Guest Ralph Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2506071217400001@66-52-22-83.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1182773965.426707.320310@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> On 25 Jun., 03:18, 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. >> >> Why should a person with no understanding of science (self-admitted) >> decide what should be taught in a science class? Why should the US >> give up religious freedom? > > I posted a poll yesterday which indicated that most of the people that > live in Ohio want ID and Evolution to be taught in the public schools. I > believe the people in Ohio should decide what subjects should be taught in > the public schools. Instead, the evolutionists want to prevent the people > in various states from teaching ID. They will even take states to court to > prevent ID from being taught. Evolutionists are afraid that children would > realize that ID makes more sense than evolution. > Jason What 'sense' does ID make, Jason? A particular object appears to complex to have evolved so a designer must have done it. Just how the hell is that science, Jason? Just explain how you can make usable science with ID, instead of your normal running off at the mouth. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2506071208460001@66-52-22-83.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1182770400.015623.172570@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 25, 2:17 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1182747255.256358.183...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >> > Martin >> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > 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. >> > >> > Overwhelming Support in Ohio For Teaching Both Sides of Evolution, >> > Zogby >> > Poll Shows >> >> Which proves what, exactly? Religion is a disease, Jason, and >> education is the cure. >> >> Martin > > Martin, > It proves that more people in Ohio agrees with me than agrees with you. > Some posters appear to believe that only a small number of Christians > agree with me related to this issue. That is not true. > Jason It doesn't make any difference how many other fools there are Jason, ID isn't science. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 In article <hgn083dgbnu6f7r3cme0dga2qu8gkgf8b0@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:02:05 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2506071702050001@66-52-22-98.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <hpk0831bpvg6k5opju35jsrineoqapd09d@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 23:17:54 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> ... > >> > > >> >Overwhelming Support in Ohio For Teaching Both Sides of Evolution, Zogby > >> >Poll Shows > >> > > >> >By: Staff > >> >Discovery Institute > >> >February 13, 2006 > >> > > >> > > >> >By more than a 3-to-1 margin, Ohio residents strongly support public > >> >school teachers presenting both the evidence for evolution, as well as the > >> >evidence challenging the theory, according to a new poll by Zogby > >> >International released today. > >> > > >> > Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2406071958090001@66-52-22-6.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1182735594.401238.200420@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@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). >> >> Martin > > 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. So personal incredulity is now science? I certainly hope we can keep you ignorant god bots out of the science classroom. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 In article <kin0839oo4prn0lnjlh389c9fnc6a0dn4f@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:04:08 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2506071704090001@66-52-22-98.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <1182813173.218982.308140@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jun 26, 3:17 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > In article <1182773965.426707.320...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > >> > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > >> > > On 25 Jun., 03:18, 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. > >> > > >> > > Why should a person with no understanding of science (self-admitted) > >> > > decide what should be taught in a science class? Why should the US > >> > > give up religious freedom? > >> > > >> > I posted a poll yesterday which indicated that most of the people that > >> > live in Ohio want ID and Evolution to be taught in the public schools. I > >> > believe the people in Ohio should decide what subjects should be taught in > >> > the public schools. > >> > >> What if people in Ohio wanted teachers to teach that the Earth was > >> flat? Do you think teachers should go along with it? I'd quit > >> outright. Their loss. > >> > >> Martin > > > >The teachers that don't want to teach the established curriculum in a > >state school should quit. > > > Why do you want lies taught in school, Jason? I don't consider ID to be a lie. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2406071818230001@66-52-22-6.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. Tell me Jason, just how would you propose teaching ID as science? Please be specific in your reply. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:29:59 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2506071730000001@66-52-22-98.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <m5l083tvho8aq1m7bplo13mv79ltbcip0f@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:23:15 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2506071223160001@66-52-22-83.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <ddKfi.6775$Rw1.389@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, >> >bm1@nonespam.com wrote: >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> > 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 Ralph Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2506071106390001@66-52-22-83.