.728635.271...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

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

>

> > snip

> > >> For now. We can expect that number to drop steadily as people around

> > >> the world get better access to education.

>

> > >> Martin

>

> > > And brainwashing by science teachers and biology professors.

>

> > How is the teaching of science "brainwashing"?

>

> In this case--teaching only one theory and not allowing Intelligent Design

> to be taught.

 

They do not teach the trinity either and for the same reason; neither

one is science, and both are religious beliefs.

[Guest gudloos@yahoo.com]

On 21 Jun., 21:14, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1182428758.173383.124...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

>

>

>

>

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

> > On Jun 21, 4:22 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

> > > Public school teachers--leave those kids alone.

> > > All in all--it's just another brick in the wall.

>

> > > We don't need no education

> > > We don't need no thought control

>

> > Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in The Wall" doesn't mention public school

> > teachers. It is actually directed at Catholic school teachers. Keep

> > in mind it is a song about non-conformity and what is more non-

> > conformist than being an atheist in theseventies. Yes, Pink Floyd

> > (Nick Mason) was an atheist.

>

> >http://www.adherents.com/people/100_rock.html

>

> > Another Brick in the Wall

>

> > Daddy's flown across the ocean

> > Leaving just a memory

> > Snapshot in the family album

> > Daddy what else did you leave for me?

> > Daddy, what'd'ja leave behind for me?!?

> > All in all it was just a brick in the wall.

> > All in all it was all just bricks in the wall.

>

> > "You! Yes, you! Stand still laddy!"

>

> > We don't need no education

> > We dont need no thought control

> > No dark sarcasm in the classroom

> > Teachers leave them kids alone

> > Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone!

> > All in all it's just another brick in the wall.

> > All in all you're just another brick in the wall.

>

> > We don't need no education

> > We dont need no thought control

> > No dark sarcasm in the classroom

> > Teachers leave them kids alone

> > Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone!

> > All in all it's just another brick in the wall.

> > All in all you're just another brick in the wall.

>

> > "Wrong, Do it again!"

> > "If you don't eat yer meat, you can't have any pudding. How can you

> > have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat?"

> > "You! Yes, you behind the bikesheds, stand still laddy!"

>

> > [sound of many TV's coming on, all on different channels]

> > "The Bulls are already out there"

> > Pink: "Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrgh!"

> > "This Roman Meal bakery thought you'd like to know."

>

> > I don't need no arms around me

> > And I dont need no drugs to calm me.

> > I have seen the writing on the wall.

> > Don't think I need anything at all.

> > No! Don't think I'll need anything at all.

> > All in all it was all just bricks in the wall.

> > All in all you were all just bricks in the wall.

>

> > Martin

>

> Thanks--I heard the song on the car radio yesterday. It was one of the

> best songs that has ever been recorded. When I heard it, it made me think

> of how the the advocates of evolution want "thought control". They will go

> to court to prevent intelligent design from being taught. That is "thought

> control" since they don't want competition.

 

That would be yet another lie. Shame on you.

 

You may NOT realize but it is

> thought control but almost every Christian in that state would agree that

> it was thought control.

 

No Jason most Christians would not agree.

>It's my guess that many of those Christian parents

> pulled their children out of the the public schools after that court

> decision. They placed those children in Christian schools where they could

> learn about evolution and intelligent design.

>

> You want to have education

> You want to have thought control

> all in all it was just bricks in the wall-

 

Good description of fundamentalism.

[Guest gudloos@yahoo.com]

On 22 Jun., 01:38, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <IsBei.162$n9...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph"

>

>

>

>

>

> <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message

> >news:Jason-2106071214400001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> > > In article <1182428758.173383.124...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

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

>

> > >> On Jun 21, 4:22 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

> > >> > Public school teachers--leave those kids alone.

> > >> > All in all--it's just another brick in the wall.

>

> > >> > We don't need no education

> > >> > We don't need no thought control

>

> > >> Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in The Wall" doesn't mention public school

> > >> teachers. It is actually directed at Catholic school teachers. Keep

> > >> in mind it is a song about non-conformity and what is more non-

> > >> conformist than being an atheist in theseventies. Yes, Pink Floyd

> > >> (Nick Mason) was an atheist.

>

> > >>http://www.adherents.com/people/100_rock.html

>

> > >> Another Brick in the Wall

>

> > >> Daddy's flown across the ocean

> > >> Leaving just a memory

> > >> Snapshot in the family album

> > >> Daddy what else did you leave for me?

> > >> Daddy, what'd'ja leave behind for me?!?

> > >> All in all it was just a brick in the wall.

> > >> All in all it was all just bricks in the wall.

