Guest John Baker Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 14:17:30 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >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. Yes, you've made that abundantly clear. >I also know that doctors and hospitals keep >copies of medical records for many years. Yes they do. But unless you've actually seen the records pertaining to Prewitt's (alleged) case, you have no proof her story is true. And given the tendency you've displayed thus far toward shameless dishonesty, if you want to convince us of the truth of Prewitt's claims, you're going to have to show us those records. Your word, I'm afraid, isn't good enough. In fact, given your posting history, if you told me grass is green, I'd look out the window for confirmation. > Quote
Guest 655321 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: >>> >>>> 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. I forgot to ask you. Are the above issues fair game for a science class in your opinion? >>>> 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? > > The basics of creation science. I knew you'd lie. Too bad no one took me up on the bet. You know that "creation science" is an oxymoron, yet you continue to pretend that you don't. > The term "intelligent designer" would be > used instead of "God" since it is now illegal to teach religion in the > public school system. Irrelevant. There is still no scientific basis for a discussion of an "intelligent designer," regardless what it's name might be. > They have a 170 page textbook that has no Biblical > content. Page count is irrelevant. If there's no scientific basis, the topic has no place in a science class. >> 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, liar? >>> 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. Like I said. You want to bring in a "text book" about "creation science" into a science class. And you claim to oppose "thought control." Man. Orwell is alive and well. Quote
Guest Dan Drake Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 23:38:31 UTC, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > Most of the rich people in the city where I live send their children to a > Catholic Prep School. Those children receive a much better education than > the children that attend public schools. > If it's run by Jesuits, I can believe it. Those dirty subversives teach (and perform) actual science. Cf. Fr. George Coyne (head of the Vatican Observatory in America, retired) & his expressed opinions about a Cardinal who tried to pontificate about the wrongness of evolution. Other religious orders, I'm not so sure. -- Dan Drake dd@dandrake.com http://www.dandrake.com/ porlockjr.blogspot.com Quote
Guest Dan Drake Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 05:23:02 UTC, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > Probably not. Even if we won in one court, the advocates of evolution > would do some judge shopping and find a liberal judge that would rule in > their favor. Sure, right, just like the Dover case, which I mentioned on another sub-thread. THEY'RE ALL CONSPIRING AGAINST US. EVEN THE CONSERVATIVES ARE LIBERAL!!!1! -- Dan Drake dd@dandrake.com http://www.dandrake.com/ porlockjr.blogspot.com Quote
Guest 655321 Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 Free Lunch wrote: > 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. Hadn't you heard? Lying is okay, so long as it's to "heathens." >> 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. Except that nonbelievers don't deserve honesty in Jason's (coloring) book. >> 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. Careful... Jason might start changing Pink Floyd verses at you. >> When Joan of Arc fought the establishment, she was burned at the stake. > > Again, your analogy is not only false but it it fatuous. "He don't need no fact correction..." [snip] > The ID/Creationists were liars and violators of the law. Do you make > excuses for stoners and drunk drivers? If they're Christian, he does. He's got a high gullibility index when Christers tell their tales, be they beauty queens or authors of apologetics that contradict known fact. -- 655321 Quote
Guest Dan Drake Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:31:53 UTC, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > Galileo and Copernicus had to face the establishment without the help of > anyone. Not that it really matters, but this is rather impressively false. Copernicus, to start with, didn't fight the establishment. He put off publishing till very late in life and avoided picking any fights; and a kindly member of the Establishment (Osiander) added a preface to the book, avoiding controversy by explaining (falsely, of course) that Copernicus didn't really mean it as something true. Galileo had lots of friends and supporters. Modern supporters of the Inquisition love to point this out, as they spin thier theories about how the Church really didn't do anything wrong, and Galileo got what he deserved. Stripped of the exaggerations, though, it's true. Some Establishment philosophers and highly placed Church people (including at least one Archbishop) remained his friends even after the Inquisition had condemned him. But the bigots and idiots were in charge, or at least won the crucial fights. Speaking of the popular Galileo Gambit: Why is it that all these modern Galileos are pushing to restore the orthodoxy of 30-50 years ago (global warming doesn't exist) or 150 years ago (there's no such thing as evolution) or for that matter 400 years ago (the actual Galileo asked for it) ? We can at least agree with Jason that these modern times are sadly degenerate! When can we get some Galileos (and, of course Darwins) who are upsetting orthodoxy rather than trying to restore old discredited ones? -- Dan Drake dd@dandrake.com http://www.dandrake.com/ porlockjr.blogspot.com Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <hhjo73978tqo0uuvim7590a8ou2qkj15db@4ax.com>, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 14:17:30 