Guest Free Lunch Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 11:48:45 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2106071148450001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >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. > We know, you say that when you have no idea how to wiggle out of another lie that you've been caught telling. -- "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 11:07:00 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2106071107010001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1182419694.844670.209030@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: .... >> It should be pointed out that people can both completely accept the >> theory of evolution and believe that god was involved in the process. >> Many more than 12 percent do believe this. I, for example, learned >> about evolution from Christian teachers in Christian schools. > >That is true. This is a summary of how I understand it. God created >mankind; some plants and some animals. After the creation process was >finished--natural selection kicked in. Natural Selection is the most >important aspect of evolution theory. Therefore, I am in agreement with >your Christian teachers. > >However, many of the advocates of evolution (especially many atheist >college biology professors) believe that "humans evolved from other >life-forms without any involvement from God." Since they do not believe in >God, it's logical that they would believe that God was not involved. Many >people in this newsgroup also believe that God was not involved. Since there is absolutely no evidence that any gods had anything to do with the evolution of humans, it would be irresponsible for any scientist to claim that God had any scientifically verifiable involvement in this. Learn the difference between science and religion and stop claiming that your religious doctrines are scientific. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:58:49 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2106071058490001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1182427308.899634.117560@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> On 21 Jun., 03:44, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1182380497.144640.154...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Phipps <martinphip...@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.- >> >> A false god being defined as one you do not believe in. You have no >> evidence for Zeus. Many of the beliefs about Zeus were silly. You >> have no evidence for your god. Many of the beliefs about your god are >> silly. There is no objective way to select one as being true and the >> other as being false. I have no more turned my back on your god than >> I have turned my back on Zeus. > >To not even believe there is a God is even worse than turning your back on God. Why? What evidence do you have to persuade me that the God you claim to worship, the God you keep telling lies about, the God that cannot be found anywhere in the universe needs to be believed in? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:47:14 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2106071047150001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <f5dto1$74p$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <1182379707.534130.141710@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Jun 21, 3:11 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >>> In article <1182348182.409232.265...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, >> >>> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >> >>>> On 19 Jun., 18:50, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >>>>> In article <f58p6o$rf...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> >>>>> <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> Jason wrote: >> >>>>>>> In article <dhia73p7j846pbim1ektn3h75dm58dr...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >>>>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:50:26 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >>>>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >>>>>>>> <Jason-1606072150260...@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >>>>>>>>> In article <7c29735s3e2ff7nlm8mqtbeq7lnihmu...@4ax.com>, >> > Free Lunch >> >>>>>>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> ... >> >>>>>>>>>> Belief is _never_ evidence under any circumstance. >> >>>>>>>>>> Do you comprehend that simple fact? >> >>>>>>>>> When I was called for jury duty, we all had to listen to the >> > judge = >> >>>> tell us >> >>>>>>>>> some of the same information that you mentioned in your post. >> >>>>>>>> Yet your posts show a total disregard for justice. You have made it >> >>>>>>>> clear that you would rather hang an innocent man than not >> > find anyone >> >>>>>>>> guilty of a crime. >> >>>>>>> I would make the judgement based on the physical evidence and the >> >>>>>>> testimonies of the witnesses. I agree that I would be >> > pro-prosecution= >> >>>> but >> >>>>>>> would not want to be responsible for sending an innocent man >> > to priso= >> >>>> n=2E >> >>>>>>> That is the reason I would listen to the testimony and examine the >> >>>>>>> physical evidence. >> >>>>>> What physical evidence? You already claimed you'd send the man >> > to prison >> >>>>>> for life based on nothing more than 8 people saying "we heard him say >> >>>>>> 'I'll kill her' and then saw him walk into the room and fire a gun." >> >>>>> In that case, there would have been NO physical evidence to examine. In >> >>>>> the above post, the question appeared to me to be unrelated to the >> >>>>> scenario that I mentioned in another post. In most