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1182769454.887093.152390@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 25, 1:50 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1182748912.441486.322...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, >> > Martin >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > 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 $0.00. They do have science professors >> > >> > > No scientist believes in creationism. Having a Ph.D. does not make >> > > one a scientist. >> > >> > I know that having a Ph.D does not make one a scientist. This is a >> > description related to a book that is advertised in the ICR newsletter: >> > >> > "On the Seventh Day" >> > editor: J.F. Ashton >> > A collection of essays by 40 doctorate-holding scientists who have a >> > firm >> > belief in God >> >> Being a "scientist" and having a "firm belief in God" is a clear >> contradiction in terms. >> >> Martin > > I disagree So what? It is a contradiction. Anytime you state your conclusion before you do your research means you have a contradiction. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 In article <K3Zfi.7097$n9.2456@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-2506071704090001@66-52-22-98.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <1182813173.218982.308140@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jun 26, 3:17 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > In article <1182773965.426707.320...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > >> > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > >> > > On 25 Jun., 03:18, 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. > >> > > >> > > Why should a person with no understanding of science (self-admitted) > >> > > decide what should be taught in a science class? Why should the US > >> > > give up religious freedom? > >> > > >> > I posted a poll yesterday which indicated that most of the people that > >> > live in Ohio want ID and Evolution to be taught in the public schools. > >> > I > >> > believe the people in Ohio should decide what subjects should be taught > >> > in > >> > the public schools. > >> > >> What if people in Ohio wanted teachers to teach that the Earth was > >> flat? Do you think teachers should go along with it? I'd quit > >> outright. Their loss. > >> > >> Martin > > > > The teachers that don't want to teach the established curriculum in a > > state school should quit. > > You side-stepped the issue Jason, do we let the public dictate what science > is correct?? Take you Jason, you are what is known as a scientific > illiterate. Do we let you and people like you, chose the science curriculum? No--but the people that live in Ohio should have a voice in deciding school curriculum. In this case over 60% of those people want both ID and evolution to be taught. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:49:48 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2506071749490001@66-52-22-98.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <r0n083d7l69bkbc3m7p60j3l60hlme9aeh@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:46:36 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2506071046360001@66-52-22-83.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <stqv7396nu5e3jsncsntpea7hi1dvcrb8r@4ax.com>, John Baker >> ><nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 05:28:42 -0700, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >> >> >On 25 Jun., 03:35, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> ... >> >> >> For those people that believe Yahweh and Allah are the same God--please >> >> >> explain why there is a symbol of a crescent moon on top of every Mormon >> >> >> Mosque in the world? >> >> >> >> Sure, Jason. Just as soon as you tell me where I might find a >> >> Mormon mosque. <G> >> > >> >Sorry--I meant Muslim Mosque. >> >> Which Mosque would you be willing to go into and tell the worshippers >> that they do not worship the God of Abraham? What evidence can you >> provide them that you are right and that Mohammed lied to them? > >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 Ralph Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2406072250020001@66-52-22-6.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1182748912.441486.322840@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 > > I know that having a Ph.D does not make one a scientist. This is a > description related to a book that is advertised in the ICR newsletter: > > "On the Seventh Day" > editor: J.F. Ashton > A collection of essays by 40 doctorate-holding scientists who have a firm > belief in God and explain how their knowledge of science backs and > confirms their faith. I doubt that any science backs their religious belief. You aren't that naive, are you Jason? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 In article <1182816781.073818.317870@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 26, 8:04 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1182813173.218982.308...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 26, 3:17 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <1182773965.426707.320...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > On 25 Jun., 03:18, 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. > > > > > > > Why should a person with no understanding of science (self-admitted) > > > > > decide what should be taught in a science class? Why should the US > > > > > give up religious freedom? > > > > > > I posted a poll yesterday which indicated that most of the people that > > > > live in Ohio want ID and Evolution to be taught in the public schools. I > > > > believe the people in Ohio should decide what subjects should be taught in > > > > the public schools. > > > > > What if people in Ohio wanted teachers to teach that the Earth was > > > flat? Do you think teachers should go along with it? I'd quit > > > outright. Their loss. > > > The teachers that don't want to teach the established curriculum in a > > state school should quit. > > Leaving you with no qualified teachers and an ignorant population. > Which explains everything. > > No teacher in good conscience knowingly "teaches" lies. > > Martin You are assumming that most of the qualified teachers would leave. That may or may not be true. They would lose their retirement pay. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2406072218350001@66-52-22-6.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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 But do they know more chemistry? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:49:48 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2506071749490001@66-52-22-98.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <r0n083d7l69bkbc3m7p60j3l60hlme9aeh@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:46:36 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2506071046360001@66-52-22-83.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <stqv7396nu5e3jsncsntpea7hi1dvcrb8r@4ax.com>, John Baker >> ><nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 05:28:42 -0700, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >> >> >On 25 Jun., 03:35, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> ... >> >> >> For those people that believe Yahweh and Allah are the same God--please >> >> >> explain why there is a symbol of a crescent moon on top of every Mormon >> >> >> Mosque in the world? >> >> >> >> Sure, Jason. Just as soon as you tell me where I might find a >> >> Mormon mosque. <G> >> > >> >Sorry--I meant Muslim Mosque. >> >> Which Mosque would you be willing to go into and tell the worshippers >> that they do not worship the God of Abraham? What evidence can you >> provide them that you are right and that Mohammed lied to them? > >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. > That does not show that they worship a moon god. You wouldn't persuade anyone that you know what you are talking about. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2406072252160001@66-52-22-6.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1182748430.220459.112570@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 > > That is true. National Geographic is much easier for me to buy than a > scientific journal. I subscribe to NG and it is an interesting magazine but is far from being authoritative. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 In article <0un083t99o4tjpnumbe9cq80h2m2lebah7@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:45:16 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2506071245160001@66-52-22-83.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <1182798953.920546.232660@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Bob > >T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jun 25, 11:04 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > In article <1182770555.111873.24...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > > On Jun 25, 2:31 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > > > In article <1182751329.065068.288...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Bob > >> > > > T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > >> > > > > On Jun 24, 9:31 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. > >> > > >> > > > > > > - Bob T. > >> > > >> > > > > > Yes, it would be wonderful if everyone in the world were Christians. > >> > > >> > > > > Yes, then the world would be just like Iran - run by superstitious > >> > > > > fools who allow no dissent. How would you like to live under Muslim > >> > > > > religious law, Jason? Well, that's what the world you envision would > >> > > > > be like - we would all have to worry about the Inquisition knocking on > >> > > > > our door at any moment to check on our sex lives. > >> > > >> > > > > I much prefer to live in America, which is still a land of freedom, > >> > > > > including freedom from religion. > >> > > >> > > > > - Bob T. > >> > > >> > > > I also like living in America. The end goal of the Muslims are to take > >> > > > over the world--one country at a time. > >> > > >> > > Oddly enough I don't see that many Muslim missionaries today. How > >> > > many countries have muslims invaded over the past ten years? None. > >> > > How many muslim countries has the US invaded over the past ten years? > >> > > Two. > >> > > >> > > If at all possible, try to make statements actually supported by > >> > > facts, Jason. > >> > > >> > > Martin > >> > > >> > Good point--our troops will eventually leave Iraq and Afghanistan. If the > >> > leaders of either of those countries asked Bush to remove our troops from > >> > their countries--Bush would do it. > >> > >> <snicker> No, he wouldn't. > >> > > >> > The Muslims from the middle east are in the process of taking over the > >> > Sudan. At present, they are committing genocide against the people in > >> > Darfur. Various experts are concerned that once they have total control > >> > over the Sudan--they will use the Sudan as a staging area to take over the > >> > surrounding African countries. You may want to google "genocide in Darfur" > >> > if you don't believe me. > >> > >> You have vastly over-simplified the situation in Darfur. Are you > >> aware that one of the causes of problems in Darfur is Global Warming? > >> It's true - you may want to google "darfur global warming" if you > >> don't believe me. > >> > >> - Bob T. > >> > Jason- Hide quoted text - > >> > > >> > - Show quoted text - > > > >Global warming is a problem in many countries. The major reason that > >thousands of people that once lived in Darfur are now dead is not because > >of global warming. It's because those people were MURDERED by Muslims from > >the middle east. Google "genocide in Darfur". > >jason > > > Those murder victims in Darfur were Moslem. Yes--that is true--they were black Muslims that were killed by Muslims from the Middle east. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2406072130180001@66-52-22-6.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <8g6u731o90673ank4uvv85k002ga1b5uom@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> 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" > > The Bible does not indicate how God came to be. You are so demanding in your assault on the big bang, yet you don't know how your god came into being. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:01:43 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2506071801440001@66-52-22-98.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <kin0839oo4prn0lnjlh389c9fnc6a0dn4f@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:04:08 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2506071704090001@66-52-22-98.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <1182813173.218982.308140@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Jun 26, 3:17 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > In article <1182773965.426707.320...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, >> >> > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> > > On 25 Jun., 03:18, 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. >> >> > >> >> > > Why should a person with no understanding of science (self-admitted) >> >> > > decide what should be taught in a science class? Why should the US >> >> > > give up religious freedom? >> >> > >> >> > I posted a poll yesterday which indicated that most of the people that >> >> > live in Ohio want ID and Evolution to be taught in the public schools. I >> >> > believe the people in Ohio should decide what subjects should be >taught in >> >> > the public schools. >> >> >> >> What if people in Ohio wanted teachers to teach that the Earth was >> >> flat? Do you think teachers should go along with it? I'd quit >> >> outright. Their loss. >> >> >> >> Martin >> > >> >The teachers that don't want to teach the established curriculum in a >> >state school should quit. >> > >> Why do you want lies taught in school, Jason? > >I don't consider ID to be a lie. > ID is a lie. Your opinion doesn't change that. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2506071122270001@66-52-22-83.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1182772972.682583.273350@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> On 25 Jun., 00:13, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:32:09 GMT, in alt.atheism >> > cactus <b...@nonespam.com> wrote in >> > <dxAfi.41706$5j1.32...@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 >> > >>>> Pope= >> lish >> > >>>> <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: >> > >>>>> Jason wrote: >> > >>>>>> I consider Christianity to be a true religion and conder Jehovah >> > >>>>>> t= >> o 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.- Skjul tekst i >> > anf=F8rsel= >> stegn - >> > >> > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >> >> He has a "through the looking glass" concept of such things as truth >> and evidence. When people are behaving rationally their judgements of >> what is true are influenced by evidence. Jason is the first person I >> have encountered who actually openly states that he does it in >> reverse, that he judges evidence based on what he already believes. > > It appears that I am not the only one. When I posted evidence indicating > that Cheryl Prewitt and William Kent were healed by God, people rejected > that evidence. I was told by at least one poster that he would not google > the term "miracle healings" because he already knew that anyone that > claimed to have been healed is lying. I posted information indicating that > Dr. Dino Delaportas, MD verified that William Kent was healed by God. > Various people in this newsgroup even rejected that evidence. In other > words, members of this newsgroup judge evidence based upon what they > already believe. I realize that people will disagree with me but that does > not mean I am incorrect. > Jason It means you are incorrect because you offer no evidence to support your wild assertions. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:00:42 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2506071800420001@66-52-22-98.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <hgn083dgbnu6f7r3cme0dga2qu8gkgf8b0@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: .... >> There is no science to teach about ID. The only thing we can conclude is >> that science education has already been hobbled badly by anti-science >> religious liars like you. > >Dictators in communist countries control school curriculum. In America, >evolutionists control the science curriculum in schools. The opinions of >the people that live in Ohio are of no concern to evolutionists. > What a vile, immoral comparison you are making. You really do mock the God you claim to believe in. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 In article <yAZfi.7126$n9.6168@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-2406071818230001@66-52-22-6.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > 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. > > Tell me Jason, just how would you propose teaching ID as science? Please be > specific in your reply. Teachers and students would use the textbook "Of Pandas and People" which has no Biblical content. Teachers would use the curriculum guide that written by the proponents of ID. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:12:52 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2506071812530001@66-52-22-98.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <yAZfi.7126$n9.6168@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-2406071818230001@66-52-22-6.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > 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. >> >> Tell me Jason, just how would you propose teaching ID as science? Please be >> specific in your reply. > >Teachers and students would use the textbook "Of Pandas and People" which >has no Biblical content. And no scientific content that supports ID/Creationism. >Teachers would use the curriculum guide that >written by the proponents of ID. The authors of Pandas already were found to have been lying about their textbook. You really need to read the opinion of Judge Jones, a Christian who is conservative, to see how disgusting the behavior of the ID folks was. Don't make excuses for them. Read the opinion and the trial transcript and see what kind of lies you are defending. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 In article <a1p083h1qaslcq9rp95l6mv8e14ncncdsh@4ax.com>, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:58:00 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >In article <gepu735pcn22ngbruvva0am1jer9g880kl@4ax.com>, John Baker > ><nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 21:51:30 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > >> >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... > >> > >> Yes? Were you going somewhere with this? > >> > >> 'Evolution' is the term used to describe an observed and documented > >> biological process. In short, a fact . 'Evolutionary theory ' is the > >> term applied to the sets of proposals that explain (or attempt to > >> explain) the mechanisms that drive the process. Theories are not and > >> never will be facts. Rather, they are explanations of facts. If > >> there were no observed, documented fact of evolution, there'd be no > >> need for theories explaining it. > >> > >> The fact of evolution is indisputable, the claims of creationist > >> propaganda mills like ICR and Discovery Institute not withstanding. > >> Some aspects of the explanation (i.e. the theory) may indeed be open > >> to question, but you are not qualified to do so. Not by a very, VERY > >> long shot. > > > >Evolution is a theory and is not a fact. As you stated in your > >post--theories are not and never will be facts. > > > >I copied the following information from page 8 of the Nov 2004 issue of > >National Geographic magazine: > > > >Evolution is a theory. > > > >page 6--the term "evolutionary theory" is used. > > > >I looked up Evolution in Webster's Dictionary and it states that evolution > >is a theory. > > > You didn't understand a fucking word I said, did you? > > > > > What you stated conflicted with information I read in other sources. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 In article <xuZfi.7116$n9.247@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-2506071158000001@66-52-22-83.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <gepu735pcn22ngbruvva0am1jer9g880kl@4ax.com>, John Baker > > <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 21:51:30 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > >> >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... > >> > >> Yes? Were you going somewhere with this? > >> > >> 'Evolution' is the term used to describe an observed and documented > >> biological process. In short, a fact . 'Evolutionary theory ' is the > >> term applied to the sets of proposals that explain (or attempt to > >> explain) the mechanisms that drive the process. Theories are not and > >> never will be facts. Rather, they are explanations of facts. If > >> there were no observed, documented fact of evolution, there'd be no > >> need for theories explaining it. > >> > >> The fact of evolution is indisputable, the claims of creationist > >> propaganda mills like ICR and Discovery Institute not withstanding. > >> Some aspects of the explanation (i.e. the theory) may indeed be open > >> to question, but you are not qualified to do so. Not by a very, VERY > >> long shot. > > > > Evolution is a theory and is not a fact. As you stated in your > > post--theories are not and never will be facts. > > > > I copied the following information from page 8 of the Nov 2004 issue of > > National Geographic magazine: > > > > Evolution is a theory. > > > > page 6--the term "evolutionary theory" is used. > > > > I looked up Evolution in Webster's Dictionary and it states that evolution > > is a theory. > > Evolution is both a fact and a theory. You also need to be very careful when > using an ordinary dictionary to attempt to define scientific terms, you end > up with egg on your face if you don't. I also re-read the article in National Geographic and underlined every mention of the term "evolution". Evolution was NEVER referred to as a fact. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:18:09 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2506071818090001@66-52-22-98.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <a1p083h1qaslcq9rp95l6mv8e14ncncdsh@4ax.com>, John Baker ><nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: > >> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:58:00 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >In article <gepu735pcn22ngbruvva0am1jer9g880kl@4ax.com>, John Baker >> ><nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: >> > >> >> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 21:51:30 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> >> >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... >> >> >> >> Yes? Were you going somewhere with this? >> >> >> >> 'Evolution' is the term used to describe an observed and documented >> >> biological process. In short, a fact . 'Evolutionary theory ' is the >> >> term applied to the sets of proposals that explain (or attempt to >> >> explain) the mechanisms that drive the process. Theories are not and >> >> never will be facts. Rather, they are explanations of facts. If >> >> there were no observed, documented fact of evolution, there'd be no >> >> need for theories explaining it. >> >> >> >> The fact of evolution is indisputable, the claims of creationist >> >> propaganda mills like ICR and Discovery Institute not withstanding. >> >> Some aspects of the explanation (i.e. the theory) may indeed be open >> >> to question, but you are not qualified to do so. Not by a very, VERY >> >> long shot. >> > >> >Evolution is a theory and is not a fact. As you stated in your >> >post--theories are not and never will be facts. >> > >> >I copied the following information from page 8 of the Nov 2004 issue of >> >National Geographic magazine: >> > >> >Evolution is a theory. >> > >> >page 6--the term "evolutionary theory" is used. >> > >> >I looked up Evolution in Webster's Dictionary and it states that evolution >> >is a theory. >> >> >> You didn't understand a fucking word I said, did you? >> >> >> >> > > >What you stated conflicted with information I read in other sources. > You use sources that are known to be written by liars. Provide a scientific source, not a religiously-motivated lie. 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.