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >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. > > Yes, you've made that abundantly clear. > > >I also know that doctors and hospitals keep > >copies of medical records for many years. > > Yes they do. But unless you've actually seen the records pertaining to > Prewitt's (alleged) case, you have no proof her story is true. And > given the tendency you've displayed thus far toward shameless > dishonesty, if you want to convince us of the truth of Prewitt's > claims, you're going to have to show us those records. Your word, > I'm afraid, isn't good enough. > > In fact, given your posting history, if you told me grass is green, > I'd look out the window for confirmation. Several posters have told me that even if I proved to them that both of legs are now the same size despite having two inches of bone removed from one leg--they would still not believe that God healed her leg. The reason was because they do not believe in God. One person told me that he believed that her leg bone grew two inches. That post made be laugh since I have a friend that lost 4 inches of leg bone. His leg bone never grew 4 inches. He now wears a special shoe on one foot. He limps when he walks. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <vhIsdqY67dTD-pn2-iQnMvZtdsMwD@M>, dd@dandrake.com wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 05:23:02 UTC, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > Probably not. Even if we won in one court, the advocates of evolution > > would do some judge shopping and find a liberal judge that would rule in > > their favor. > > Sure, right, just like the Dover case, which I mentioned on another > sub-thread. > > THEY'RE ALL CONSPIRING AGAINST US. EVEN THE CONSERVATIVES ARE LIBERAL!!!1! Many judges are part of the establishment. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 16:52:37 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2206071652380001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <vhIsdqY67dTD-pn2-iQnMvZtdsMwD@M>, dd@dandrake.com wrote: > >> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 05:23:02 UTC, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > >> > Probably not. Even if we won in one court, the advocates of evolution >> > would do some judge shopping and find a liberal judge that would rule in >> > their favor. >> >> Sure, right, just like the Dover case, which I mentioned on another >> sub-thread. >> >> THEY'RE ALL CONSPIRING AGAINST US. EVEN THE CONSERVATIVES ARE LIBERAL!!!1! > >Many judges are part of the establishment. > Christianity is part of the establishment. It's just that your little anti-science heresy has been proven to be completely foolish. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 22, 2007 Posted June 22, 2007 In article <vhIsdqY67dTD-pn2-zooWUfOLkDF3@M>, dd@dandrake.com wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:31:53 UTC, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > Galileo and Copernicus had to face the establishment without the help of > > anyone. > > Not that it really matters, but this is rather impressively false. > Copernicus, to start with, didn't fight the establishment. He put off > publishing till very late in life and avoided picking any fights; and a > kindly member of the Establishment (Osiander) added a preface to the book, > avoiding controversy by explaining (falsely, of course) that Copernicus > didn't really mean it as something true. > > Galileo had lots of friends and supporters. Modern supporters of the > Inquisition love to point this out, as they spin thier theories about how > the Church really didn't do anything wrong, and Galileo got what he > deserved. Stripped of the exaggerations, though, it's true. Some > Establishment philosophers and highly placed Church people (including at > least one Archbishop) remained his friends even after the Inquisition had > condemned him. But the bigots and idiots were in charge, or at least won > the crucial fights. > > Speaking of the popular Galileo Gambit: Why is it that all these modern > Galileos are pushing to restore the orthodoxy of 30-50 years ago (global > warming doesn't exist) or 150 years ago (there's no such thing as > evolution) or for that matter 400 years ago (the actual Galileo asked for > it) ? > > We can at least agree with Jason that these modern times are sadly > degenerate! When can we get some Galileos (and, of course Darwins) who are > upsetting orthodoxy rather than trying to restore old discredited ones? Related to one of your points. Some experts agree that we have global warming but believe it is a natural cycle. They also believe if every person and company stopped making use of fossil fuels--that the global warming would still be a problem until the natural cycle changes to a cooling cycle. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 23, 2007 Posted June 23, 2007 In article <sgio73pfvf8r48cj1ak7cnvpvb3g4p77oq@4ax.com>, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > 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$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Jason wrote: > >>>> A body is evidence. Two legs that are the same size are evidence. Her > >>>> medical records (eg X-rays) related to the car accident are evidence. The > >>>> testimony of the doctor that removed two inches of crushed leg bone is > >>>> evidence. > >>> But there's no evidence of this god. That's the step that you're > >>> skipping over. > >>> > >>> 1: prove that something happened (such as this leg growing.) > >>> > >>> 2: prove that a god exists. > >>> > >>> 3: prove that this god is the most likely explanation for #1. > >>> > >>> You haven't even done step 1 but even if you had, you still haven't > >>> begun on #2. You just want to jump from claiming step 1 is true to > >>> claiming step 3 is true. > >> > >> That is a good point. However, the point was that the body was evidence > >> and that Cheryl also has evidence. > > > >She does? Where? Did you see any xrays? Did you see any "before and > >after" pictures? Remember, testimony is NOT evidence. > > > > In both cases, the evidence might not > >> be enough to convince a jury--but it is evidence. > > Hell, we don't even know that this "Cheryl" is not a figment of > Jason's twisted imaganition. > > Before demanding X-Rays, Jason should prove beyond doubt that Cheryl > exists, surely? > > He lies about absolutely EVERYTHING, so why should he be telling the > truth about "Cheryl"'s existence? > > -- Cheryl Prewitt is a former Miss America. Google her name if you don't believe me. Her name is listed in over 700 websites. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 23, 2007 Posted June 23, 2007 On Jun 23, 1:42 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f5geed$qi...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > If a professor at an xian college said "there is no god. The stars were > > formed by natural causes" and that professor didn't get tenure, was he > > "discriminated against?" > > Yes--unless there were other factors not mentioned in your post--example: > he had been found guilty of having sex with a student in return for an A > grade. Once again you demonstrate your hatred of atheists. Just look at history: you Christians cannot claim any moral superiority. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 23, 2007 Posted June 23, 2007 On Jun 23, 1:54 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f5gft7$sa...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabb...@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. You assume. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 23, 2007 Posted June 23, 2007 On Jun 23, 1:57 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <dqtn7352n0b5t4j7lumloc1fqbobot5...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:47:14 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-2106071047150...@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <f5dto1$74...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > ><prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > > >> > In article <1182379707.534130.141...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > >> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> >> On Jun 21, 3:11 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> >>> In article <1182348182.409232.265...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > >> >>> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > >> >>>> On 19 Jun., 18:50, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> >>>>> In article <f58p6o$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. You assume. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 23, 2007 Posted June 23, 2007 On Jun 23, 1:57 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Her name is mentioned in over 700 websites. "Martin Phipps" gets 1,130,000 hits on google. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 23, 2007 Posted June 23, 2007 On Jun 23, 2:18 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In relation to abiogenesis and creation science--there is a lot of > speculation about how life came to be and very little evidence. Yes, with regards to abiogenesis and creationism, there is a lot of speculation and very little evidence, RESPECTIVELY. (There is no speculation with regards to creationism: you assume "God did it". And there is NO evidence supporting it.) Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 23, 2007 Posted June 23, 2007 On Jun 23, 2:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f9un73t8fle3mlf54s3ofrobmm5ahm0...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 22:15:00 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-2006072215010...@66-52-22-112.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <28kj73pr3bpr6c01kt81cl1b3pdae1g...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 19:10:26 -0700, in alt.atheism > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> <Jason-2006071910260...@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> >In article <igij73lncmssoprskphcef08i3nd0db...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > >> ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> >> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 18:44:35 -0700, in alt.atheism > > >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> >> <Jason-2006071844360...@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> >> >In article > > <1182380497.144640.154...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > >> >> >Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> >> >> On Jun 21, 3:13 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> >> >> > In article <1182348318.114973.155...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > >> >> >> > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > >> >> >> > > On 19 Jun., 19:08, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> >> >> > > > In article <4677E977.68603...@osu.edu>, Jim Burns > > >> >> ><burns...@osu.edu> wrote: > > >> >> >> > > > > Jason wrote: > > > >> >> >> > > > > > In [respose to] article > > >> >> >> > > > > > <1182230648.471813.37...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > >> >> >> > > > > > George Chen <georgech...@yahoo.com> > > >> >> >> > > > > [...] > > >> >> >> > > > > > I feel sorry for all of the people that will go to hell > > >> >> >> > > > > > instead of going to heaven. > > > >> >> >> > > > > How do you feel when you realize you are more compassionate, > > >> >> >> > > > > a BETTER PERSON, than the God you believe in, even as > > >> >> >> > > > > sinful as you are? > > > >> >> >> > > > > Jason, a lot of people have told you that creationism is > > >> >> >> > > > > bad science, and it is. But, beyond that, you should be > > >> >> >> > > > > able to realize, even without a single science course, > > >> >> >> > > > > that biblical literalism is much worse theology than > > >> >> >> > > > > it is science. > > > >> >> >> > > > > Jim Burns > > > >> >> >> > > > Jim, > > >> >> >> > > > I understand your point but disagree with you. God does > not want > > >> >> >people to > > >> >> >> > > > go to hell (John 3:16). If people go to hell, it is NOT > > >God's fault. > > > >> >> >> > > Of course it is. He created hell. He can let everybody out. > > > >> >> >> > > > Instead, it is the fault of the people that turned their backs > > >> >on God. > > >> >> >> > > > Would atheists be happy in heaven? I doubt it. Heaven is for > > >> >people that > > >> >> >> > > > enjoy worshipping God. I doubt that atheists would enjoy > > >> >worshipping God > > >> >> >> > > > or following his rules. > > > >> >> >> > > Atheists do not turn their backs on god. > > > >> >> >> > They don't even believe that God exists which is even worse than > > >turning > > >> >> >> > their backs on God. > > > >> >> >> Are you turing you back on Zeus? > > > >> >> >> Martin > > > >> >> >Yes--and every other false God. > > > >> >> 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. He's claiming that Allah gave the commandments to Moses. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 23, 2007 Posted June 23, 2007 In article <1182558421.950316.128660@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 23, 2:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <f9un73t8fle3mlf54s3ofrobmm5ahm0...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 22:15:00 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > <Jason-2006072215010...@66-52-22-112.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > >In article <28kj73pr3bpr6c01kt81cl1b3pdae1g...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > >> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 19:10:26 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > >> <Jason-2006071910260...@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > >> >In article <igij73lncmssoprskphcef08i3nd0db...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > >> ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > >> >> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 18:44:35 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > >> >> <Jason-2006071844360...@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > >> >> >In article > > > > <1182380497.144640.154...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > >> >> >> On Jun 21, 3:13 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > >> >> >> > In article <1182348318.114973.155...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > > >> >> >> > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > >> >> >> > > On 19 Jun., 19:08, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > >> >> >> > > > In article <4677E977.68603...@osu.edu>, Jim Burns > > > >> >> ><burns...@osu.edu> wrote: > > > >> >> >> > > > > Jason wrote: > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > In [respose to] article > > > >> >> >> > > > > > <1182230648.471813.37...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > > >> >> >> > > > > > George Chen <georgech...@yahoo.com> > > > >> >> >> > > > > [...] > > > >> >> >> > > > > > I feel sorry for all of the people that will go to hell > > > >> >> >> > > > > > instead of going to heaven. > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > How do you feel when you realize you are more compassionate, > > > >> >> >> > > > > a BETTER PERSON, than the God you believe in, even as > > > >> >> >> > > > > sinful as you are? > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > Jason, a lot of people have told you that creationism is > > > >> >> >> > > > > bad science, and it is. But, beyond that, you should be > > > >> >> >> > > > > able to realize, even without a single science course, > > > >> >> >> > > > > that biblical literalism is much worse theology than > > > >> >> >> > > > > it is science. > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > Jim Burns > > > > > >> >> >> > > > Jim, > > > >> >> >> > > > I understand your point but disagree with you. God does > > not want > > > >> >> >people to > > > >> >> >> > > > go to hell (John 3:16). If people go to hell, it is NOT > > > >God's fault. > > > > > >> >> >> > > Of course it is. He created hell. He can let everybody out. > > > > > >> >> >> > > > Instead, it is the fault of the people that turned their backs > > > >> >on God. > > > >> >> >> > > > Would atheists be happy in heaven? I doubt it. Heaven is for > > > >> >people that > > > >> >> >> > > > enjoy worshipping God. I doubt that atheists would enjoy > > > >> >worshipping God > > > >> >> >> > > > or following his rules. > > > > > >> >> >> > > Atheists do not turn their backs on god. > > > > > >> >> >> > They don't even believe that God exists which is even worse than > > > >turning > > > >> >> >> > their backs on God. > > > > > >> >> >> Are you turing you back on Zeus? > > > > > >> >> >> Martin > > > > > >> >> >Yes--and every other false God. > > > > > >> >> 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. > > He's claiming that Allah gave the commandments to Moses. > > Martin Jehovah gave the commandments to Moses. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 23, 2007 Posted June 23, 2007 On Jun 23, 2:46 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f5gmf8$o92$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > > > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <f5flf3$v8t$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > > >>> In article <f58ol9$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 you > > >>>>>> purchased it based on the article "Was Darwin Wrong"? Of course we > > >>> both know > > >>>>>> that the answer in the NG was a resounding NO! > > >>>>> Yes, you are correct. I still enjoyed the article. Actually, the > > > answer was: > > >>>>> No: the evidence for Evolution is overwhelming. > > >>>> If the article disagrees with your position, why do you insist on > > >>>> mentioning it? > > >>> There was some information in the article that I had not seen before and I > > >>> had some questions about those issues. The experiments re: abiogenesis > > >>> seemed to me to support creation science instead of supporting evolution. > > >>> The advocates of creation science claim that evolution does take place but > > >>> only within "kinds". For example, a horses may evolve (or change) but they > > >>> continue to be horses. Fruit flies may evolve into