Evolution is Just Junk Science

[Guest kmurphy004@houston.rr.com]

On 22-Jun-2007, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> 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.

> >

> Not if they are taught that evolution is false. Then they are being lied

> to by so-called Christians like you.

 

Ultimatims are not logical. Being forced to choose between two options

doesn't exclude the possibility that a third option exists. Neither

creationism nor evolution is correct.

 

--

It's not possible to turn a ho' into a housewife but by the same measure, it

is not possible to debase what is noble.

Philosophy is a thought experiment which ends the moment you turn in your

final exam.

[Guest Martin Phipps]

On Jun 23, 3:02 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> Their goal was to lie to people in order to get around the law. They had

> no intention of complying with the law as was plain from the trial. Do

> you ever learn anything about the people you defend?

 

Ultimately, the problem is that Jason does not see lying as a bad

thing. He agrees that even Jesus deceived his followers according to

the gospel: he admits that he did not come back as "soon" as his

followers had expected. He hasn't come back at all in fact.

 

Martin

[Guest Free Lunch]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 18:10:25 GMT, in alt.atheism

kmurphy004@houston.rr.com wrote in

<467eb33a$1$6400$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com>:

>

>On 22-Jun-2007, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> 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.

>> >

>> Not if they are taught that evolution is false. Then they are being lied

>> to by so-called Christians like you.

>

>Ultimatims are not logical. Being forced to choose between two options

>doesn't exclude the possibility that a third option exists. Neither

>creationism nor evolution is correct.

 

Based on the evidence gathered to date, the theory of evolution is an

accurate explanation of the changes seen in the history of life on

earth. It has been carefully improved as evidence has been gathered over

the past two centuries by scientists. What specifically causes you to

assert that evolution is not correct? What evidence do you rely on?

[Guest David V.]

kmurphy004@houston.rr.com wrote:

>

> Ultimatims are not logical. Being forced to choose between

> two options doesn't exclude the possibility that a third

> option exists. Neither creationism nor evolution is correct.

 

Inventing a third option doesn't mean it's the correct one.

Evolution is a fact. It's not an option.

 

--

Dave

 

"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.

[Guest cactus]

Martin Phipps wrote:

> On Jun 24, 11:57 am, cactus <b...@nonespam.com> wrote:

>> Jason wrote:

>>> In article <vs2dnZ6aP9D9weDbnZ2dnUVZ_ovin...@comcast.com>, John Popelish

>>> <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote:

>>>> Jason wrote:

>>>>> I consider Christianity to be a true religion and conder Jehovah to be the

>>>>> only God. I consider Allah to be a false God.

>>>> (snip)

>>>> What process, in your life, lead you to these conclusions?

>>> My parents were Christians which played a role. While in college, I took a

>>> course related to the World Religions. None of those world religions

>>> appealed to me.

>> Then why do you act so ignorant of other faiths?

>

> It's yet another subject he managed to avoid learning anything about.

>

 

The frightening thing is that he claims to have taken a course in it.

Maybe he is incapable of learning something that does not match what he

already believes.

 

He no longer responds to me. I think I may have offended him. At least

he no longer talks about "life evolving from non-life." If he never

responds to be again, it will be worth it just for that. If everyone

took a turn at the harsh education I gave him, he wouldn't have anyone

to talk to, but at least maybe he wouldn't sound as stupid.

> Martin

>

[Guest cactus]

Martin Phipps wrote:

> On Jun 24, 12:29 pm, cactus <b...@nonespam.com> wrote:

>> Jason wrote:

>>> In article <vhIsdqY67dTD-pn2-jIHnCsR7sdQY@M>, d...@dandrake.com wrote:

>>>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 23:52:37 UTC, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>>>> In article <vhIsdqY67dTD-pn2-iQnMvZtdsMwD@M>, d...@dandrake.com wrote:

>>>>>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 05:23:02 UTC, J...@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.

>>>> All judges are, by definition, if you like, part of the establishment. So,

>>>> as Free Lunch has pointed out, is Christianity. It would be sheer idiocy

>>>> to think that either of these, or any other large chunk of the

>>>> establishment, is united in its views of the world and its willingness to

>>>> conspire to suppress the T R U T H .

>>> Christianity was once part of the establishment but in many cities, it is

>>> no longer part of the establishment. That is especially true in large

>>> cities in most states. The ACLU knows the names of the most liberal judges

>>> in America. When they want to win a case, they make sure the judge that

>>> hears the case is one of those liberal judges. They know they will win

>>> before they even go to court. They use the term, "the fix is in."

>> And where did you learn this from? One of your preachers who couldn't

>> get his Christian prayers in the local public schools?

