Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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? > Why do you ask questions a little google search could answer in mere minutes? If you really are interested, it is not really hard. Usenet actually is more work than google. Oh, and we see changes in german shepards. Google it. You will see. Tokay -- Our life is what our thoughts make it. Marcus Aurelius Antonius Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In alt.atheism On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 22:23:02 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >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. > Yeah, and the airliners on 9/11 were all flow by remote control. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Martin Phipps wrote: > 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 > Hm. depends on definition. Wikipedia says: > In general they are multi Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Martin Phipps wrote: > 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. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. > > How long have you been here? The beauty of the internet is that you don't have to rely on one source anymore. You can read up on pro and contra, read a differing opinion, other facts, evaluate them yourself... So there is no "best site". But for information like this, wikipedia is usually pretty good. Most cases, it is even the first result. Not this time, but the first hit already has pictures.... Tokay -- Our life is what our thoughts make it. Marcus Aurelius Antonius Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Mike wrote: > 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.) > > Hehe... Never mind. Some people say these were the "good old days". Watched a video of the first "hackers". Interesting times, I think. (No computer, just a little box that beeped into a phone.) Tokay -- Our life is what our thoughts make it. Marcus Aurelius Antonius Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. > > Oh, firstly, it was not "four steps". Quite a few more. And secondly, the question I asked you need not guess. It is so simple to find. Google "difference ape human". First hit has it. And the explanation. You don't need to be a biologist to answer that one. Around here EVERY pupil learns about chromosomes. And most of them even know how many humans have. So, need any more hints? Tokay -- Our life is what our thoughts make it. Marcus Aurelius Antonius Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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? > > I do see were you are driving at but the evolutionary steps between single cell and multicell are quite easy. single cell organisms reproduce by fusion. So, if these "new" cells then stick together? Simple mutation of membrane proteins could do that. Suddenly you have a cluster of cells that sticks together and can't be eaten so fast. Simple, see? Tokay -- Our life is what our thoughts make it. Marcus Aurelius Antonius Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. > > So you did not get my point. What you just said is that basically a mean that believes in great teakettle is not part of the scientific establishment. Which is correct, but rightly so. IF the opponents of this "establishment" actually had evidence, they could start producing it. So far? None. As you should know. Tokay -- Our life is what our thoughts make it. Marcus Aurelius Antonius Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. > > See? If the judgment is not based on law, it gets thrown out in the next higher court. Also, you can't pick your judge. (Oh, by the way.... John E.Jones III was as far away from "liberal" [1] as you can get). Tokay [1] used quotes for "liberal" because it does not translate into german. Funnily enough. A "Liberaler" in german is not a liberal in the way it is used in the USA. -- Our life is what our thoughts make it. Marcus Aurelius Antonius Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Mike wrote: > 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." There is a joke around here along these lines... With a bus and people getting on and off... And ending in "How many people have to get on the bus for it to be empty?" ;-) Tokay -- Our life is what our thoughts make it. Marcus Aurelius Antonius Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 655321 wrote: > In article > <Jason-2106071107440001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> Only if God was involved. > > What sort of animal is that? > Quite like the Yeti, I think. Or the american Bigfoot. Tokay -- Our life is what our thoughts make it. Marcus Aurelius Antonius Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. > > Depends very much if I wanted to argue what was in there or not. If I wanted to argue the points made, I would have to read it thoroughly. Tokay -- Our life is what our thoughts make it. Marcus Aurelius Antonius Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <igij73lncmssoprskphcef08i3nd0db3un@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 18:44:35 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2006071844360001@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>> In article <1182380497.144640.154380@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Jun 21, 3:13 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> In article <1182348318.114973.155...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, >>>>> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>> On 19 Jun., 19:08, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>> In article <4677E977.68603...@osu.edu>, Jim Burns >>> <burns...@osu.edu> wrote: >>>>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>>>> In [respose to] article >>>>>>>>> <1182230648.471813.37...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, >>>>>>>>> George Chen <georgech...