cases, physical >> >>>>> evidence is involved. Yes, I would have voted to convict the husband of >> >>>>> that murder. >> >>>> You have totally and, no doubt, delibrately missed the point that >> >>>> there was no evidence of a murder let alone evidence against the >> >>>> person charged. >> >>> I disagree. >> >> You can disagree that 2+2=4 but that doesn't make it 5. >> >> >> >> Martin >> > >> > That is true. Even if all other members of the jury disagreed with me--I >> > would still have voted to convict him based on the testimony (evidence) of >> > the witnesses that observed him enter the apartment with a gun and hearing >> > a shot. The O.J. defense of "some other guy did it" would not work with >> > me. >> >> There wasn't even evidence in your hypothetical (if ALL there was was 8 >> people saying "we heard a threat and a gunshot.") that anything was done >> to begin with. You seem to keep ignoring the fact that a body IS >> evidence. So was there evidence here or JUST testimony? > >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. > Where is the evidence? All I have is your hearsay and you've demonstrated that you cannot be trusted. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 22:15:00 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2006072215010001@66-52-22-112.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <28kj73pr3bpr6c01kt81cl1b3pdae1gn38@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 19:10:26 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2006071910260001@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >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. >> > >> So you claim that the god you believe in is true but the ones you don't >> believe in are false. Why should anyone be persuaded? > >It's a Bible doctrine based on a commandment--"Thou shalt have no other >gods before me." > But, according to you, that commandment was given by a different god than the one you believe in. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 22:03:19 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2006072203190001@66-52-22-112.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1182400303.178617.309720@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 21, 7:21 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <8j6j73pl30k4h15prg40pvctlinkbeg...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > > On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 11:05:53 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> > > <Jason-2006071105530...@66-52-22-61.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> > > >In article <f5b79s$bl...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> > > ><prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> > >> > > >> Jason wrote: >> > >> > > >> > Are those 500 people that agree with me (that have Ph.D degrees) also >> > > >stupid? >> > >> > > >> There aren't 500 people with PhD's that agree with you, liar. As it's >> > > >> been pointed out, many of them don't even have ANY degree shown in that >> > > >> list (some simply "wrote a book" and others are engineers, etc.) >> > >> > > >Are you stating that no engineers have Ph.D degrees? Are you stating that >> > > >none of the people that write books have Ph.D degrees? >> > >> > > You have misrepresented the list. Your questions appear to be an attempt >> > > to distract from that fact that once again you have lied to us. >> > >> > This is the title of the list: >> > >> > List of Intellectual Doubters of Darwinism >> > >> > The title is NOT >> > >> > List of Scientists that are Doubters of Darwinism >> >> Maybe they should have called it "LIst of Idiots who Doubt >> Darwinism". Of course, they should first remove the names of actual >> "evolutionists" that were fraudulently placed on the list. >> >> Martin > >You should email the person that compiled the list about the names of >people that should not be on the list. > Why? The whole list is fraudulent misrepresentation. I wouldn't expect that person to repent of his lies any more than I expect you to reform. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 22:01:09 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2006072201090001@66-52-22-112.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1182400221.178506.105870@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@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>: >> > > >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 38% are >> > "somewhat >> > > >> > religious". That adds up to 75% of Americans. That is probably >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 some "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 answer: >> > >> > > >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. >> >> 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 concerned >that the students would realize that Intellegent Design made more sense. > They will teach every bit of science related to ID. That, as you know, is nothing. ID is a lie. Why would anyone teach it? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 21:57:53 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2006072157530001@66-52-22-112.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <uIkei.2382$X8.1806@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-2006071906240001@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <1182385932.728635.271610@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Jun 21, 5:55 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > In article <ZVfei.830$1a....@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> >> > >> >> > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> > >news:Jason-2006070004340001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> > > > In article <1182314491.538672.164...