Guest Jason Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 In article <1182738013.400195.243750@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Bob T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > On Jun 24, 6:35 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > Here is some information about the Christians in Iran. > > > <snip article> > > Iran is an excellent example of what happens when religious nutcases > are allowed to rule a country. And you, Jason, clearly wish that > America was more like Iran. > > - Bob T. Yes, it would be wonderful if everyone in the world were Christians. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 In article <1182735889.944828.206780@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 25, 9:35 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1182718201.208602.124...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > 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=F8rselstegn - > > > > > Their Bibles are written in Arabic, in which the equivalent to the > > > English word "God" is "Allah". That would apply to Christian Arabs of > > > all sects. Furthermore the first Christians did not call their god > > > "God", since "god" is an English word derived from German. Apparently > > > you think that only the English language Bibles are valid. I am not > > > surprised. > > > > No, I do not believe that only Bibles written in English are valid. Even > > if Allah is the word that is used for God in Bibles written in > > Arabic--that is not a problem. After reading their Bibles, they will > > realize that the God mentioned in the Holy Bible is the true God and that > > the moon god is a false God. > > Why doesn't Christian sun worship render it a pagam religion in your > eyes? > > Martin I don't know any Christians that worship the sun. Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 Jason wrote: > Yes, it would be wonderful if everyone in the world were Christians. How so? I think it would very quickly lead governments being turned over to various Christian leaders who would also quickly begin fighting each other for control of more of the faithful. Christians have never been bashful about forcing their influence over others, when they have had the political and military power to do so. People who think they know what their hypothetical god thinks, and wants other people to do, turn out to be very dangerous when they have raw power. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 19:47:59 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2406071947590001@66-52-22-6.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <G1Ffi.15732$2v1.1567@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>, >bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > 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 is number theory, so is music theory, and so is Relativity Theory. >> >> A theory is the best explanation of some phenomenon, at least until a >> better one comes along. >> >> For your convenience, here is a definition from Webster's Online Dictionary: >> ____________________________________________________________________ >> Main Entry: the Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 21:31:55 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2406072131550001@66-52-22-6.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1182738013.400195.243750@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Bob >T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 24, 6:35 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > >> > Here is some information about the Christians in Iran. >> > >> <snip article> >> >> Iran is an excellent example of what happens when religious nutcases >> are allowed to rule a country. And you, Jason, clearly wish that >> America was more like Iran. >> >> - Bob T. > >Yes, it would be wonderful if everyone in the world were Christians. > Not if they were like you. I understand that you claim to be a Christian despite your behavior. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 In article <8oKdnUvAwJeWqeLbnZ2dnUVZ_qjinZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > > > I disagree. Evolution is a theory. > > As I explained to you before, you do not know the definition of > the word 'theory,' and you got it wrong even after seeing it in a > dictionary. > > > I looked up the word Evolution in my Webster's Dictionary..... > > > And you still don't get it. > > Is this feigned ignorance on purpose? These two words were found on page 6 of the November 2004 issue of National Geographic: EVOLUTIONARY THEORY... Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 21:51:30 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2406072151300001@66-52-22-6.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <8oKdnUvAwJeWqeLbnZ2dnUVZ_qjinZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." ><spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > >> > I disagree. Evolution is a theory. >> >> As I explained to you before, you do not know the definition of >> the word 'theory,' and you got it wrong even after seeing it in a >> dictionary. >> >> > I looked up the word Evolution in my Webster's Dictionary..... >> > >> And you still don't get it. >> >> Is this feigned ignorance on purpose? > >These two words were found on page 6 of the November 2004 issue of >National Geographic: > >EVOLUTIONARY THEORY... > That's an adjective you have their. There are also evolutionary facts. Learn. Stop mocking God. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 On Jun 25, 10:53 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182735087.582175.135...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 25, 9:16 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <FM2dnSEybe2qW-PbnZ2dnUVZ_qLin...@sti.net>, "David V." > > > > <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > kmurphy...@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 > > > Evolution is a fact and natuaral selection is the theory that explains > > how it works. You've had this explained to you before, Jason. > > I disagree. Evolution is a theory. I looked up the word Evolution in my > Webster's Dictionary and it stated that evolution was a theory. the Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 On Jun 25, 10:58 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182735594.401238.200...