@yahoo.com> >>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>> I feel sorry for all of the people that will go to hell >>>>>>>>> instead of going to heaven. >>>>>>>> How do you feel when you realize you are more compassionate, >>>>>>>> a BETTER PERSON, than the God you believe in, even as >>>>>>>> sinful as you are? >>>>>>>> Jason, a lot of people have told you that creationism is >>>>>>>> bad science, and it is. But, beyond that, you should be >>>>>>>> able to realize, even without a single science course, >>>>>>>> that biblical literalism is much worse theology than >>>>>>>> it is science. >>>>>>>> Jim Burns >>>>>>> Jim, >>>>>>> I understand your point but disagree with you. God does not want >>> people to >>>>>>> go to hell (John 3:16). If people go to hell, it is NOT God's fault. >>>>>> Of course it is. He created hell. He can let everybody out. >>>>>>> Instead, it is the fault of the people that turned their backs > on God. >>>>>>> Would atheists be happy in heaven? I doubt it. Heaven is for > people that >>>>>>> enjoy worshipping God. I doubt that atheists would enjoy > worshipping God >>>>>>> or following his rules. >>>>>> Atheists do not turn their backs on god. >>>>> They don't even believe that God exists which is even worse than turning >>>>> their backs on God. >>>> Are you turing you back on Zeus? >>>> >>>> Martin >>> Yes--and every other false God. >>> >> Could you explain to us what standard of evidence you use for >> determining which gods are true and which are false? > > It's mainly based on faith. Books have been written on this subject. > > Oh. More books you did not read or did speed read? Tokay -- Our life is what our thoughts make it. Marcus Aurelius Antonius Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <n0rg73psrrnu9dcvs7dn0msp8odt9qg7ju@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:10:07 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1906070010070001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>> In article <1182230648.471813.37850@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, George >>> Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Jun 19, 2:19 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> In article <1182218594.682691.83...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Jun 19, 3:48 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:Jason-1806070044420001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>>>>>> There was a war in heaven between the angels. God won the battle >>> and the >>>>>>>> angel that started the war (and the angels that fought on his >>> side) were >>>>>>>> cast down to the earth. The angel was re-named Satan and his > followers >>>>>>>> were re-named demons. God may have created another planet and >>> sun (similar >>>>>>>> to our planet and our sun). He may also have created people > to live on >>>>>>>> that planet; some plants and some animals. Of course, I am only >>> guessing. >>>>>>> That doesn't even qualify as a guess. The omnipotent, omniscient god >>>>>>> couldn't defeat Satin. Another strike against the existence of the >>> big guy. >>>>>> For that matter, does it not occur to anyone that Satan is working FOR >>>>>> God in this story? I mean, the people who presumably disobey God are >>>>>> presumably sent to Hell which is presumably run by Satan who then goes >>>>>> ahead and makes life miserable for the people sent there. Is there >>>>>> some logical reason why Satan would do this? Satan is just a version >>>>>> of the boogieman, except these are supposed adults who believe in him. >>>>> The book of Job (Job 1:5-12) discusses how Satan made a return visit to >>>>> heaven to talk to God about Job. Satan was a former arch angel (one > of the >>>>> head angels). As a result, God had a good relationship with Satan--prior >>>>> to the war. Satan became very obsessed with power and wanted to take over >>>>> heaven but he lost that war. Actually, Hell was not created for > people. It >>>>> was created for Satan and his demons. It was eventually used for evil >>>>> people such as the rich man (Luke 16: 19-31). Whether or not God > and Satan >>>>> worked out some sort of agreement about those subjects discussed in your >>>>> post is not known >>>> Actually it is known: it is known that God, Satan, Heaven and Hell do >>>> not exist and that they are just fantasies that idiots believe in. >>>> >>>>> --since such an agreement is not discussed in the Bible. >>>>> God will eventually destoy Satan and his demons--as well as every person >>>>> that is in hell (Rev 20:1-15)--it's referred to as the "second death". >>>> And you are looking forward to that, aren't you? I feel sorry for >>>> you. I really do. >>> Do you also feel sorry for the 1.9 billion other Christians in the world? >>> I feel sorry for all of the people that will go to hell instead of going >>> to heaven. >>> >> 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. > > And this proves exactly what? Probably to the rest of the world something about americans? Tokay -- Our life is what our thoughts make it. Marcus Aurelius Antonius Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <BnBei.158$n9.74@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-2106071151200001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>> In article <1182427767.298489.13140@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Jun 21, 3:56 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> In article <1182403948.732350.256...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, >>>>> Martin >>>>> <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Jun 21, 1:01 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>> In article >>> <1182400221.178506.105...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>>>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Jun 21, 7:19 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article <0a6j731p6dudeibqbemtth8idvv6epj...