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >> > Martin >> >> > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > >> On Jun 20, 10:18 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > > >> > In article >> >> > > >> > <1182295801.664622.91...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, >> >> > > >> > Martin >> >> > >> >> > > >> > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > >> > > On Jun 20, 1:31 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > > >> > > > In article >> >> > > > <1182261263.411483.211...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> >> > >> >> > > >> > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > > >> > > > > On Jun 19, 3:04 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > >> > > > > > Those 500 people on that list that have obtained Ph.D >> >> > > >> > > > > > degrees >> >> > > > attended >> >> > > >> > > > > > many different colleges and they came to the same >> >> > > >> > > > > > conclusion >> >> > > > that I came >> >> > > >> > > > > > to. >> >> > >> >> > > >> > > > > So there are at least 504 fraudulent idiots in the world. >> >> > > >> > > > > So >> >> > > >> > > > > what? >> >> > >> >> > > >> > > > Galileo and Copernicus had to face the establishment without >> >> > > >> > > > the >> >> > > >> > > > help of >> >> > > >> > > > anyone. At least, we have at least 500 people fighting >> > against the >> >> > > >> > > > evolution establishment. >> >> > >> >> > > >> > > You can't have it both ways, Jason. You can't argue that 88% >> > of the >> >> > > >> > > American population agrees with you and then claim that these >> > people >> >> > > >> > > are lonely voices fighting against "the establishment". >> >> > >> >> > > >> > As far as state colleges are concerned, Christians that are >> >> > > >> > advocates >> >> > > >> > of >> >> > > >> > creation science are lonely voices fighting against "the >> >> > > >> > establishment". >> >> > > >> > If you don't believe me, talk to the professor that was denied >> >> > > >> > tenure >> >> > > >> > mainly because he was an advocate of creation science. If he had >> >> > > >> > been >> >> > > >> > an >> >> > > >> > advocate of evolution, it's my guess that he would have been >> >> > > >> > granted >> >> > > >> > tenure. I told you the story of the professor that humiliated >> >> > > >> > Christians >> >> > > >> > related to the life boat scenario. >> >> > >> >> > > >> You didn't answer my implied question, Jason: if 88% of Americans >> >> > > >> believe as you do then it is the "evolutionists" who are fighting >> >> > > >> against the establishment. You can't have it both ways, can you? >> >> > >> >> > > >> Martin >> >> > >> >> > > > My answer is above. I just checked the results of another poll in >> > my Time >> >> > > > Almanac. The poll indicates that 37% are "religious" and 38% are >> > "somewhat >> >> > > > religious". That adds up to 75% of Americans. That is probably 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 >> >> > > > Jason >> >> > >> >> > > No Jason, you're losing the battle. Western Europe has almost >> >> > > succeeded in >> >> > > shedding the yoke of Christianity. In England church attendance is >> > less than >> >> > > 10%. In the US, according to a Christian poll, there were 14 million >> > persons >> >> > > categorized as atheists or non-religious. In 2001 that figure was 29 >> >> > > million. Slowly but surely knowledge is casting a powerful light into >> >> > > the >> >> > > dark corner called Christianity. >> >> > >> >> > Yes, you are correct. It does not mean we are wrong. Copernicus and >> >> > Galileo were only two people--they were right and everybody else was >> >> > wrong. There still are 1.9 billion Christians in the world. >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> No brainwashing, Jason, that is the province of religion. Better education >> means fewer place for the 'god of the gaps' to hide. > >The children in Christian schools and that are home schooled can still >hear the truth about how life came to be on this planet. > Not if they are taught that evolution is false. Then they are being lied to by so-called Christians like you. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <f5geed$qig$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f5dsbt$5g3$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <f5b8os$d9i$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>> I hope that professor gets a job at a Christian college where he will not > >>>>> be discriminated against and will be able to get tenure. > >>>> If a professor at an xian college said "there is no god. The stars were > >>>> formed by natural causes" and that professor didn't get tenure, was he > >>>> "discriminated against?" > >>>> > >>>> Jason, you are SO damned funny. > >>> As far as I know, he was not assigned to teach classes related to creation > >>> science or intelligent design. > >> Answer the question: was the professor in the above hypothetical > >> discriminated against? > > > > The professor was denied tenune. If an investigation revealed that the > > primary reason was due to the fact that he was an advocate of creation > > science, it would be my conclusion that he was discriminated against for > > his religious beliefs. > > You really don't read things for comprehension, do you? Let's try again: > > If a professor at an xian college said "there is no god. The stars were > formed by natural causes" and that professor didn't get tenure, was he > "discriminated against?" Yes--unless there were other factors not mentioned in your post--example: he had been found guilty of having sex with a student in return for an A grade. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <f5gem2$qig$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> 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) > > After all this time, you still don't know the difference between > abiogenesis and evolution? Pretty damned sad. My college biology professor done the same thing. He discussed the primordial pond before discussing natural selection. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <5e26jgF36ig8vU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > "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. Very little. I know they use it in relation to race horses. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <f5glkj$ok8$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f5fl6u$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 That's usually true but not always true. Have you ever had to visit 20 sites before you finally found the best site? I have. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <f5gft7$sah$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > A body is evidence. Two legs that are the same size are evidence. Her > > medical records (eg X-rays) related to the car accident are evidence. The > > testimony of the doctor that removed two inches of crushed leg bone is > > evidence. > > But there's no evidence of this god. That's the step that you're > skipping over. > > 1: prove that something happened (such as this leg growing.) > > 2: prove that a god exists. > > 3: prove that this god is the most likely explanation for #1. > > You haven't even done step 1 but even if you had, you still haven't > begun on #2. You just want to jump from claiming step 1 is true to > claiming step 3 is true. That is a good point. However, the point was that the body was evidence and that Cheryl also has evidence. In both cases, the evidence might not be enough to convince a jury--but it is evidence. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:54:27 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2206071054270001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <f5gft7$sah$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> 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. > >That is a good point. However, the point was that the body was evidence >and that Cheryl also has evidence. In both cases, the evidence might not >be enough to convince a jury--but it is evidence. I have no idea if there is evidence, but you have never pointed us to any evidence. All we get is nonadmissible hearsay from you. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <dqtn7352n0b5t4j7lumloc1fqbobot568a@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:47:14 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2106071047150001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <f5dto1$74p$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >> > In article <1182379707.534130.141710@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >> > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Jun 21, 3:11 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >>> In article <1182348182.409232.265...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > >> >>> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > >> >>>> On 19 Jun., 18:50, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >>>>> In article <f58p6o$rf...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >> >>>>> <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> >>>>>> Jason wrote: > >> >>>>>>> In article <dhia73p7j846pbim1ektn3h75dm58dr...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> >>>>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:50:26 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> >>>>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >>>>>>>> <Jason-1606072150260...@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >>>>>>>>> In article <7c29735s3e2ff7nlm8mqtbeq7lnihmu...@4ax.com>, > >> > Free Lunch > >> >>>>>>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >>>>>>>> ... > >> >>>>>>>>>> Belief is _never_ evidence under any circumstance. > >> >>>>>>>>>> Do you comprehend that simple fact? > >> >>>>>>>>> When I was called for jury duty, we all had to listen to the > >> > judge = > >> >>>> tell us > >> >>>>>>>>> some of the same information that you mentioned in your post. > >> >>>>>>>> Yet your posts show a total disregard for justice. You have made it > >> >>>>>>>> clear that you would rather hang an innocent man than not > >> > find anyone > >> >>>>>>>> guilty of a crime. > >> >>>>>>> I would make the judgement based on the physical evidence and the > >> >>>>>>> testimonies of the witnesses. I agree that I would be > >> > pro-prosecution= > >> >>>> but > >> >>>>>>> would not want to be responsible for sending an innocent man > >> > to priso= > >> >>>> n=2E > >> >>>>>>> That is the reason I would listen to the testimony and examine the > >> >>>>>>> physical evidence. > >> >>>>>> What physical evidence? You already claimed you'd send the man > >> > to prison > >> >>>>>> for life based on nothing more than 8 people saying "we heard him say > >> >>>>>> 'I'll kill her' and then saw him walk into the room and fire a gun." > >> >>>>> In that case, there would have been NO physical evidence to examine. In > >> >>>>> the above post, the question appeared to me to be unrelated to the > >> >>>>> scenario that I mentioned in another post. In most cases, physical > >> >>>>> evidence is involved. Yes, I would have voted to convict the husband of > >> >>>>> that murder. > >> >>>> You have totally and, no doubt, delibrately missed the point that > >> >>>> there was no evidence of a murder let alone evidence against