a new species of fruit > > >>> flies but they will not evolve into another type or "kind" of insect. The > > >>> advocates of creation science usually call it adaption instead of > > >>> evolution. > > > >>> The author of the article mentioned the results of hundreds (or perhaps > > >>> thousands) of experiments that had been done on fruit flies and bacteria. > > >>> The end result of all of those experiments was that the fruit flies > > >>> continues to be fruit flies and the bacteria continued to be bacteria. > > > >> Um... you do realize that "bacteria" is an incredibly huge family? That > > >> would be like "mammals will be mammals and bacteria will be bacteria". > > > >> Tokay > > > > The advocates of evolution claim that a one celled life form evolved into > > > mankind. I don't think that it happened. It's more likely that the one > > > celled life form evolved into another one celled life form. > > > See my point? > > > I do see were you are driving at but the evolutionary steps between > > single cell and multicell are quite easy. single cell organisms > > reproduce by fusion. So, if these "new" cells then stick together? > > Simple mutation of membrane proteins could do that. Suddenly you have a > > cluster of cells that sticks together and can't be eaten so fast. > > > Simple, see? > > Yes, I see. A scientist should take a cluster of these cells and do > experiments to determine if they evolve. Over the past 32 years, thousands of papers have been published showing that this does, indeed, happen. http://www.springerlink.com/content/100107/ If every volume contains more than sixty papers then we are talking about almost 4000 papers published over a 32 year period. Are you going to read them all? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 23, 2007 Posted June 23, 2007 On Jun 23, 2:50 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f5gm99$o92$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <f5fm59$rbc$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > > >>> In article <1182348090.555329.173...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > >>> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > >>>> On 19 Jun., 18:47, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >>>>> In article <f58ol9$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? > If you know the answer, provide it. It's a test, Jason. You know, like you presumably had back when you were at school. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 23, 2007 Posted June 23, 2007 On Jun 23, 2:54 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <dgtn73hm11dl8eval8ne1s1155rl2td...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 11:51:19 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-2106071151200...@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <1182427767.298489.13...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > ><phippsmar...@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. > > >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. You didn't answer the question, Jason. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 23, 2007 Posted June 23, 2007 On Jun 23, 2:55 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <sbtn73187me30fr561n1btfpo0u3sho...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:33:19 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-2106071633200...@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <BnBei.158$n9...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > ><mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <J...@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. No, their goal was to get around the law, but they didn't fool anybody. As you said yourself, even children would know that "intelligent design" is religion in disguise. Martin Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 23, 2007 Posted June 23, 2007 On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:38:25 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2206071738260001@66-52-22-3.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1182558421.950316.128660@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 23, 2:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <f9un73t8fle3mlf54s3ofrobmm5ahm0...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > > On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 22:15:00 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> > > <Jason-2006072215010...@66-52-22-112.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: .... >> > > >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. >> >> He's claiming that Allah gave the commandments to Moses. >> >> Martin > >Jehovah gave the commandments to Moses. > And no one but you claims there is a difference between Jehovah and Allah. Everyone agrees that that the difference comes from the languages being used, nothing else. Both are names for the God of Abraham. You claim otherwise, but have no evidence to support your claim. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 23, 2007 Posted June 23, 2007 On Jun 23, 2:58 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Public school teachers would teach ID--if it was legal in that state. Then they would no longer be teachers but priests and priestesses working for the government. There would no longer be a separation of church and state. The lies of religion are rightfully kept in church where they belong and where people are not required to go if they don't want to.. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 23, 2007 Posted June 23, 2007 On Jun 23, 3:06 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <5e21riF368e7...@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > > <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@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. fact -noun 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. 2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact. 3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth. Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 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.