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 25, 9:18 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article > > > <DipthotDipthot-A725FE.16174624062...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > > > > 655321 <DipthotDipt...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > > > > In article > > > > <Jason-2306071116110...@66-52-22-111.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > > > > J...@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. > > > "Intelligent design" has no place in a biology class, Jason, because > > "Intelligent design" is reliogion and not science. You admitted that > > yourself when you said that even a child would know that the > > "designer" was supposed to be God (or Allah as the case may be). > > That is true--even children could figure it out. Martin, it will probably > never happen. The advocates of evolution will not let it happen. They will > take states to court that want to teach ID. They do not want evolution to > have to compete with ID. They are afraid that children will realize that > ID makes more sense than Evolution. Religion only makes sense to diseased brains like your own, Jason. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 In article <5bgu739hs3h40sm3fc8nvdibhvdte86p9s@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 18:35:42 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2406071835420001@66-52-22-6.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <1182718201.208602.124770@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > > > >> 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=F8rselstegn - > >> > >> Their Bibles are written in Arabic, in which the equivalent to the > >> English word "God" is "Allah". That would apply to Christian Arabs of > >> all sects. Furthermore the first Christians did not call their god > >> "God", since "god" is an English word derived from German. Apparently > >> you think that only the English language Bibles are valid. I am not > >> surprised. > > > >No, I do not believe that only Bibles written in English are valid. Even > >if Allah is the word that is used for God in Bibles written in > >Arabic--that is not a problem. After reading their Bibles, they will > >realize that the God mentioned in the Holy Bible is the true God and that > >the moon god is a false God. > > The God of Islam is not the moon god. You are a fatuous idiot who is so > taken with his own arguments that you cannot bother to learn a thing. > > You mock God with your lies. Why is there a symbol of a crescent moon on top of every Mosque in the world/ The evidence is in this article: Hubal and Allah the Moon God? Islam: Truth or Myth? start page Introduction to basic facts of history: 1. Moon worship has been practiced in Arabia since 2000 BC. The crescent moon is the most common symbol of this pagan moon worship as far back as 2000 BC. 2. In Mecca, there was a god named Hubal who was Lord of the Kabah. 3. This Hubal was a moon god. 4. One Muslim apologist confessed that the idol of moon god Hubal was placed upon the roof of the Kaba about 400 years before Muhammad. This may in fact be the origin of why the crescent moon is on top of every minaret at the Kaba today and the central symbol of Islam atop of every mosque throughout the world: About four hundred years before the birth of Muhammad one Amr bin Lahyo ... a descendant of Qahtan and king of Hijaz, had put an idol called Hubal on the roof of the Kaba. This was one of the chief deities of the Quraish before Islam. (Muhammad The Holy Prophet, Hafiz Ghulam Sarwar (Pakistan), p 18-19, Muslim) 5. The moon god was also referred to as "al-ilah". This is not a proper name of a single specific god, but a generic reference meaning "the god". Each local pagan Arab tribe would refer to their own local tribal pagan god as "al-ilah". 6. "al-ilah" was later shortened to Allah before Muhammad began promoting his new religion in 610 AD. 7. There is evidence that Hubal was referred to as "Allah". 8. When Muhammad came along, he dropped all references to the name "Hubal" but retained the generic "Allah". 9. Muhammad retained almost all the pagan rituals of the Arabs at the Kaba and redefined them in monotheistic terms. 10. Regardless of the specifics of the facts, it is clear that Islam is derived from paganism that once worshiped a moon-god. 11. Although Islam is today a monotheist religion, its roots are in paganism. Hubal the moon god of the Kabah Allah the moon god of the Kabah Remnants of pagan Moon god worship in the Koran Pre-Islamic Origin of the word Allah Photogallery of the ancient history of Moon god worship Modern usage of moon god symbols in Islam today. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 In article <8ggu73dtnsvkodpcgh2piufuv5hh73eq5m@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:10:00 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2406072010000001@66-52-22-6.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <7Y-dncX-Q9ZSueLbnZ2dnUVZ_r6vnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > ><jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >> > >> > 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. > >> > >> Sorry, but, based on what you have already written, I don't > >> believe you. > >> > >> If scientists, someday, put chemicals into an experiment and > >> a demonstrably living, reproducing things resulted, I am > >> predicting that you would say that now they have to > >> replicate the origin of some living thing you are familiar > >> with, like a goldfish, or a man, before you could believe > >> that those things have a natural, non miraculous, origin. > >> > >> I hope that someday, soon I get to test this prediction. > > > >No--I would believe it-- if I could see living cells under a microscope. > > > >The experiment would have to be "repeatable" by any scientist including > >science professors that are employed by the ICR college. > > > ICR does not have any scientists, so they would have to hire some. Then > independent observers would have to make sure that the new scientists > weren't suborned. After all, the ICR has a good gig telling people lies > about science. They have you suckered really well. > > You still haven't told us how much money they have defrauded you of by > their lies. If you are confused, all of their money is collected by > fraud, all of it. Whatever you gave them came to them because they lied > to you. That figure would be $0.00. They do have science professors that work at the ICR college--they could repeat the experiments. I suspect that the results of such an experiment would be discussed in magazines such as National Geograhic. I would believe the information about the experiment if I read about it in that magazine. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 On Jun 25, 10:53 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182735087.582175.135...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 25, 9:16 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <FM2dnSEybe2qW-PbnZ2dnUVZ_qLin...@sti.net>, "David V." > > > > <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > kmurphy...@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 > > > Evolution is a fact and natuaral selection is the theory taht explains > > how it works. You've had this explained to you before, Jason. > I disagree. Evolution is a theory. I looked up the word Evolution in my > Webster's Dictionary and it stated that evolution was a theory. I found > this term on page 6 of the Nov 2004 issue of National Geographic: > "Evolutionary theory" http://users.ameritech.net/dennisreynolds1/GravitationalTheory.html Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 On Jun 25, 11:03 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <9aqdnXSNaY9puuLbnZ2dnUVZ_i2dn...@sti.net>, "David V." > > <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > > 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. > > > Yet you firmly believe in a god that has even less evidence and > > no proof. > > I have seen evidence that has convinced me but various posters have made > it clear to me that the evidence that I produced did not convince them > that there is a God. > > I am referring to the testimonies of William Kent (he no longer needs a > wheel chair) and Cheryl Prewitt (her leg bone grew 2 inches). No. It. Didn't. You were lied to. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 On Jun 25, 11:10 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <7Y-dncX-Q9ZSueLbnZ2dnUVZ_r6vn...@comcast.com>, John Popelish > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > > 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. > > > Sorry, but, based on what you have already written, I don't > > believe you. > > > If scientists, someday, put chemicals into an experiment and > > a demonstrably living, reproducing things resulted, I am > > predicting that you would say that now they have to > > replicate the origin of some living thing you are familiar > > with, like a goldfish, or a man, before you could believe > > that those things have a natural, non miraculous, origin. > > > I hope that someday, soon I get to test this prediction. > > No--I would believe it-- if I could see living cells under a microscope. > > The experiment would have to be "repeatable" by any scientist including > science professors that are employed by the ICR college. Ha ha ha ha ha ha! You'd have to find "scientists" at the ICR college with the expertise capable of carrying out such an experiment. You're hilarious, Jason! Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 On Jun 25, 11:03 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > I googled > "miracle healings" and read about dozens of other cases that provided > evidence. Testimony is not evidence, Jason, especially when the people involved are known liars. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 On Jun 25, 11:41 am, John Popelish <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > What research results have ICR > professors ever produced? They appear to be strictly a > propaganda machine, defending creation dogma. Have they > done any experiments that miraculously create life? If "researchers" at ICR could produce life through prayer then I'd be very impressed. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 In article <zJKdnaSxytuApOLbnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <7Y-dncX-Q9ZSueLbnZ2dnUVZ_r6vnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >> > >>> 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. > >> Sorry, but, based on what you have already written, I don't > >> believe you. > >> > >> If scientists, someday, put chemicals into an experiment and > >> a demonstrably living, reproducing things resulted, I am > >> predicting that you would say that now they have to > >> replicate the origin of some living thing you are familiar > >> with, like a goldfish, or a man, before you could believe > >> that those things have a natural, non miraculous, origin. > >> > >> I hope that someday, soon I get to test this prediction. > > > > No--I would believe it-- if I could see living cells under a microscope. > > Nobody says they would be cells. Cells are the result of > the last time natural causes brought forth life, on this > planet. And those cells have been very efficient, ever > since, at consuming energy rich molecules for their > metabolism, making it very unlikely that other, completely > novel forms of life will ever get a chance to form here. > But in the lab, protected from the appetites of existing > living forms, nobody knows what other possibilities might > unfold. Cells have proved to be a very versatile and > functional vehicle for life, but we don't know if other > structures, based on other chemistry can live. But this > while area or abiogenesis research is very interesting to me. > > If we find novel forms of living chemistry on other planets, > it will help to give us a better idea what the possibilities > for living systems might include. Right now, we have > essentially a single family tree to observe, and though some > of our cousins are pretty weird, all have a distinct family > resemblance at the biochemical level. > > > The experiment would have to be "repeatable" by any scientist including > > science professors that are employed by the ICR college. > > It