Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <f5gm99$o92$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f5fm59$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 If you know the answer, provide it. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <dgtn73hm11dl8eval8ne1s1155rl2tdie3@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > 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? They have a textbook. The teachers would use the text book and curriculum guide to teach those classes. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <sbtn73187me30fr561n1btfpo0u3shotin@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > 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. There is a law. There goal was to comply with the law. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:48:57 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2206071148580001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >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. > You really have no respect for the rule of law. The ID/creationists were lying. They were violating the law. They lost in a very conservative court. They were wrong. You have no valid excuse to defend their misbehavior. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <f5gnn1$4jk$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <1182438453.643233.289060@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > > > >> On 21 Jun., 10:25, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>> In article <1182410472.795311.82...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> hhyaps...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> On Jun 21, 1:01 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>>> In article <1182400221.178506.105...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, M= > >> artin > >>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On Jun 21, 7:19 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>>>>> In article <0a6j731p6dudeibqbemtth8idvv6epj...@4ax.com>, Free Lun= > >> ch > >>>>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:38:44 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >>>>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >>>>>>>> <Jason-2006071238450...@66-52-22-61.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >>>>>>>>> In article <f5baj2$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? Public school teachers would teach ID--if it was legal in that state. Christian biology teachers are required to teach evolution whether they believe it is true or false information. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:54:25 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2206071154260001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <dgtn73hm11dl8eval8ne1s1155rl2tdie3@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> 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? > >They have a textbook. The teachers would use the text book and curriculum >guide to teach those classes. > The textbook contains zero scientific facts to support the poorly defined contention. They were lying, nothing else. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:55:19 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2206071155200001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <sbtn73187me30fr561n1btfpo0u3shotin@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> 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. > >There is a law. There goal was to comply with the law. > Their goal was to lie to people in order to get around the law. They had no intention of complying with the law as was plain from the trial. Do you ever learn anything about the people you defend? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:58:38 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2206071158380001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <f5gnn1$4jk$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <1182438453.643233.289060@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, >> > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: .... >> >> 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? > >Public school teachers would teach ID--if it was legal in that state. Why? Why should anyone teach lies like ID? >Christian biology teachers are required to teach evolution whether they >believe it is true or false information. Their beliefs are not relevent. It is the facts that matter. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <5e21riF368e7kU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote > snip > > > > Martin, > > You don't realize it--but the advocates of evolution want to control the > > thoughts of children in public schools. > > Got any proof of that? How about you back up that assertion with some > facts. In the state that wanted to teach Intelligent Design, the advocates of evolution went to court to keep that state from teaching Intelligent Design. The advocates of evolution wanted to control the thoughts of the children in that state by not allowing them to learn about intelligent design. Of course, none of the posters in this newsgroup will agree with me because they appear to me to believe that in regard to evolution--it's okay to control what they learn. jason Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:06:04 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2206071206040001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <5e21riF368e7kU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" ><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote >> snip >> > >> > Martin, >> > You don't realize it--but the advocates of evolution want to control the >> > thoughts of children in public schools. >> >> Got any proof of that? How about you back up that assertion with some >> facts. > >In the state that wanted to teach Intelligent Design, the advocates of >evolution went to court to keep that state from teaching Intelligent >Design. The advocates of evolution wanted to control the thoughts of the >children in that state by not allowing them to learn about intelligent >design. Of course, none of the posters in this newsgroup will agree with >me because they appear to me to believe that in regard to evolution--it's >okay to control what they learn. >jason > Once again, you lie shamelessly. Why don't you learn something about the law and science before you make your absurd generalizations. -- "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 Mike Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Tokay Pino Gris wrote: > 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 655321 Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > You want the thoughts of children to be controlled > all in all it's just another brick in the wall So now you've elected to go into a defensive, non-responsive mode. Coward. Liar. > I don't want the thoughts of children to be controlled Actually, that's exactly what you want to happen. You want to manipulate children into confusing faith with scientific pursuit. To muddy the distinction between religion and science. And that's double-plus bad. > Public school teachers--leave those kids alone. > all in all it's just another brick in the wall Loon. Pink Floyd cannot help you. -- 655321 Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <bk3o73lml7a9vikfoalkm00u625st6adii@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > 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. Unlike you, I heard Cheryl Prewitt give her detailed testimony. I posted a summary version of her testimony in this newsgroup. Her name is mentioned in over 700 websites. You know that hospitals and doctors keep the medical records of their patients--mainly for legal reasons. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Tokay Pino Gris wrote: > 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". When I was yer age, I used to travel at 300 baud to school. In the snow. Uphill. Both ways. > Watched a video of the first "hackers". Interesting times, I think. > (No computer, just a little box that beeped into a phone.) A "blue box" (as opposed to a "black box.") A little device that could generate the special tones for the old touch-tone system (not the regular number key tones but the others that are generated by the switchboards) to force it to connect up without dialing. Used for pay phones or even regular phones to get free long-distance calls. Not that I ever had one (no, honestly, I never did) but I do remember seeing the plans for them, etc. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f5gfvc$sah$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <1182476566.139983.309600@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Jun 22, 1:47 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> A body is evidence. Two legs that are the same size are evidence. Her >>>>> medical records (eg X-rays) related to the car accident are evidence. >>>> You admitted to never seeing her medical records. You said you didn't >>>> have to, that you believed her anyway. Don't lie now about having >>>> seen X-rays. >>>> >>>>> The >>>>> testimony of the doctor that removed two inches of crushed leg bone is >>>>> evidence. >>>> What testimony? Only evil men lie, Jason. >>>> >>>> Martin >>> I did not state that I had seem her medical records in the above post. >>> Re-read the above post. >> You claimed that the x-rays are evidence. They are not if they don't >> exist. Have you seen them? > > No--but that does not mean they don't exist. And that doesn't mean that they do. > The doctor that removed the > two inches of leg bone has the X-rays. He does? How do you know? Have you seen them? I don't know whether or not Cheryl > Prewitt has copies of her X-rays. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f5gft7$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. She does? Where? Did you see any xrays? Did you see any "before and after" pictures? Remember, testimony is NOT evidence. In both cases, the evidence might not > be enough to convince a jury--but it is evidence. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. They do? How do you know? Have you seen it? She has written a book and her > testimony is on the internet. So? Joanne Rowling wrote a book (several of them, in fact) about a young wizard named "Harry Potter." Does that mean broomsticks can fly and there's a cloak of invisibility? > Her name is mentioned in over 700 websites. And mine is mentioned on over 728,000. Your point is? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <nr6o73h3dn08471fkmshflcf3jsf0vdmqb@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:48:57 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2206071148580001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >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. > > > > You really have no respect for the rule of law. > > The ID/creationists were lying. They were violating the law. They lost > in a very conservative court. They were wrong. You have no valid excuse > to defend their misbehavior. I was not surprised when they lost the case. They were fighting against the establishment. It's difficult to win when fighting against the establishment. When Jesus fought the establishment, he was crucified. When Joan of Arc fought the establishment, she was burned at the stake. The college professor that fought the establishment was denied tenure. Many judges are part of the establishment and they usually rule in favor of the establishment. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Free Lunch wrote: > 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. <piggybacking> Non-answer to the question asked. > > 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. Jason has a highly inflated opinion of himself. > >> He made some good points and I hope that I also made good points. You hope a lot of things. That doesn't make them true. > 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. And what is "valid"? Hint: it doesn't mean "just sounded good." If it's valid, then that would mean it's true or it reflects reality. So if it is a point that "reflects reality" and yet you don't agree with it, then again, I ask: what does that say about you? > >> 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. No-one claimed we could. But the point was made to you that (to paraphrase) "abiogenesis happens; we just disagree on what caused it." You responded "good point." So that must mean that it's true that it happens. You then said you disagreed that it happens at all. So again, what does that say about you? > > 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. But only one person IS correct. And what you said, in effect, was: You're right. I disagree with you. > 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). No, his POINT (singular) was that abiogenesis happens. You stated that it was a good/valid/supported/true point. You then disagreed with it. >> >> Have you ever attended a debate? > > Yes, but science isn't a debate in the way you are trying to sell it. > Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <ms5o73ttf78o2scnk7qtvk1v2njahsfitv@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > 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. The Bible is the only evidence that I have. The Bible makes it clear that the God of Abraham is the true God. The Bible contains the word of God. If people have a different holy book other than the Bible--they are worshipping a false God. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <f5h830$lll$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > 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. > > They do? How do you know? Have you seen it? > > She has written a book and her > > testimony is on the internet. > > So? Joanne Rowling wrote a book (several of them, in fact) about a young > wizard named "Harry Potter." Does that mean broomsticks can fly and > there's a cloak of invisibility? > > > Her name is mentioned in over 700 websites. > > And mine is mentioned on over 728,000. Your point is? Are you saying that you have evidence indicating that the doctor that removed two inches of leg bone destroyed her X-rays and medical records? Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article > <DipthotDipthot-57D7A1.17564221062007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, > 655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > >> In article >> <Jason-2106071647110001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >>> In article <7TCei.21245$C96.2445@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, 655321 >>> <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks--I heard the song on the car radio yesterday. It was one of the >>>>> best songs that has ever been recorded. When I heard it, it made > me think >>>>> of how the the advocates of evolution want "thought control". They > will go >>>>> to court to prevent intelligent design from being taught. >>>> No one is trying to prevent it from being taught. It just doesn't >>>> belong in a science class, as there is no science to ID. >>>> >>>> It's really that simple. ID is subject to debate among theologians, who >>>> can debate whether six days meant six literal 24-hour days, or some >>>> other subjective amount of time; and how many angels can fit on the head >>>> of a pin; and when exactly Jesus is supposed to come back and send some >>>> babies to heaven and some to hell. >>>> >>>> Stuff like that. >>>> >>>>> That is "thought >>>>> control" since they don't want competition. >>>> Fool. Scientific pursuit is rife with competition. >>>> >>>> ID is not science. >>>> >>>> You know that, but I just know that you will repeat these lies over and >>>> over again. >>>> >>>> I just know it. I'd lay down a tenner on it. >>>> >>>>> You may NOT realize but it is >>>>> thought control but almost every Christian in that state would > agree that >>>>> it was thought control. >>>> Just the idiots who don't know what thought control is. >>>> >>>>> It's my guess >>>> HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAAHAAAH! >>>> >>>>> that many of those Christian parents >>>>> pulled their children out of the the public schools after that court >>>>> decision. They placed those children in Christian schools where > they could >>>>> learn about evolution and intelligent design. >>>> Hopefully they'd learn that ID is not scientific and doesn't belong in a >>>> science class. >>> WE DON'T NEED NO THOUGHT CONTROL >> Then, by definition, we "don't need no" [sic] religious education, >> which, by definition, lays down the law on what one is supposed to >> believe and think. >> >> Whereas science is about inquiry. >> >>> Children should be taught intelligent design and evolution. Let the >> What is there to teach about ID, exactly? "Goddidit. Class dismissed." > The basics of creation science. First you have to have some science there to teach. > The term "intelligent designer" would be > used instead of "God" since it is now illegal to teach