>

> > >> "You! Yes, you! Stand still laddy!"

>

> > >> We don't need no education

> > >> We dont need no thought control

> > >> No dark sarcasm in the classroom

> > >> Teachers leave them kids alone

> > >> Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone!

> > >> All in all it's just another brick in the wall.

> > >> All in all you're just another brick in the wall.

>

> > >> We don't need no education

> > >> We dont need no thought control

> > >> No dark sarcasm in the classroom

> > >> Teachers leave them kids alone

> > >> Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone!

> > >> All in all it's just another brick in the wall.

> > >> All in all you're just another brick in the wall.

>

> > >> "Wrong, Do it again!"

> > >> "If you don't eat yer meat, you can't have any pudding. How can you

> > >> have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat?"

> > >> "You! Yes, you behind the bikesheds, stand still laddy!"

>

> > >> [sound of many TV's coming on, all on different channels]

> > >> "The Bulls are already out there"

> > >> Pink: "Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrgh!"

> > >> "This Roman Meal bakery thought you'd like to know."

>

> > >> I don't need no arms around me

> > >> And I dont need no drugs to calm me.

> > >> I have seen the writing on the wall.

> > >> Don't think I need anything at all.

> > >> No! Don't think I'll need anything at all.

> > >> All in all it was all just bricks in the wall.

> > >> All in all you were all just bricks in the wall.

>

> > >> Martin

>

> > > Thanks--I heard the song on the car radio yesterday. It was one of the

> > > best songs that has ever been recorded. When I heard it, it made me think

> > > of how the the advocates of evolution want "thought control". They will go

> > > to court to prevent intelligent design from being taught. That is "thought

> > > control" since they don't want competition. You may NOT realize but it is

> > > thought control but almost every Christian in that state would agree that

> > > it was thought control. It's my guess that many of those Christian parents

> > > pulled their children out of the the public schools after that court

> > > decision. They placed those children in Christian schools where they could

> > > learn about evolution and intelligent design.

>

> > > You want to have education

> > > You want to have thought control

> > > all in all it was just bricks in the wall

>

> > Those children are sure as hell not learning anything about evolution. The

> > really sad part is that they aren't learning about astronomy, astro-physics,

> > or any other science that contradicts the "WordaGod".

>

> Most of the rich people in the city where I live send their children to a

> Catholic Prep School. Those children receive a much better education than

> the children that attend public schools.- Skjul tekst i anf

[Guest gudloos@yahoo.com]

On 22 Jun., 02:08, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <F8Dei.41323$5j1.2...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>, 655321

>

>

>

>

>

> <DipthotDipt...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:

> > Jason wrote:

> > > In article <f5e7s6$h2...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

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

>

> > >> Jason wrote:

> > >>> The children in Christian schools and that are home schooled can still

> > >>> hear the truth about how life came to be on this planet.

> > >> But they probably won't, if they're in an xian school.

>

> > > I don't know about all Christian school except for one of the local

> > > Christian schools. They teach both evolution and creation science.

>

> > There is no such thing as "creation science." That's an oxymoron.

>

> > And you know that. If one were to assume a divine creation, the

> > question of which divine entity (or entities) did the creating, when

> > this presumed creation was done, why it was done, and so on, are

> > definitely not scientific questions.

>

> > It's not science. And you know that.

>

> > But you will continue to lie.

>

> > I'll bet you $10 that you will continue to lie.

>

> > > The

> > > reason they teach evolution is because they don't want the students to be

> > > at a disadvantage when they take biology classes in state colleges.

>

> > The reason they teach evolution is that it's an observed,

> > scientifically-relevant process worth studying.

>

> > Many Christians acknowledge that evolution is an ongoing, observable

> > occurrence. They realize that there's no such thing as "creation

> > science," and that such a topic is a theological one, and ergo has no

> > place in a science class.

>

> > But you know that... and you will continue to lie.

> > --

> > 655321

>

> Believe it or not, lots of Christians accept both evolution and creation

> science.

>

> They believe that God created mankind; some animals and some plants. After

> the creation process was finished, Natural Selection kicked in. As you

> know, Natural Selection is a major aspect of Evoluition.

>

> That's how I believe it happened.- Skjul tekst i anf

[Guest Mike]

Jason wrote:

> In article <f5dsbt$5g3$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>>> In article <f5b8os$d9i$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Jason wrote:

>>>>> I hope that professor gets a job at a Christian college where he will not

>>>>> be discriminated against and will be able to get tenure.

>>>> If a professor at an xian college said "there is no god. The stars were

>>>> formed by natural causes" and that professor didn't get tenure, was he

>>>> "discriminated against?"