>

> It's amazing that Christians can't find judges to their liking.

> Apparently you need a certain level of intelligence to be a judge and

> this is a severe limitation for them.

>

Jurisdiction shopping is standard in American legal practice. The

police officers who beat Rodney King were acquitted in a State Court in

Simi Valley, but convicted elsewhere in Federal Court in (IIRC) Los Angeles.

[Guest John Baker]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 18:10:25 GMT, kmurphy004@houston.rr.com wrote:

>

>On 22-Jun-2007, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> 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.

>> >

>> Not if they are taught that evolution is false. Then they are being lied

>> to by so-called Christians like you.

>

>Ultimatims are not logical. Being forced to choose between two options

>doesn't exclude the possibility that a third option exists. Neither

>creationism nor evolution is correct.

 

 

I'm sure you'll have no trouble backing that statement up with some

evidence, then...

[Guest gudloos@yahoo.com]

On 24 Jun., 03:43, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <409r73h3qtei0prif7536hc0fu1h1p9...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

 

snip

>

> > Jason has spoken. All Arabic-speaking Christians are worshipping a false

> > god because they use the word "Allah" when referring to God.

>

> If they read their Bibles, they will know all about the true God.- Skjul tekst i anf

[Guest gudloos@yahoo.com]

On 24 Jun., 17:47, John Popelish <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote:

> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > On 23 Jun., 20:09, John Popelish <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote:

> (snip)

> >> Keep posting here long enough, and you will join their ranks.

>

> > There is a good chance he will encourage other theists to become

> > atheists. One might suspect that he was hired by the EEC (which

> > doesn't exist of course) to pretend to be a theist.

>

> He works hard for the money.

 

If only he could get elected Pope. On the other hand the man who has

the job now does a very good job promoting atheism too.

[Guest gudloos@yahoo.com]

On 24 Jun., 18:00, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:

> In alt.atheism On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 20:00:10 -0700, J...@nospam.com

> (Jason) let us all know that:

>

> >Christianity was once part of the establishment but in many cities, it is

> >no longer part of the establishment. That is especially true in large

> >cities in most states. The ACLU knows the names of the most liberal judges

> >in America. When they want to win a case, they make sure the judge that

> >hears the case is one of those liberal judges. They know they will win

> >before they even go to court. They use the term, "the fix is in."

>

> Yeah, and there was a gunman on the grassy knoll, the planes

> were remotely flown into the WTC, and we never landed on the moon.

>

> Don

> ---

> aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde

> Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.

>

> "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"

> Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"

 

World War II is a legend invented by Hollywood.

[Guest Free Lunch]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:32:09 GMT, in alt.atheism

cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote in

<dxAfi.41706$5j1.32131@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>:

>Martin Phipps wrote:

>> On Jun 24, 11:57 am, cactus <b...@nonespam.com> wrote:

>>> Jason wrote:

>>>> In article <vs2dnZ6aP9D9weDbnZ2dnUVZ_ovin...@comcast.com>, John Popelish

>>>> <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote:

>>>>> Jason wrote:

>>>>>> I consider Christianity to be a true religion and conder Jehovah to be the

>>>>>> only God. I consider Allah to be a false God.

>>>>> (snip)

>>>>> What process, in your life, lead you to these conclusions?

>>>> My parents were Christians which played a role. While in college, I took a

>>>> course related to the World Religions. None of those world religions

>>>> appealed to me.

>>> Then why do you act so ignorant of other faiths?

>>

>> It's yet another subject he managed to avoid learning anything about.

>>

>

>The frightening thing is that he claims to have taken a course in it.

>Maybe he is incapable of learning something that does not match what he

>already believes.

>

>He no longer responds to me. I think I may have offended him. At least

>he no longer talks about "life evolving from non-life." If he never

>responds to be again, it will be worth it just for that. If everyone

>took a turn at the harsh education I gave him, he wouldn't have anyone

>to talk to, but at least maybe he wouldn't sound as stupid.

 

Maybe he will take offense at everyone who points out correctly that he

is a liar who has no desire to learn the truth.

[Guest 655321]

In article

<Jason-2306071119140001@66-52-22-111.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>,

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article

> <DipthotDipthot-B842A2.09290823062007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,

> 655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:

>

> > In article

> > <Jason-2106072223020001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>,

> > 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.

> >

> > Your political underwear is showing.

> >

> > You don't care about truth.

> >

> > You have avoided EVERYONE's point here that ID/creation "science" is not

> > science and doesn't belong in a science curriculum.

 

.... and you continue to do so.

> > You have failed to present a single argument in refutation of that point.

 

.... and you continue to fail to do so.

> > You haven't even bothered to defend your position that ID/"Creation

> > science" should be taught; you have merely repeated it.