would be some of the first science they have ever done. > I would trust people who have been doing biochemical science > for a long time, a lot more. What research results have ICR > professors ever produced? They appear to be strictly a > propaganda machine, defending creation dogma. Have they > done any experiments that miraculously create life? As I told another poster, I would believe the results of such an experiment if I read about it in National Geographic. ICR does research projects--mainly related to fossils and rock formations at the Grand Canyon. One of their researchers has a doctorate in geology from Penn State. He has led 15 research expeditions to the Grand Canyon. The science professors that work at the ICR college could easily repeat such an experiment. They would write an article and publish it in the ICR newsletter. Jason Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 On Jun 25, 12:29 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182735702.411891.128...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 25, 9:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > 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. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > Correction: you would never believe that life could evolve from non- > > life even though it has been proved to you that it could happen in a > > scientific experiment. You've admitted that no amount of evidence > > would change your mind so don't lie about that now (yet again). > I am not qualified to judge experiments. Then stop pretending you are. > For example, if the scientists > added DNA from a frog to the experiment, I doubt that would qualify. I > would trust the judgements of the science professors that are employed by > ICR's college. If they were able to repeat the experiment, I would believe > that life could evolve from non-life. Also, if I read an article about the > experiment in a magazine such as National Geographic You do realize that there are legitamate scientific journals out there besides National Geographic, don't you? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 On Jun 25, 12:32 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182735889.944828.206...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 25, 9:35 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1182718201.208602.124...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > 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=F8rselstegn - > > > > > Their Bibles are written in Arabic, in which the equivalent to the > > > > English word "God" is "Allah". That would apply to Christian Arabs of > > > > all sects. Furthermore the first Christians did not call their god > > > > "God", since "god" is an English word derived from German. Apparently > > > > you think that only the English language Bibles are valid. I am not > > > > surprised. > > > > No, I do not believe that only Bibles written in English are valid. Even > > > if Allah is the word that is used for God in Bibles written in > > > Arabic--that is not a problem. After reading their Bibles, they will > > > realize that the God mentioned in the Holy Bible is the true God and that > > > the moon god is a false God. > > > Why doesn't Christian sun worship render it a pagam religion in your > > eyes? > > I don't know any Christians that worship the sun. So why do Christians go to church on SUNday? Why don't they go to church on Saturday which is, according to the old testament, the day to worship God, ie the Sabbath? Why do Christians ignore the commandment to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 On Jun 25, 12:31 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182738013.400195.243...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Bob > > T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > > On Jun 24, 6:35 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > Here is some information about the Christians in Iran. > > > <snip article> > > > Iran is an excellent example of what happens when religious nutcases > > are allowed to rule a country. And you, Jason, clearly wish that > > America was more like Iran. > > Yes, it would be wonderful if everyone in the world were Christians. Because ignorance is bliss? No thank you. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 In article <8oKdnUXAwJe6qOLbnZ2dnUVZ_qjinZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > > > No--I would believe it-- if I could see living cells under a > > microscope. > > I've seen living cells under a microscope. I've also done the > Miller/Urey experiment myself and came up with organic matter > that was not there before. > > > The experiment would have to be "repeatable" by any scientist > > including science professors that are employed by the ICR > > college. > > The "professors" at the ICR college are not competent enough to > do the experiment. Most have no real degrees and most are working > out of their field. What are the names of the professors that work at the ICR college? Also, tell us the names of the colleges they graduated from and what sort of degrees they have? As you know, there is difference between organic material and life. I suspect that a high school chemistry teacher could repeat such an experiment. The science professors that teach at the ICR college are more educated than high school chemistry teachers. Jason Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 On Jun 25, 12:51 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <8oKdnUvAwJeWqeLbnZ2dnUVZ_qjin...@sti.net>, "David V." > > <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > > I disagree. Evolution is a theory. > > > As I explained to you before, you do not know the definition of > > the word 'theory,' and you got it wrong even after seeing it in a > > dictionary. > > > > I looked up the word Evolution in my Webster's Dictionary..... > > > And you still don't get it. > > > Is this feigned ignorance on purpose? > > These two words were found on page 6 of the November 2004 issue of > National Geographic: > > EVOLUTIONARY THEORY... http://users.ameritech.net/dennisreynolds1/GravitationalTheory.html If gravity is only a theory then how come we aren't floating off to space? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 On Jun 25, 12:56 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > Why is there a symbol of a crescent moon on top of every Mosque in the world Why is there a symbol of the sun (a halo, named after the Roman sun god Helios) above every picture of every Christian saint? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 On Jun 25, 1:02 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <8ggu73dtnsvkodpcgh2piufuv5hh73e...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:10:00 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-2406072010000...@66-52-22-6.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <7Y-dncX-Q9ZSueLbnZ2dnUVZ_r6vn...@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > ><jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > > > >> > 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. > > > >> Sorry, but, based on what you have already written, I don't > > >> believe you. > > > >> If scientists, someday, put chemicals into an experiment and > > >> a demonstrably living, reproducing things resulted, I am > > >> predicting that you would say that now they have to > > >> replicate the origin of some living thing you are familiar > > >> with, like a goldfish, or a man, before you could believe > > >> that those things have a natural, non miraculous, origin. > > > >> I hope that someday, soon I get to test this prediction. > > > >No--I would believe it-- if I could see living cells under a microscope. > > > >The experiment would have to be "repeatable" by any scientist including > > >science professors that are employed by the ICR college. > > > ICR does not have any scientists, so they would have to hire some. Then > > independent observers would have to make sure that the new scientists > > weren't suborned. After all, the ICR has a good gig telling people lies > > about science. They have you suckered really well. > > > You still haven't told us how much money they have defrauded you of by > > their lies. If you are confused, all of their money is collected by > > fraud, all of it. Whatever you gave them came to them because they lied > > to you. > > That figure would be $0.00. They do have science professors No scientist believes in creationism. Having a Ph.D. does not make one a scientist. Martin Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <zJKdnaSxytuApOLbnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <7Y-dncX-Q9ZSueLbnZ2dnUVZ_r6vnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish >>> <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> Sorry, but, based on what you have already written, I don't >>>> believe you. >>>> >>>> If scientists, someday, put chemicals into an experiment and >>>> a demonstrably living, reproducing things resulted, I am >>>> predicting that you would say that now they have to >>>> replicate the origin of some living thing you are familiar >>>> with, like a goldfish, or a man, before you could believe >>>> that those things have a natural, non miraculous, origin. >>>> >>>> I hope that someday, soon I get to test this prediction. >>> No--I would believe it-- if I could see living cells under a microscope. >> Nobody says they would be cells. Cells are the result of >> the last time natural causes brought forth life, on this >> planet. And those cells have been very efficient, ever >> since, at consuming energy rich molecules for their >> metabolism, making it very unlikely that other, completely >> novel forms of life will ever get a chance to form here. >> But in the lab, protected from the appetites of existing >> living forms, nobody knows what other possibilities might >> unfold. Cells have proved to be a very versatile and >> functional vehicle for life, but we don't know if other >> structures, based on other chemistry can live. But this >> while area or abiogenesis research is very interesting to me. >> >> If we find novel forms of living chemistry on other planets, >> it will help to give us a better idea what the possibilities >> for living systems might include. Right now, we have >> essentially a single family tree to observe, and though some >> of our cousins are pretty weird, all have a distinct family >> resemblance at the biochemical level. >> >>> The experiment would have to be "repeatable" by any scientist including >>> science professors that are employed by the ICR college. >> It would be some of the first science they have ever done. >> I would trust people who have been doing biochemical science >> for a long time, a lot more. What research results have ICR >> professors ever produced? They appear to be strictly a >> propaganda machine, defending creation dogma. Have they >> done any experiments that miraculously create life? > > As I told another poster, I would believe the results of such an > experiment if I read about it in National Geographic. I think that is progress. If it ever happens you will read about it everywhere. High school students will be trying to repeat it to win the science fair prize. It will be about as big a story as the first Moon landing. > ICR does research projects--mainly related to fossils and rock formations > at the Grand Canyon. One of their researchers has a doctorate in geology > from Penn State. He has led 15 research expeditions to the Grand Canyon. Speaking of the Grand canyon, I live in Virginia, and heard about the isotopic analysis of the sand layers that make up the walls of the Grand Canyon. This analysis pretty conclusively demonstrates that a large part of that sand started out as part of the western side of the Blue ridge mountains in Virginia, when they must have been much larger than the Rocky mountains are, now. The rounded bumps remaining are just the cores of those once majestic mountains. With ion probe microscopes, electron microscopes and mass spectrometers and other high tech equipment, a lot of information can be pulled from a single grain of sand. It is amazing, the information that can be extracted from rocks, now, besides fossils. > The science professors that work at the ICR college could easily repeat > such an experiment. They would write an article and publish it in the ICR > newsletter. I hope to see that, someday. 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.