the > >> >>>> person charged. > >> >>> I disagree. > >> >> You can disagree that 2+2=4 but that doesn't make it 5. > >> >> > >> >> Martin > >> > > >> > That is true. Even if all other members of the jury disagreed with me--I > >> > would still have voted to convict him based on the testimony (evidence) of > >> > the witnesses that observed him enter the apartment with a gun and hearing > >> > a shot. The O.J. defense of "some other guy did it" would not work with > >> > me. > >> > >> There wasn't even evidence in your hypothetical (if ALL there was was 8 > >> people saying "we heard a threat and a gunshot.") that anything was done > >> to begin with. You seem to keep ignoring the fact that a body IS > >> evidence. So was there evidence here or JUST testimony? > > > >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. > > > Where is the evidence? All I have is your hearsay and you've > demonstrated that you cannot be trusted. I don't have the evidence. Cheryl Prewitt and the doctor that removed two inches of leg bone have the evidence. She has written a book and her testimony is on the internet. Her name is mentioned in over 700 websites. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <f5gfvc$sah$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > 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? No--but that does not mean they don't exist. The doctor that removed the two inches of leg bone has the X-rays. I don't know whether or not Cheryl Prewitt has copies of her X-rays. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:57:07 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2206071057070001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <dqtn7352n0b5t4j7lumloc1fqbobot568a@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:47:14 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2106071047150001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <f5dto1$74p$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> > In article <1182379707.534130.141710@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> >> > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Jun 21, 3:11 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >>> In article <1182348182.409232.265...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, >> >> >>> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >>>> On 19 Jun., 18:50, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >>>>> In article <f58p6o$rf...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> >> >>>>> <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> >> >>>>>> Jason wrote: >> >> >>>>>>> In article <dhia73p7j846pbim1ektn3h75dm58dr...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> >>>>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:50:26 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >> >>>>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >>>>>>>> <Jason-1606072150260...@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >>>>>>>>> In article <7c29735s3e2ff7nlm8mqtbeq7lnihmu...@4ax.com>, >> >> > Free Lunch >> >> >>>>>>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >>>>>>>> ... >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Belief is _never_ evidence under any circumstance. >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Do you comprehend that simple fact? >> >> >>>>>>>>> When I was called for jury duty, we all had to listen to the >> >> > judge = >> >> >>>> tell us >> >> >>>>>>>>> some of the same information that you mentioned in your post. >> >> >>>>>>>> Yet your posts show a total disregard for justice. You have >made it >> >> >>>>>>>> clear that you would rather hang an innocent man than not >> >> > find anyone >> >> >>>>>>>> guilty of a crime. >> >> >>>>>>> I would make the judgement based on the physical evidence and the >> >> >>>>>>> testimonies of the witnesses. I agree that I would be >> >> > pro-prosecution= >> >> >>>> but >> >> >>>>>>> would not want to be responsible for sending an innocent man >> >> > to priso= >> >> >>>> n=2E >> >> >>>>>>> That is the reason I would listen to the testimony and examine the >> >> >>>>>>> physical evidence. >> >> >>>>>> What physical evidence? You already claimed you'd send the man >> >> > to prison >> >> >>>>>> for life based on nothing more than 8 people saying "we heard >him say >> >> >>>>>> 'I'll kill her' and then saw him walk into the room and fire a gun." >> >> >>>>> In that case, there would have been NO physical evidence to >examine. In >> >> >>>>> the above post, the question appeared to me to be unrelated to the >> >> >>>>> scenario that I mentioned in another post. In most cases, physical >> >> >>>>> evidence is involved. Yes, I would have voted to convict the >husband of >> >> >>>>> that murder. >> >> >>>> You have totally and, no doubt, delibrately missed the point that >> >> >>>> there was no evidence of a murder let alone evidence against the >> >> >>>> person charged. >> >> >>> I disagree. >> >> >> You can disagree that 2+2=4 but that doesn't make it 5. >> >> >> >> >> >> Martin >> >> > >> >> > That is true. Even if all other members of the jury disagreed with me--I >> >> > would still have voted to convict him based on the testimony >(evidence) of >> >> > the witnesses that observed him enter the apartment with a gun and >hearing >> >> > a shot. The O.J. defense of "some other guy did it" would not work with >> >> > me. >> >> >> >> There wasn't even evidence in your hypothetical (if ALL there was was 8 >> >> people saying "we heard a threat and a gunshot.") that anything was done >> >> to begin with. You seem to keep ignoring the fact that a body IS >> >> evidence. So was there evidence here or JUST testimony? >> > >> >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. >> > >> Where is the evidence? All I have is your hearsay and you've >> demonstrated that you cannot be trusted. > >I don't have the evidence. Cheryl Prewitt and the doctor that removed two >inches of leg bone have the evidence. She has written a book and her >testimony is on the internet. Her name is mentioned in over 700 websites. > So you have no evidence, but believe an extraordinary claim even though no evidence at all is available to you. Have you read _Elmer Gantry_? You really need to. It will help you understand why these supposed Christians who lie to you do so. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:59:01 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2206071059010001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <f5gfvc$sah$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <1182476566.139983.309600@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Jun 22, 1:47 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >>> A body is evidence. Two legs that are the same size are evidence. Her >> >>> medical records (eg X-rays) related to the car accident are evidence. >> >> You admitted to never seeing her medical records. You said you didn't >> >> have to, that you believed her anyway. Don't lie now about having >> >> seen X-rays. >> >> >> >>> The >> >>> testimony of the doctor that removed two inches of crushed leg bone is >> >>> evidence. >> >> What testimony? Only evil men lie, Jason. >> >> >> >> Martin >> > >> > I did not state that I had seem her medical records in the above post. >> > Re-read the above post. >> >> You claimed that the x-rays are evidence. They are not if they don't >> exist. Have you seen them? > >No--but that does not mean they don't exist. The doctor that removed the >two inches of leg bone has the X-rays. I don't know whether or not Cheryl >Prewitt has copies of her X-rays. > You seem to be violently opposed to one of the fundamental concepts of logic that has been used by science: It is wrong to assume that something exists when there is no evidence to support your assumption. That applies to the law of parsimony and to the null hypothesis. If you refuse to use both of those concepts, you will be unable to think critically. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <f5gg5i$sah$4@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > 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? In relation to abiogenesis and creation science--there is a lot of speculation about how life came to be and very little evidence. I had a detailed discussion with a professor at the local state college. He was the same professor that later debated Dr. Gish. He presented to me a detailed explanation of abiogenesis. I presented to him a summary of creation science and how we believe that life came to be on this planet. I later suspected that he used me to help him to prepare for the upcoming debate with Dr. Gish. Of course, he did not tell me that was his purpose. He made some good points and I hope that I also made good points. Your question is: If a good point is not one that's correct, than what, exactly, is so good about it? The answer: In relation to abiogenesis and creation science--it's impossible to use a time machine to go back in time to see how it really happened. Was the professor correct in relation to his points or was I correct related to my points. We both believed we were correct. In a case like the above case, do you now understand that two people in a debate related to abiogenesis versus creation science can both make some good points. Our points are mainly related to speculation (due to the lack of a time machine). Have you ever attended a debate? Jason Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:18:57 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2206071118570001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <f5gg5i$sah$4@news04.infoave.net>, Mike ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> 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? > >In relation to abiogenesis and creation science--there is a lot of >speculation about how life came to be and very little evidence. False. There is a lot of evidence that supports abiogenesis and you have been referred to a number of places where you could find more about it if you weren't so proud of your ignorance. What there isn't is enough evidence to allow scientists to agree on a theory. Creation science is a religious doctrine, it has nothing to do with science and relies on no evidence at all. The two are not comparable at all. >I had a detailed discussion with a professor at the local state college. >He was the same professor that later debated Dr. Gish. He presented to me >a detailed explanation of abiogenesis. I presented to him a summary of >creation science and how we believe that life came to be on this planet. I >later suspected that he used me to help him to prepare for the upcoming >debate with Dr. Gish. Of course, he did not tell me that was his purpose. I doubt it. You don't present Gish's lies very well at all. >He made some good points and I hope that I also made good points. Creation science is a religious doctrine. It contains no scientific points at all, so you could not possibly have made any good points. >Your question is: If a good point is not one that's correct, than what, >exactly, is so good about it? A good point is one that is valid. >The answer: In relation to abiogenesis and creation science--it's >impossible to use a time machine to go back in time to see how it really >happened. Once again, you are invoking the ever shrinking God of the Gaps, but you refuse to acknowledge the evidence that helps explain