religion in the > public school system. Since we can't use the word "bullshit" we'll call it "male bovine excrement." They have a 170 page textbook that has no Biblical > content. And it has no science content, either. > How many versions of creation >> are to be taught? How far down the theological road do you want to drag >> the children in the science class? No answer, Jason? Which of the hundreds (or thousands) of creation stories do we teach? >>> children have freedom to THINK and figure out whether evolution or ID >>> makes more sense. >> They learn enough about it in church and from their parents, right? >> >> You just want them to confuse religion with science. >> >> You want to control their thoughts. >> >>> WE DON'T NEED NO THOUGHT CONTROL >> You want exactly that. > > Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1182484946.986225.38170@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 22, 7:47 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <7TCei.21245$C96.2...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, 655321 >>> <DipthotDipt...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> Thanks--I heard the song on the car radio yesterday. It was one of the >>>>> best songs that has ever been recorded. When I heard it, it made > me think >>>>> of how the the advocates of evolution want "thought control". They > will go >>>>> to court to prevent intelligent design from being taught. >>>> No one is trying to prevent it from being taught. It just doesn't >>>> belong in a science class, as there is no science to ID. >>>> It's really that simple. ID is subject to debate among theologians, who >>>> can debate whether six days meant six literal 24-hour days, or some >>>> other subjective amount of time; and how many angels can fit on the head >>>> of a pin; and when exactly Jesus is supposed to come back and send some >>>> babies to heaven and some to hell. >>>> Stuff like that. >>>>> That is "thought >>>>> control" since they don't want competition. >>>> Fool. Scientific pursuit is rife with competition. >>>> ID is not science. >>>> You know that, but I just know that you will repeat these lies over and >>>> over again. >>>> I just know it. I'd lay down a tenner on it. >>>>> You may NOT realize but it is >>>>> thought control but almost every Christian in that state would > agree that >>>>> it was thought control. >>>> Just the idiots who don't know what thought control is. >>>>> It's my guess >>>> HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAAHAAAH! >>>>> that many of those Christian parents >>>>> pulled their children out of the the public schools after that court >>>>> decision. They placed those children in Christian schools where > they could >>>>> learn about evolution and intelligent design. >>>> Hopefully they'd learn that ID is not scientific and doesn't belong in a >>>> science class. >>> WE DON'T NEED NO THOUGHT CONTROL >>> Children should be taught intelligent design and evolution. Let the >>> children have freedom to THINK and figure out whether evolution or ID >>> makes more sense. >>> WE DON'T NEED NO THOUGHT CONTROL >>> ALL IN ALL IT'S JUST ANOTHER BRICK IN THE WALL >> I'd be owing 655321 if I had bothered to take his bet. >> >> Science is not thought control. Atheism is free thinking: you're >> endorsing atheism when you tell people to think for themselves, free >> of dogmatic beliefs. >> >> Martin > > Martin, > You don't realize it--but the advocates of evolution want to control the > thoughts of children in public schools. They will even go to court to > prevent children from learning about intelligent design. You are the one > that is an advocate of THOUGHT CONTROL. I want children to learn about > intelligent design and Evolution. You only want them to learn about > evolution. "I want children to learn about a flat earth and a round earth. You only want them to learn about a round earth." Ok, we'll teach them about ID. As long as we teach them the TRUTH about it (how it's a myth that people used to believe but that is not supported by the evidence.) Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:56:39 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2206071256390001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <f5h830$lll$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > .... >> >> And mine is mentioned on over 728,000. Your point is? > >Are you saying that you have evidence indicating that the doctor that >removed two inches of leg bone destroyed her X-rays and medical records? > Your rhetorical dishonesty should shame you. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:18:44 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2206071218440001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <bk3o73lml7a9vikfoalkm00u625st6adii@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:59:01 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2206071059010001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <f5gfvc$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. > >Unlike you, I heard Cheryl Prewitt give her detailed testimony. I posted a >summary version of her testimony in this newsgroup. Her name is mentioned >in over 700 websites. You know that hospitals and doctors keep the medical >records of their patients--mainly for legal reasons. > Did she offer any evidence to you? Your answer appears to be no. Under the circumstances you have described, there is no evidence to support your claim. Take your lies to a place that will buy them. Evangelicals are notorious suckers for these lies, so are fundamentalists. Tell them and quite wasting our time. 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.