@4ax.com>, Free >>>>>>>>> Lunch >>>>>>>>> <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>: >>>>>>>>>>> No--it's more complicated--In much the same way that the >>>>> Catholics in the >>>>>>>>>>> days of Copernicus and Galileo believed they were correct >>>>>>>>>>> related >>>>>>> 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. You 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. >>>>>>>>>> There is no science called intelligent design. It is a >>>>>>>>>> religious >>>>>>>>>> doctrine and must be taught in religion classes. >>>>>>>>> That is not a problem. Call the class: The religion of >>>>>>>>> Intelligent >>>>> Design. >>>>> >>>>>>>> As long as they don't try to pass it off as truth I can see them >>>>>>>> devoting a few minutes to this topic. >>>>>>> It won't happen. The advocates of evolution would never allow >>> classes re: >>>>>>> to Intelligent Design to be taught at state colleges. They are >>>>>>> concerned >>>>>>> that the students would realize that Intellegent Design made more >>>>>>> sense. >>>>>> There's little danger of that. It's just a question of not giving >>>>>> credence to theories that have no evidence or which, in fact, have >>>>>> already been proven wrong. >>>>> Remember learning about the Scopes Monkey Trial. The Christians were >>>>> trying to keep out the teaching of evolution in the public schools. I >>>>> do >>>>> believe that the advocates of evolution are doing the same thing those >>>>> Christians done--keeping out the competition. They have the judges on >>>>> their side so they will probably succeed. >>>> The Judges of today are in place to prevent such a travesty of justice >>>> from occuring again: Scopes LOST the right to teach the truth about >>>> evolution to his students. Eventually teachers won the right to teach >>>> the truth: you want to take that right away from them and have them >>>> teach creationism instead. >>>> >>>> Martin >>> They can teach evolution and Intellegent Design. >> You never did tell me what science there is in ID. I assume that as an ID >> supporter you would know such things. For example, what is the difference >> between intelligent and non-intelligent design? How do we test for a theory >> of ID? How do we search for the designer? What steps can we use to find the >> designer? This is an honest question and one that all ID proponents must >> answer if there is to be a theory of ID. > > The course would be to cover the basics of Intelligent Design. They have a > textbook entitled, "Of Panda and People". The textbook has 170 pages and > no Biblical content. 170 pages on nonsense. A total waste of paper. The textbook contains interpretations of classic > evidences in harmony with the creation model. As far as I know, God is not > mentioned as the intelligent designer as far as the course is concerned. > Instead, the term "intelligent designer" is used instead of "God". "A rose by any other name..." This > was done so the book and course could not be called "religion" by the > advocates of evolution. The plan did not work. Of course not. That's because it was still religious and not science. The advocates of evolution > do not would children to learn about intelligent design since they are > afraid that children would realize that it makes more sense than > evolution. The advocates of evolution do not want competition. snort snicker BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I tried, honestly, I did. But I just couldn't read that nonsense and keep a straight face. Jason, you really should consider being a stand-up comedian. With material like that, you could become the next Jay Leno. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1182438453.643233.289060@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > gudloos@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. Make up your mind. Do you want ID to be taught or do you want "public school teachers...to not teach our children false information"? Which is it? Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2106072119450001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. Maybe not for you, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be for someone else. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2106072207290001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1182485384.914431.290990@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 22, 8:10 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <BqBei.160$n9...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > > He would love to drop the charade and teach that god created it all >> > > in six >> > > days, that he made man from the dust of the earth. Talk about hard to >> > > do:-). There was a global flood, Adam named all of the animals and >> > > other >> > > nonsensical things. Being taught such garbage will improve the >> > > science >> > > education level in the country :-))))). >> > >> > Yes, that is true but would not work since it's illegal to teach >> > religion. >> >> It is legal to teach ABOUT religion but illegal (in the United States) >> to suggest that any religion is the one true religion in a government >> run school. >> >> Martin > > Martin, > Many teachers don't want to lose their jobs so they don't discuss > religion. Good - It doesn't belong in a public school anyway. You want religion in your school? Then go to a religious school. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2106072256150001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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? You obviously don't know anything about selective breeding. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest The Ghost In The Machine Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In talk.atheism, Robibnikoff <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote on Fri, 22 Jun 2007 09:38:42 -0400 <5e21m0F36336vU1@mid.individual.net>: > > "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. Actually, I for one think it might, much like comparative religious studies might study the Egyptian, Graeco-Roman, or Norse mythos. (Or, for that matter, Christianity, Islam, and maybe Buddhism, though the last isn't quite like the other two.) In other words, as an inoculant, carefully explained. Not sure at what year level one should start, and then there are the parents who have had years to attempt to "explain" how "God did it" well before the school system can get involved. > 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. And on the 8th day, God Created Evil. Therefore, it's all His fault. :-) (Or was it the 6th, when God created land animals just before humans, in Genesis 1:24-31?) > > 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. "TEAR DOWN THE WALL! TEAR DOWN THE WALL!" :-) And then there's the issue of the human eyeball, the human kneecap, the catheter, the diaphragm, the ribcage, -- #191, ewill3@earthlink.net Warning: This encrypted signature is a dangerous munition. Please notify the US government immediately upon reception. 