abiogenesis while you are doing so. Why don't you get up to speed on science before you make claims about it. >Was the professor correct in relation to his points or was I correct >related to my points. > >We both believed we were correct. Your belief does not make your points correct. You have no evidence to support any of your 'creation science' claims and you got most of them from proven liars. You have been corrected on your claims dozens of times, yet in your hubris, you refuse to acknowledge your errors. That is why you are now a liar, not merely mistaken. >In a case like the above case, do you now understand that two people in a >debate related to abiogenesis versus creation science can both make some >good points. Our points are mainly related to speculation (due to the lack >of a time machine). > >Have you ever attended a debate? Yes, but science isn't a debate in the way you are trying to sell it. -- "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <f9un73t8fle3mlf54s3ofrobmm5ahm0b01@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 22:15:00 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2006072215010001@66-52-22-112.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <28kj73pr3bpr6c01kt81cl1b3pdae1gn38@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 19:10:26 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-2006071910260001@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >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. > >> > > >> So you claim that the god you believe in is true but the ones you don't > >> believe in are false. Why should anyone be persuaded? > > > >It's a Bible doctrine based on a commandment--"Thou shalt have no other > >gods before me." > > > But, according to you, that commandment was given by a different god > than the one you believe in. I did not state that. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:39:21 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2206071139220001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <f9un73t8fle3mlf54s3ofrobmm5ahm0b01@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 22:15:00 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2006072215010001@66-52-22-112.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <28kj73pr3bpr6c01kt81cl1b3pdae1gn38@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 19:10:26 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-2006071910260001@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >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. >> >> > >> >> So you claim that the god you believe in is true but the ones you don't >> >> believe in are false. Why should anyone be persuaded? >> > >> >It's a Bible doctrine based on a commandment--"Thou shalt have no other >> >gods before me." >> > >> But, according to you, that commandment was given by a different god >> than the one you believe in. > >I did not state that. Do you worship the God of Israel or the Triune God? You are the one who insisted, contrary to the doctrines of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Bahai, that they don't all worship the God of Abraham. Since you insist on that, you'll have to come up with a better explanation of your doctrine than "I say so, so there" which is where you are right now. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f5geed$qig$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f5dsbt$5g3$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <f5b8os$d9i$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>> I hope that professor gets a job at a Christian college where he > will not >>>>>>> be discriminated against and will be able to get tenure. >>>>>> If a professor at an xian college said "there is no god. The stars were >>>>>> formed by natural causes" and that professor didn't get tenure, was he >>>>>> "discriminated against?" >>>>>> >>>>>> Jason, you are SO damned funny. >>>>> As far as I know, he was not assigned to teach classes related to creation >>>>> science or intelligent design. >>>> Answer the question: was the professor in the above hypothetical >>>> discriminated against? >>> The professor was denied tenune. If an investigation revealed that the >>> primary reason was due to the fact that he was an advocate of creation >>> science, it would be my conclusion that he was discriminated against for >>> his religious beliefs. >> You really don't read things for comprehension, do you? Let's try again: >> >> If a professor at an xian college said "there is no god. The stars were >> formed by natural causes" and that professor didn't get tenure, was he >> "discriminated against?" > > Yes Then this xian college would be doing the same thing that you complained about the other college doing. Why the double standard? > --unless there were other factors not mentioned in your post--example: > he had been found guilty of having sex with a student in return for an A > grade. Why do you keep throwing out these red herrings? Was there indication of "other factors" in the case of the astronomy professor that was denied tenure? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <f5gmf8$o92$03$2@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f5flf3$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 Yes, I see. A scientist should take a cluster of these cells and do experiments to determine if they evolve. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <f5gmut$cn9$00$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > 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. If he had ruled in our favor, they probably would have found a very liberal judge to handle the appeal. 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.