 

.... and you continue to do so.

> > Your key defense? Lyrics from a rock song (a song, by the way, that was

> > about something utterly different).

> >

> > You just want your "side" to win.

>

> Yes--I would like my side to win.

 

You mean the side of dishonesty and thought control. Your "side" will

lie to win. Your side will commit scientific fraud to win.

 

Your side will shout at the top of its lungs that it's not trying to

establish the Christian myth in the science curriculum, while doing its

darndest to accomplish exactly that. Taking "God" out of a textbook and

replacing it with "intelligent designer" is a weak attempt at concealing

the fraud.

 

Your side will accuse others of "thought control," when controlling

thought is exactly your goal.

 

You would gladly substitute prayer for thinking. Whereas our "side"

will continue to inspect the physical record of history, your side will

trade that in for re-reading scripture.

> You appear to want your side to win.

 

I want truth to win. I want inquiry to win. I want science to win. I

want politicians and priests to keep their hands off of the scientific

curriculum.

> In this case, your side won.

 

It's an ongoing battle. No one is resting on his or her laurels at this

point.

 

--

655321

"We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi

[Guest 655321]

In article

<Jason-2306071116110001@66-52-22-111.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>,

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> I want to make it legal for teachers

> to teach ID

 

But it is legal to do that...

 

.... in a comparative religions, class, for example.

 

So what's your problem?

 

--

655321

"We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi

[Guest 655321]

In article

<Jason-2306071056530001@66-52-22-111.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>,

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> One radio preacher stated that

 

This is how lies spread, Jason.

 

--

655321

"We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi

[Guest John Popelish]

gudloos@yahoo.com wrote:

> On 24 Jun., 17:47, John Popelish <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote:

>> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

>>> On 23 Jun., 20:09, John Popelish <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote:

>> (snip)

>>>> Keep posting here long enough, and you will join their ranks.

>>> There is a good chance he will encourage other theists to become

>>> atheists. One might suspect that he was hired by the EEC (which

>>> doesn't exist of course) to pretend to be a theist.

>> He works hard for the money.

>

> If only he could get elected Pope. On the other hand the man who has

> the job now does a very good job promoting atheism too.

 

I agree no church actively trains future atheists like the

Roman Catholic church does, lately.

[Guest 655321]

In article

<Jason-2306071848530001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>,

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> I consider Christianity to be the true religion because I once took a

> class on the World religions and came to the conclusion that Christianity

> was the true religion. The fact that my parents were Christians may also

> have played a role.

 

The Jason "brain" at work. A Christian looks at world religions and

decides that Christianity is "true." And he claims to have reached his

conclusion assessing the situation honestly.

 

What part of Christian indoctrination consists of learning to lie about

the faith so easily?

 

--

655321

"We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi

[Guest Michael Gray]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 11:47:02 -0400, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net>

wrote:

- Refer: <juOdnXAbp-cADOPbnZ2dnUVZ_u7inZ2d@comcast.com>

>gudloos@yahoo.com wrote:

>> On 23 Jun., 20:09, John Popelish <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote:

>(snip)

>>> Keep posting here long enough, and you will join their ranks.

>>

>> There is a good chance he will encourage other theists to become

>> atheists. One might suspect that he was hired by the EEC (which

>> doesn't exist of course) to pretend to be a theist.

>

>He works hard for the money.

 

Thanks. Bow I have Donna Summer on the brain.

 

--

[Guest Michael Gray]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 11:00:44 -0500, Don Kresch

<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:

- Refer: <685t73hjisbvetblapmujbrq9p9j6tcihl@4ax.com>

>In alt.atheism On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 20:00:10 -0700, Jason@nospam.com

>(Jason) let us all know that:

>

>

>>Christianity was once part of the establishment but in many cities, it is

>>no longer part of the establishment. That is especially true in large

>>cities in most states. The ACLU knows the names of the most liberal judges

>>in America. When they want to win a case, they make sure the judge that

>>hears the case is one of those liberal judges. They know they will win

>>before they even go to court. They use the term, "the fix is in."

>

> Yeah, and there was a gunman on the grassy knoll, the planes

>were remotely flown into the WTC, and we never landed on the moon.

 

And a male born via parthenogenesis walked on H2O!

 

--

[Guest Michael Gray]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 18:10:25 GMT, kmurphy004@houston.rr.com wrote:

- Refer: <467eb33a$1$6400$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com>

>

>On 22-Jun-2007, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> 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.

>> >

>> Not if they are taught that evolution is false. Then they are being lied

>> to by so-called Christians like you.

>

>Ultimatims are not logical. Being forced to choose between two options

>doesn't exclude the possibility that a third option exists. Neither

>creationism nor evolution is correct.