>>>>

>>>> Jason, you are SO damned funny.

>>> As far as I know, he was not assigned to teach classes related to creation

>>> science or intelligent design.

>> Answer the question: was the professor in the above hypothetical

>> discriminated against?

>

> The professor was denied tenune. If an investigation revealed that the

> primary reason was due to the fact that he was an advocate of creation

> science, it would be my conclusion that he was discriminated against for

> his religious beliefs.

 

You really don't read things for comprehension, do you? Let's try again:

 

If a professor at an xian college said "there is no god. The stars were

formed by natural causes" and that professor didn't get tenure, was he

"discriminated against?"

[Guest Mike]

Jason wrote:

> In article <1182417347.503673.197230@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

> gudloos@yahoo.com wrote:

>> 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)

 

After all this time, you still don't know the difference between

abiogenesis and evolution? Pretty damned sad.

[Guest Mike]

Tokay Pino Gris wrote:

> Jason wrote:

>> In article <1182417347.503673.197230@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

>> gudloos@yahoo.com wrote:

>>> I see. In that case you must now be admitting that abiogenesis took

>>> place.

>>

>> After scientists conduct experiments that prove these steps happened--I

>> will believe it.

>> STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria)

>> STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual

>> reproduction)

>> STEP 3 Animal cell colony (with cells depending upon each other for

>> survival)

>> STEP 4 Multicelled animal (with cells differentiated according to

>> function)

>>

>>

>

> Oh, and a second point.... What does this have to do with abiogenesis?

 

Not a damned thing and he knows that by now (as many times as he's been

told it.) He's being deliberately dishonest.

[Guest Mike]

Jason wrote:

> I re-read the introduction to the list. When I first read the summary, I

> was under the impression that every person on that list had a Ph.D degree.

> Someone pointed out that I was wrong about that so I re-read the summary.

> I found out that I was wrong. Some of those people on the list do not have

> Ph.D degrees. The summary does NOT state that everyone on that list is

> involved in fields directly or indirenctly related to evolution. Upon

> request, I'll repost the summary.

 

You don't need to repost anything. We already know that you don't read

for comprehension and won't admit being wrong until your face is

literally smeared into it (as it was here.)

[Guest Mike]

Tokay Pino Gris wrote:

> 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.)

 

I grew up with 300 baud modems. You could literally read the text as

fast as it downloaded (if you read fast. And it WAS only text. No fancy

graphics.) Just imagine it scrolling across the screen at the

approximate typing rate of 250-300 words a minute. Just going to 1200

baud was like winning the lottery! (Damned, I'm showing my age again.)

 

> So, You have google, you have wikipedia... Why are you asking?

>

>

> Tokay

>

[Guest Mike]

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. The

> testimony of the doctor that removed two inches of crushed leg bone is

> evidence.

 

But there's no evidence of this god. That's the step that you're

skipping over.

 

1: prove that something happened (such as this leg growing.)

 

2: prove that a god exists.

 

3: prove that this god is the most likely explanation for #1.

 

You haven't even done step 1 but even if you had, you still haven't

begun on #2. You just want to jump from claiming step 1 is true to

claiming step 3 is true.

[Guest Mike]

Jason wrote:

> In article <1182476566.139983.309600@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>> On Jun 22, 1:47 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>> A body is evidence. Two legs that are the same size are evidence. Her

>>> medical records (eg X-rays) related to the car accident are evidence.

>> You admitted to never seeing her medical records. You said you didn't

>> have to, that you believed her anyway. Don't lie now about having

>> seen X-rays.

>>

>>> The

>>> testimony of the doctor that removed two inches of crushed leg bone is

>>> evidence.

>> What testimony? Only evil men lie, Jason.

>>

>> Martin

>

> I did not state that I had seem her medical records in the above post.

> Re-read the above post.

 

You claimed that the x-rays are evidence. They are not if they don't

exist. Have you seen them?

[Guest Mike]

gudloos@yahoo.com wrote:

> On 21 Jun., 08:21, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>> In article <1182401170.353456.11...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>>

> snip

>

>>> 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

>

> How many times now has it been explained that abiogenesis is not a

> part of evolution?

 

2,945,387 times (give or take.)

>

>

>

>> and common descent) that I do not agree with. The reason: Lack of

>> evidence.

>

> That is a lie. You have been repeatedly given a great deal of

> evidence. You continue to ignore that and to repeat your lie.

>

>> I believe that God created mankind; 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. I don't

>> usually explain all of this when I state such things as "I am not an

>> advocate of evolution".

