Guest Free Lunch Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:51:31 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2206071251320001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >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 > Ah, you worship the Bible. How can you claim that the Koran is wrong if it came after the Bible? How can you claim that Moslems do not worship the God of Abraham when they say they do? What evidence do you have to prove that they do not worship the God of Abraham? Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. It's not legal because it's not science. > Christian biology teachers are required to teach evolution whether they > believe it is true or false information. And it has nothing to do with the teacher's beliefs. It has to do with what is supported by the evidence. So again, which is it? Do you want ID taught or do you want them not to teach false information? Answer the question. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:43:53 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2206071243530001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >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. No, they lost because they were trying to violate the law and lie about it. It had _nothing_ to do with the establishment and everything to do with their dishonestly. Stop telling lies to make excuses for their wrongful behavior. >It's difficult to win when fighting against the establishment. It's difficult to win when you are caught lying. That is what happened to them. You know or should know that. You have no valid reason to excuse their behavior. >When Jesus fought the establishment, he was crucified. What an absurd comparison. Jesus was supposed to have been a reformer. These people were reactionary liars -- they are comparable to the Pharisees as they were portrayed in the New Testament. >When Joan of Arc fought the establishment, she was burned at the stake. Again, your analogy is not only false but it it fatuous. >The college professor that fought the establishment was denied tenure. Not because he fought the establishment, but because he was not doing his job. >Many judges are part of the establishment and they usually rule in favor >of the establishment. Why do you live in America if you don't want the First Amendment and freedom of religion. Why don't you move to a nice theocracy like Saudi Arabia? They think the way you do. The ID/Creationists were liars and violators of the law. Do you make excuses for stoners and drunk drivers? Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1182487085.316238.129070@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 22, 12:19 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <1182482932.469900.96...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> >>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> On Jun 22, 3:14 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> They placed those children in Christian schools where they could >>>>> learn about evolution and intelligent design. >>>> Are you an example of the product of "education" from Christian >>>> schools, Jason? How much do you know about evolution or biology in >>>> general? Big bang theory or physics in general? Biochemistry or >>>> chemistry in general? Archaeolology or antropology in general? >>>> Evolutionary psychology or psychology in general? Comparative >>>> mythology or history in general? >>> I learned enough to know that happiness is not intellectual knowledge. >> In other words, you've learned that ignorance is bliss. You are not a >> ringing endorsement for ignorance, Jason. >> >> Martin > > We don't need no education > We don't need no thought control Watch out, folks, he's in meltdown mode. Clear the area! Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f5e7s6$h2i$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> The children in Christian schools and that are home schooled can still >>> hear the truth about how life came to be on this planet. >> But they probably won't, if they're in an xian school. > > I don't know about all Christian school except for one of the local > Christian schools. They teach both evolution and creation science. So they teach the truth and they also teach their religious crap, eh? I also note that I basically implied that if they're taught ID, then they're not being taught the truth about how life came to be. You then basically said "ah, but they're being taught BOTH." So does that mean you agreed with me? The > reason they teach evolution is because they don't want the students to be > at a disadvantage when they take biology classes in state colleges. Yes, the uneducated would be at a severe disadvantage. Quote
Guest John Baker Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 19:14:25 GMT, 655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: >Jason wrote: > >> You want the thoughts of children to be controlled >> all in all it's just another brick in the wall > >So now you've elected to go into a defensive, non-responsive mode. > >Coward. Liar. > >> I don't want the thoughts of children to be controlled > >Actually, that's exactly what you want to happen. You want to >manipulate children into confusing faith with scientific pursuit. To >muddy the distinction between religion and science. > >And that's double-plus bad. > >> Public school teachers--leave those kids alone. >> all in all it's just another brick in the wall > >Loon. Pink Floyd cannot help you. I wonder if Jason knows that David Gilmour is an atheist? <G> Quote