0000 0000 0000 0000 0001 0000 0000 0000 ... -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 23:35:21 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2106072335210001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >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. > Yet again you insist on lying. Professors get tenure for the work they have done. Unlike the close-minded religious sect that you are a member of, professors are allowed to do any research they want without fear of being fired, as long as their research is honest, clearly presented, and testable. You, of course, have no use for integrity because is proves that the doctrines you teach are lies. So, recapping, liars don't get tenure. Your lying heros would never get tenure, not because they are creationists, but because their writing is dishonest. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:26:23 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2106071926230001@66-52-22-113.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1182476678.577002.214360@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 22, 1:55 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1182419527.979191.51...@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, >> > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >> > > On 20 Jun., 05:11, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > > In article <n0rg73psrrnu9dcvs7dn0msp8odt9qg...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> > > snip >> > >> > > > > The vast majority of Christians belong to church bodies that rejected >> > > > > your foolish claims about biology and evolution. Why do you think you >> > > > > are going to heaven. You have demonstrated to us all here that >you love >> > > > > lies. >> > >> > > > According to the Nov 2004 issue of National Geographic (page 6) only 12 >> > > > percent of Americans believe that humans evolved from other life-forms >> > > > without any involvement from God.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >> > >> > > Which does not mean that only 12 percent accept the theory of >> > > evolution. Why do you keep bringing this up? It was silly the first >> > > time; now it is just pathetic. >> > >> > Believe it or not, one of the aspects of evolution is that humans evolved >> > from other life-forms with any involvement from God. >> >> And this completely contradicts your earlier claim that Darwin >> believed God started the process. >> >> Martin > >Darwin (according to at least one issue of his book) did appear to believe >that God created life on this planet. However, as you know, many advocates >of evolution do not believe that God was involved. Despite the lies of anti-science creationists, Darwin was a fairly traditional 19th Century man of the English establishment, including being trained in Anglican theology. Of course that has nothing to do with science. It has to do with his background. Scientists have never discovered any evidence for any gods. There is no reason for them to claim that some god or other had something to do with life on earth when there is no evidence that there was such involvement. Learn to be honest. It's the first step in repentence. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:33:19 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2106071633200001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <BnBei.158$n9.74@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-2106071151200001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... .... >> > They can teach evolution and Intellegent Design. >> >> You never did tell me what science there is in ID. I assume that as an ID >> supporter you would know such things. For example, what is the difference >> between intelligent and non-intelligent design? How do we test for a theory >> of ID? How do we search for the designer? What steps can we use to find the >> designer? This is an honest question and one that all ID proponents must >> answer if there is to be a theory of ID. > >The course would be to cover the basics of Intelligent Design. They have a >textbook entitled, "Of Panda and People". The textbook has 170 pages and >no Biblical content. The textbook contains interpretations of classic >evidences in harmony with the creation model. As far as I know, God is not >mentioned as the intelligent designer as far as the course is concerned. >Instead, the term "intelligent designer" is used instead of "God". This >was done so the book and course could not be called "religion" by the >advocates of evolution. The plan did not work. The advocates of evolution >do not would children to learn about intelligent design since they are >afraid that children would realize that it makes more sense than >evolution. The advocates of evolution do not want competition. > So it doesn't bother you that the authors of _Of Pandas and People_ are liars? It doesn't bother you that they don't care at all about the First Amendment? It doesn't bother you that they lied to a judge in a federal trial? Tell me again why you claim to be a Christian. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 11:51:19 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2106071151200001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1182427767.298489.13140@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 21, 3:56 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: .... >> > Remember learning about the Scopes Monkey Trial. The Christians were >> > trying to keep out the teaching of evolution in the public schools. I do >> > believe that the advocates of evolution are doing the same thing those >> > Christians done--keeping out the competition. They have the judges on >> > their side so they will probably succeed. >> >> The Judges of today are in place to prevent such a travesty of justice >> from occuring again: Scopes LOST the right to teach the truth about >> evolution to his students. Eventually teachers won the right to teach >> the truth: you want to take that right away from them and have them >> teach creationism instead. >> >> Martin > >They can teach evolution and Intellegent Design. > What scientific facts can they teach about Intelligent Design? 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.