>> jason- Skjul tekst i anf

[Guest Mike]

Jason wrote:

> In article <f5dtqr$74p$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>>> I'll give you an example--someone provided a very detailed excellent

>>> summary of abiogenesis. It was an "excellent post" and he made some "good

>>> points". I did not agree with all of his points--but he did make excellent

>>> points related to his point of view. When I attended the creation science

>>> versus evolution debate, I conceeded that the professor made some good

>>> points but I did not agree that he was correct related to his points.

>> If a "good point" is not one that's correct, then what, exactly, is so

>> good about it?

>

> I stated that I did not agree with the points that he made.

 

As you've said so many times: answer the question.

 

I'll even repeat it for you: "If a "good point" is not one that's

correct, then what, exactly, is so good about it?"

 

If you're saying it IS correct but that you just don't agree with it,

then what does that say about you?

[Guest Mike]

Tokay Pino Gris wrote:

> Jason wrote:

>> 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.

 

A very good example would be "3 apples minus 5 apples gives -2 apples."

Perfectly mathematically correct but I'd LOVE to see someone with "-2

apples."

> Maths can be supporting of a hypothesis or not... and that hypothesis

> can become a scientific theory.

>

> Tokay

>

[Guest Mike]

Tokay Pino Gris wrote:

> Jason wrote:

>> I speed read the detailed report.

>>

>>

>

> Stop that speed reading... you constantly miss the important parts.

> Again and again!

 

Jason speed reading the bible:

 

"In the beginning...they may eat their own dung...and praise the

lord...in hell...Amen."

[Guest Robibnikoff]

"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote

 

snip

> WE DON'T NEED NO THOUGHT CONTROL

> Children should be taught intelligent design and evolution.

 

Because YOU say so? Guess again. Intelligent design has no place in public

schools. If parents want that taught to their children, then they could do

it themselves.

 

Because, ID boils down to one thing - GOD DID IT. See? Done.

 

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

 

Oh please, stop ruining a perfectly good Pink Floyd song.

--

Robyn

Resident Witchypoo

BAAWA Knight!

#1557

[Guest Robibnikoff]

"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in

 

snip

>

> The basics of creation science.

 

Which is GOD DID IT.

 

The term "intelligent designer" would be

> used instead of "God" since it is now illegal to teach religion in the

> public school system.

 

What a load - Everyone knows who the "intelligent designer" is supposed to

be. Feel free to lie to your own children, but leave mine alone.

--

Robyn

Resident Witchypoo

BAAWA Knight!

#1557

[Guest Robibnikoff]

"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote

snip

>

> Martin,

> You don't realize it--but the advocates of evolution want to control the

> thoughts of children in public schools.

 

Got any proof of that? How about you back up that assertion with some

facts.

--

Robyn

Resident Witchypoo

BAAWA Knight!

#1557

[Guest Robibnikoff]

"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com>

 

snip

>

> You want the thoughts of children to be controlled

 

Why are you lying?

--

Robyn

Resident Witchypoo

BAAWA Knight!

#1557

[Guest Robibnikoff]

"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:Jason-2106071641060001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> In article <szkabutorxe.fsf@eris.io.com>, The Chief Instigator

> <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote:

>

>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) writes:

>>

>> >In article <5dvilhF35tcs6U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"

>> ><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:

>>

>> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote

>>

>> >> snip

>>

>> >> > Public school teachers--leave those kids alone.

>> >> > All in all--it's just another brick in the wall.

>>

>> >> > We don't need no education

>> >> > We don't need no thought control

>>

>> >> I think you've totally lost it. I hope you don't have any children.

>>

>> >It's words from a famous song.

>>

>> You're not old enough to appreciate Pink Floyd.

>

> It was one of my favorite songs. What year was the song recorded?

 

It's one of your favorite songs and you don't know?

--

Robyn

Resident Witchypoo

BAAWA Knight!

#1557

[Guest Don Kresch]

In alt.atheism On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:19:45 -0700, Jason@nospam.com

(Jason) let us all know that:

>In article <1182482932.469900.96640@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>> On Jun 22, 3:14 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>

>> > They placed those children in Christian schools where they could

>> > learn about evolution and intelligent design.

>>

>> Are you an example of the product of "education" from Christian

>> schools, Jason? How much do you know about evolution or biology in

>> general? Big bang theory or physics in general? Biochemistry or

>> chemistry in general? Archaeolology or antropology in general?

>> Evolutionary psychology or psychology in general? Comparative

>> mythology or history in general?

>>

>> Martin

>

>I learned enough to know that happiness is not intellectual knowledge.

>

It can be. But for you, happiness is being stupid.

 

 

Don

---

aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde

Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.

 

"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"

Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"