Guest John Baker Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 15:26:44 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >Jason wrote: >> In article <f5gft7$sah$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> >>> Jason wrote: >>>> A body is evidence. Two legs that are the same size are evidence. Her >>>> medical records (eg X-rays) related to the car accident are evidence. The >>>> testimony of the doctor that removed two inches of crushed leg bone is >>>> evidence. >>> But there's no evidence of this god. That's the step that you're >>> skipping over. >>> >>> 1: prove that something happened (such as this leg growing.) >>> >>> 2: prove that a god exists. >>> >>> 3: prove that this god is the most likely explanation for #1. >>> >>> You haven't even done step 1 but even if you had, you still haven't >>> begun on #2. You just want to jump from claiming step 1 is true to >>> claiming step 3 is true. >> >> That is a good point. However, the point was that the body was evidence >> and that Cheryl also has evidence. > >She does? Where? Did you see any xrays? Did you see any "before and >after" pictures? Remember, testimony is NOT evidence. <PIGGYBACKING> > >> In both cases, the evidence might not >> be enough to convince a jury-- Then why should it be enough to convince you? >>but it is evidence. Is it? Have you actually seen it? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <kkeo73dv42oar8dbei02rgecphkfkav01d@4ax.com>, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 15:26:44 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> > wrote: > > >Jason wrote: > >> In article <f5gft7$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. > > <PIGGYBACKING> > > > > >> In both cases, the evidence might not > >> be enough to convince a jury-- > > Then why should it be enough to convince you? > > >>but it is evidence. > > Is it? Have you actually seen it? No, I believed her testimony. I also know that doctors and hospitals keep copies of medical records for many years. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <qsco731pm4iudrjuf9hh1es5nqvg596vsp@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:51:31 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2206071251320001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >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 > > > Ah, you worship the Bible. How can you claim that the Koran is wrong if > it came after the Bible? How can you claim that Moslems do not worship > the God of Abraham when they say they do? What evidence do you have to > prove that they do not worship the God of Abraham? It's my opinion that they serve a false God because the Holy Bible is not their holy book. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <f5hc96$pc8$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > 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. > > It's not legal because it's not science. > > > Christian biology teachers are required to teach evolution whether they > > believe it is true or false information. > > And it has nothing to do with the teacher's beliefs. It has to do with > what is supported by the evidence. So again, which is it? Do you want ID > taught or do you want them not to teach false information? Answer the > question. I want them to teach evolution and Intelligent Design. I don't consider ID to be false information. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 14:19:43 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2206071419430001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <qsco731pm4iudrjuf9hh1es5nqvg596vsp@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:51:31 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2206071251320001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >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 >> > >> Ah, you worship the Bible. How can you claim that the Koran is wrong if >> it came after the Bible? How can you claim that Moslems do not worship >> the God of Abraham when they say they do? What evidence do you have to >> prove that they do not worship the God of Abraham? > >It's my opinion that they serve a false God because the Holy Bible is not >their holy book. > That's because you worship the Bible, not the God of Abraham. Can't you remember for one sentence what is being talked about? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 14:17:30 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2206071417300001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <kkeo73dv42oar8dbei02rgecphkfkav01d@4ax.com>, John Baker ><nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: > >> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 15:26:44 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> >> wrote: >> >> >Jason wrote: >> >> In article <f5gft7$sah$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> >> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Jason wrote: >> >>>> A body is evidence. Two legs that are the same size are evidence. Her >> >>>> medical records (eg X-rays) related to the car accident are evidence. The >> >>>> testimony of the doctor that removed two inches of crushed leg bone is >> >>>> evidence. >> >>> But there's no evidence of this god. That's the step that you're >> >>> skipping over. >> >>> >> >>> 1: prove that something happened (such as this leg growing.) >> >>> >> >>> 2: prove that a god exists. >> >>> >> >>> 3: prove that this god is the most likely explanation for #1. >> >>> >> >>> You haven't even done step 1 but even if you had, you still haven't >> >>> begun on #2. You just want to jump from claiming step 1 is true to >> >>> claiming step 3 is true. >> >> >> >> That is a good point. However, the point was that the body was evidence >> >> and that Cheryl also has evidence. >> > >> >She does? Where? Did you see any xrays? Did you see any "before and >> >after" pictures? Remember, testimony is NOT evidence. >> >> <PIGGYBACKING> >> >> > >> >> In both cases, the evidence might not >> >> be enough to convince a jury-- >> >> Then why should it be enough to convince you? >> >> >>but it is evidence. >> >> Is it? Have you actually seen it? > >No, I believed her testimony. I also know that doctors and hospitals keep >copies of medical records for many years. > Belief is not evidence. Ever. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 14:25:02 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2206071425020001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <f5hc96$pc8$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: .... >> > Public school teachers would teach ID--if it was legal in that state. >> >> It's not legal because it's not science. >> >> > Christian biology teachers are required to teach evolution whether they >> > believe it is true or false information. >> >> And it has nothing to do with the teacher's beliefs. It has to do with >> what is supported by the evidence. So again, which is it? Do you want ID >> taught or do you want them not to teach false information? Answer the >> question. > >I want them to teach evolution and Intelligent Design. I don't consider ID >to be false information. > But it is whether you consider it to be a lie or not. You have demonstrated that you are incapable of critical thought. Stop trusting yourself. Quote