 

Idiot.

 

--

[Guest Jason]

In article <FM2dnSEybe2qW-PbnZ2dnUVZ_qLinZ2d@sti.net>, "David V."

<spam@hotmail.com> wrote:

> kmurphy004@houston.rr.com wrote:

> >

> > Ultimatims are not logical. Being forced to choose between

> > two options doesn't exclude the possibility that a third

> > option exists. Neither creationism nor evolution is correct.

>

> Inventing a third option doesn't mean it's the correct one.

> Evolution is a fact. It's not an option.

 

Evolution is a theory

[Guest Jason]

In article

<DipthotDipthot-A725FE.16174624062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,

655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:

> In article

> <Jason-2306071116110001@66-52-22-111.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>,

> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

> > I want to make it legal for teachers

> > to teach ID

>

> But it is legal to do that...

>

> ... in a comparative religions, class, for example.

>

> So what's your problem?

 

I was referring to high school science and biology classes. Of course,

evolution should also be taught in those same classes.

[Guest Jason]

In article <dxAfi.41706$5j1.32131@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>,

bm1@nonespam.com wrote:

> Martin Phipps wrote:

> > On Jun 24, 11:57 am, cactus <b...@nonespam.com> wrote:

> >> Jason wrote:

> >>> In article <vs2dnZ6aP9D9weDbnZ2dnUVZ_ovin...@comcast.com>, John Popelish

> >>> <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote:

> >>>> Jason wrote:

> >>>>> I consider Christianity to be a true religion and conder Jehovah

to be the

> >>>>> only God. I consider Allah to be a false God.

> >>>> (snip)

> >>>> What process, in your life, lead you to these conclusions?

> >>> My parents were Christians which played a role. While in college, I took a

> >>> course related to the World Religions. None of those world religions

> >>> appealed to me.

> >> Then why do you act so ignorant of other faiths?

> >

> > It's yet another subject he managed to avoid learning anything about.

> >

>

> The frightening thing is that he claims to have taken a course in it.

> Maybe he is incapable of learning something that does not match what he

> already believes.

>

> He no longer responds to me. I think I may have offended him. At least

> he no longer talks about "life evolving from non-life." If he never

> responds to be again, it will be worth it just for that. If everyone

> took a turn at the harsh education I gave him, he wouldn't have anyone

> to talk to, but at least maybe he wouldn't sound as stupid.

 

I usually don't respond to posts that includes derogatory language.

 

I would never believe that life could evolve from non-life unless it was

proved to me that it could happen in a scientific experiment.

[Guest David V.]

Jason wrote:

> "David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

>> Inventing a third option doesn't mean it's the correct one.

>> Evolution is a fact. It's not an option.

>

> Evolution is a theory

 

I understand you are extremely undereducated and that you have

been trained NOT to think by your religion; but do try to think

for just a little bit. Thinking will hurt for a second, but

you'll get used to it and like a muscle the brain will start

working better once it's used properly. Obviously your brain

needs a personal trainer to bet it back in shape.

 

When someone says that evolution is a "theory" or "just a theory"

in response to someone mentioning the FACT of evolution, you know

they have no idea what the meaning of the word 'theory' actually

is. Your response is one of those. You actually, because of your

previous training (or lack of), do not know what the word means.

Are you willing to learn or do you wish to remain ignorant. Let

me know before I waste my time trying to educate you.

 

Uh.... please don't quote some dictionary meaning. I don't play

the dictionary game.

--

Dave

 

"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.

[Guest Don Kresch]

In alt.atheism On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 18:25:31 -0700, Jason@nospam.com

(Jason) let us all know that:

>I would never believe that life could evolve from non-life unless it was

>proved to me that it could happen in a scientific experiment.

 

So where did god come from? I know that you cop-out every time

this is asked, but that just shows how hypocritical you are.

 

 

Don

---

aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde

Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.

 

"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"

Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"

[Guest Don Kresch]

In alt.atheism On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 18:16:43 -0700, Jason@nospam.com

(Jason) let us all know that:

>In article <FM2dnSEybe2qW-PbnZ2dnUVZ_qLinZ2d@sti.net>, "David V."

><spam@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

>> kmurphy004@houston.rr.com wrote:

>> >

>> > Ultimatims are not logical. Being forced to choose between

>> > two options doesn't exclude the possibility that a third

>> > option exists. Neither creationism nor evolution is correct.

>>

>> Inventing a third option doesn't mean it's the correct one.

>> Evolution is a fact. It's not an option.

>

>Evolution is a theory

 

So's gravity.

 

 

Don

---

aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde

Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.

 

"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"

Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"