Guest 655321 Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > I want them to teach evolution and Intelligent Design. I'm with you, only so far as we can agree with who the "them" are. Science teachers should not teach ID, because it is not science. Theology teachers should not teach evolution, because it is based in science and not theology. If you're okay with this, then you can have what you want... but only at schools that are funded by religious organizations. Unless Christian ID theories are compared with alternate ID theories in a comparative religion course...in the field of social studies, not science. > I don't consider ID to be false information. False or not, ID is not science, has no scientific foundation, and therefore has no place in a science class. As someone else said in this thread, you should really stop trusting what you think. Your selective gullibility is disturbingly twisted. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 08:21:37 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: - Refer: <f5gesh$qig$3@news04.infoave.net> >Tokay Pino Gris wrote: >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <1182417347.503673.197230@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, >>> gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: >>>> I see. In that case you must now be admitting that abiogenesis took >>>> place. >>> >>> After scientists conduct experiments that prove these steps happened--I >>> will believe it. >>> STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) >>> STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual >>> reproduction) >>> STEP 3 Animal cell colony (with cells depending upon each other for >>> survival) >>> STEP 4 Multicelled animal (with cells differentiated according to >>> function) >>> >>> >> >> Oh, and a second point.... What does this have to do with abiogenesis? > >Not a damned thing and he knows that by now (as many times as he's been >told it.) He's being deliberately dishonest. Let us know when Jason is being deliberately honest. On second thought, it will be in all the international news bulletins. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 08:27:43 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: - Refer: <f5gf7v$qig$5@news04.infoave.net> >Tokay Pino Gris wrote: >> He did, but since you can use Usenet, you should be able to use Google >> as well. Unless you have a really old and outdated connection. Like >> 9.600 baud. >> (Never had one of those. I came in when there were 14.400 around.) > >I grew up with 300 baud modems. You could literally read the text as >fast as it downloaded (if you read fast. And it WAS only text. No fancy >graphics.) Just imagine it scrolling across the screen at the >approximate typing rate of 250-300 words a minute. Just going to 1200 >baud was like winning the lottery! (Damned, I'm showing my age again.) > > 110 Baud teletype clunkers for me. You had enough time to boil the kettle between characters! -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 15:26:44 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: - Refer: <f5h7pk$l3u$3@news04.infoave.net> >Jason wrote: >> In article <f5gft7$sah$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> >>> Jason wrote: >>>> A body is evidence. Two legs that are the same size are evidence. Her >>>> medical records (eg X-rays) related to the car accident are evidence. The >>>> testimony of the doctor that removed two inches of crushed leg bone is >>>> evidence. >>> But there's no evidence of this god. That's the step that you're >>> skipping over. >>> >>> 1: prove that something happened (such as this leg growing.) >>> >>> 2: prove that a god exists. >>> >>> 3: prove that this god is the most likely explanation for #1. >>> >>> You haven't even done step 1 but even if you had, you still haven't >>> begun on #2. You just want to jump from claiming step 1 is true to >>> claiming step 3 is true. >> >> That is a good point. However, the point was that the body was evidence >> and that Cheryl also has evidence. > >She does? Where? Did you see any xrays? Did you see any "before and >after" pictures? Remember, testimony is NOT evidence. > > In both cases, the evidence might not >> be enough to convince a jury--but it is evidence. Hell, we don't even know that this "Cheryl" is not a figment of Jason's twisted imaganition. Before demanding X-Rays, Jason should prove beyond doubt that Cheryl exists, surely? He lies about absolutely EVERYTHING, so why should he be telling the truth about "Cheryl"'s existence? -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 08:47:34 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: - Refer: <f5ggd6$sah$5@news04.infoave.net> >Tokay Pino Gris wrote: >> Jason wrote: >>> Can a mathematical model become a theory? >>> >>> >> >> No. It is a mathematical model. If it works in maths, that does not mean >> it has anything to do with the real world. > >A very good example would be "3 apples minus 5 apples gives -2 apples." >Perfectly mathematically correct but I'd LOVE to see someone with "-2 >apples." If you owe someone two apples, that is the equivalent of having -2 of them. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 16:35:24 +0200, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: - Refer: <f5gn20$cn9$00$2@news.t-online.com> >Mike wrote: >> Tokay Pino Gris wrote: >>> Jason wrote: >>>> Can a mathematical model become a theory? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> No. It is a mathematical model. If it works in maths, that does not >>> mean it has anything to do with the real world. >> >> A very good example would be "3 apples minus 5 apples gives -2 apples." >> Perfectly mathematically correct but I'd LOVE to see someone with "-2 >> apples." > >There is a joke around here along these lines... With a bus and people >getting on and off... And ending in "How many people have to get on the >bus for it to be empty?" > Erm, all of them? -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:16:28 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: - Refer: <sbtn73187me30fr561n1btfpo0u3shotin@4ax.com> >On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:33:19 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in ><Jason-2106071633200001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>In article <BnBei.158$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. Jason upholds the first tenet of Christianity: Lie to yourself first, then lie to your children, then lie to the world. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:02:02 -0400, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: - Refer: <5e26i8F34d5fpU1@mid.individual.net> > >"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >news:Jason-2106072207290001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> In article <1182485384.914431.290990@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Jun 22, 8:10 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> > In article <BqBei.160$n9...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >>> > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>> > > He would love to drop the charade and teach that god created it all >>> > > in six >>> > > days, that he made man from the dust of the earth. Talk about hard to >>> > > do:-). There was a global flood, Adam named all of the animals and >>> > > other >>> > > nonsensical things. Being taught such garbage will improve the >>> > > science >>> > > education level in the country :-))))). >>> > >>> > Yes, that is true but would not work since it's illegal to teach >>> > religion. >>> >>> It is legal to teach ABOUT religion but illegal (in the United States) >>> to suggest that any religion is the one true religion in a government >>> run school. >>> >>> Martin >> >> Martin, >> Many teachers don't want to lose their jobs so they don't discuss >> religion. > >Good - It doesn't belong in a public school anyway. You want religion in >your school? Then go to a religious school. I see discussion of religion to be an essential part of a secular education. As a part of political or social studies, or even anthropology. Analysing why religion is a maladaptive meme, and so on. In western countries (apart from the US) where religion & state are combined, and a form of religious education was effectively compulsory in all schools, the rate of theism has plummetted! I see it as a kind of early innoculation by a very much weakened strain of the virus. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 09:42:05 -0400, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: - Refer: <5e21sbF36t5fvU1@mid.individual.net> > >"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> > >snip >> >> You want the thoughts of children to be controlled > >Why are you lying? Because he is a Christian, that's why. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 16:51:15 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: - Refer: <f5hco3$qb9$1@news04.infoave.net> >Jason wrote: >> In article <1182487085.316238.129070@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Jun 22, 12:19 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>> In article <1182482932.469900.96...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>>> >>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> On Jun 22, 3:14 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>> They placed those children in Christian schools where they could >>>>>> learn about evolution and intelligent design. >>>>> Are you an example of the product of "education" from Christian >>>>> schools, Jason? How much do you know about evolution or biology in >>>>> general? Big bang theory or physics in general? Biochemistry or >>>>> chemistry in general? Archaeolology or antropology in general? >>>>> Evolutionary psychology or psychology in general? Comparative >>>>> mythology or history in general? >>>> I learned enough to know that happiness is not intellectual knowledge. >>> In other words, you've learned that ignorance is bliss. You are not a >>> ringing endorsement for ignorance, Jason. >>> >>> Martin >> >> We don't need no education >> We don't need no thought control > >Watch out, folks, he's in meltdown mode. Clear the area! There'll be pure bullshit splattering every surface! -- Quote
Guest 655321 Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <5e21riF368e7kU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote >>> 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, As science? You know, in a science class? > the advocates of > evolution went to court to keep that state from teaching Intelligent > Design. ....as science. Because it's not. > The advocates of evolution wanted to control the thoughts of the > children in that state by not allowing them to learn about intelligent > design. That's crap and you know it, liar. Anyone can teach anyone about ID, so long as it's not done so in the name of scientific education. I guess all that noise about "false witness" being a bad thing is unimportant to you. > Of course, none of the posters in this newsgroup will agree with > me because they .... see you for the liar that you are. > appear to me to believe that in regard to evolution--it's > okay to control what they learn. So... keeping a science class about science is thought control? (Hint: NO.) -- 655321 Quote
Guest Dan Drake Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 07:56:49 UTC, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > They have the judges on > their side so they will probably succeed. I presume you're referring to the lifelong conservative judge that Bush appointed in Dover, Pennsylvania? Here is a perfect textbook example of someone who has, starting pretty much from zero, heard both sides present their best cases. (Naturally, the spin now is that the creationists, sorry, ID scientists, failed to present their side well in this extremely important court case. Sure.) And the judge concluded, eloquently and precisely, that there was no case for treating ID as a science. To be sure, it didn't help that leading figures on the ID side were pretty flagrantly lying, a point that the judge made in properly sober terms. -- Dan Drake dd@dandrake.com http://www.dandrake.com/ porlockjr.blogspot.com 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.