Guest Jason Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 In article <mip083tkkqhcp757tku7i60mga5nmhp6tr@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > 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. Why is there the symbol of a crescent moon on top of every mosque? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 In article <2mq083t63faq6ei97kerop0lh5i7st341d@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > 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. National Geographic--article: "Was Darwin Wrong?" Nov/2008 page 8--"Evolution is...a theory you can take to the bank." Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:27:34 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2506071827340001@66-52-22-98.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <mip083tkkqhcp757tku7i60mga5nmhp6tr@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> 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. > >Why is there the symbol of a crescent moon on top of every mosque? > Why not? What does that have to do with the fact that they worship the God of Abraham? Christians use a cross. Does that mean that God is dead? Quote
Guest 655321 Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 In article <Jason-2406071818230001@66-52-22-6.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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. Exactly where ID doesn't belong. > Of course, evolution should also be taught in those same classes. How generous. So science should be taught in a science class, along with the theology, in your view. -- 655321 "We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:20:36 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2506071820370001@66-52-22-98.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >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. > You are ignorant. You are proud of your ignorance. You have decided not to learn anything. You still haven't read the Parable of the Talents. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 05:10:08 -0700, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: - Refer: <1182773408.254076.36720@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com> >On 25 Jun., 02:40, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 11:00:44 -0500, Don Kresch<ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> >> - Refer: <685t73hjisbvetblapmujbrq9p9j6tc...@4ax.com> >> >> >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. >> >> And a male born via parthenogenesis walked on H2O! >> >> -- > >Is that a new cable station? Tightrope walking? -- Quote
Guest David V. Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 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. We know that. The word 'theory' is found in lots of places, as is 'evolution'. Now, back the the real question..... do you know what either of those words mean? -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:35:26 -0400, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: - Refer: <5ea5kqF37urqdU1@mid.individual.net> > >"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >news: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. > >Which sect? The Jasonites. -- Quote
Guest 655321 Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 In article <Jason-2506071812530001@66-52-22-98.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Teachers and students would use the textbook "Of Pandas and People" which > has no Biblical content. ....but plenty of fakery disguised as science. -- 655321 "We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi Quote
Guest David V. Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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?.... You tell us. You are so enamored with them you must know their complete academic history. > As you know, there is difference between organic material and > life. Where did I say there was no difference. Is this another of your many attempts at derailing? > I suspect that a high school chemistry teacher could repeat > such an experiment. They can, and do. > The science professors that teach at the ICR college are more > educated than high school chemistry teachers. Not if they "believe" in creationism. -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest 655321 Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 In article <Jason-2506071217400001@66-52-22-83.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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 Scientific truth is not a popularity contest. The masses, on average, are not too bright. Do you want that kind of mediocre thinking foisted on our young? Of course you do. And that's called thought control. -- 655321 "We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:34:23 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2506071834240001@66-52-22-98.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <2mq083t63faq6ei97kerop0lh5i7st341d@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> 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. > >National Geographic--article: "Was Darwin Wrong?" Nov/2008 > >page 8--"Evolution is...a theory you can take to the bank." > Yes, it is, it is also what happens to life over time. Stop being so obtuse. You make God look bad. Quote
Guest David V. Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 Jason wrote: > Gallup Poll: Two Thirds of Americans Believe God Created Them That's pretty sad, isn't it. In this supposedly advanced society so many people still believe in a myth. It is really embarrassing for our country. In no other advanced society, and many that aren't so advanced, is there so much scientific ignorance as there is here. 'Tis a very sad comment on our society. -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 On Jun 26, 8:29 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <m5l083tvho8aq1m7bplo13mv79ltbci...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > So, aside from you huge ego, why do you claim that humans are special. > > The physical evidence shows otherwise. > > Because the Bible states that humans are special. So, aside from your huge ego, what possible reason do you have for believing anything in the Bible? You were asked before to find something -anything- in the Bible which is objectively true and you never answered (as usual). Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 On Jun 26, 8:38 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > So--he was a respected scientist while he was writing a respected textbook > on chemical evolution but stopped being a scientist on the day that he > decided that > "We have not the slightest chance of a chemical evolutionary > origin for even the simplest of cells, so the concept of the intelligent > design of life was immensely attractive to me and made a great deal of > sense." > > Do you really believe that Dan Kenyon was a scientist on one day and was > no longer a scientist on the following day? That makes no sense. You're right: he never was a scientist. No scientist could believe such nonsense. There's a difference between doing science and being a scientist: you've already admitted to this. Further, you probably did science experiments in your high school science class. Did that make you a scientist? Obviously not. No self-respecting scientist believes in your supernatural mumbo jumbo, Jason. Only idiots believe that nonsense. Period. Do you want to turn America into a nation of idiots? Apparently you do. It must be stopped at all cost so that the truth reigns supreme. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 > On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:46:52 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2506071646530...@66-52-22-98.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >There is a BIG difference. If people refuse to become Muslims, the Muslims > >chop off thier heads. If people refuse to become Christians, we don't harm > >them in any way. The harm comes from a person actually believing your lies. There is very little difference between believing in a religion and having your head chopped off: in both cases you stop thinking and eventually die. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 On Jun 26, 8:49 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Hubal and Allah the Moon God? Helios and Jesus the Sun God? http://jesus8880.com/chapters/gematria/helios-greek-mythology.htm <snip> The early Christian Church eagerly promoted Jesus-Helios-Sol sun symbolism to appease the Roman emperor Constantine who was the high priest of Sol Invictus all through his reign. The sun symbolism continues to the present day on robes, banners, icons, behind the cross in a ray of light, flames coming from the heart of Jesus, etc. Priests even bow and kiss a monstrance which is a gold statue of the sun on a pedestal during processions. Martin Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. Not at all surprising. The theory of evolution is a story, and explanation. This magazine was telling a part of that story. But there are many millions of evolution facts, indisputable bits of evidence that one species descended from an earlier species. That generics in every living thing contains the record of earlier, ancestral species. That quantum leaps in diversity have taken place after strange and unusual processes, not always point mutations. Here is an example of an evolution theory story containing lots of evolution facts. The mitochondria in each of your cells look very much like some primitive simple single celled organisms that still live solitary lives, today. Some early cells made a big jump in their metabolism capability by eating something very like a mitochondria and instead of digesting it, kept it as a captive, internal pet, or partner. The outer cell provides the mitochondria with basic nutrients, and the mitochondria share the high energy ATP molecules they produce, with their host. Another evolutionary fact is that each of these mitochondria is not only surrounded by its original lipid bilayer, that served as its cell wall, when it lived outside, but is also surrounded by the inside-out bubble of the cell wall that dimpled inward, to engulf it and bring it inside to eat it... but didn't. The mitochondria do not divide in perfect unison with the outer cell, but do so at their own (though regulated by the outer cell) rate. When the container cell divides, about half of the contained mitochondria go with each daughter cell. Nobody knows how many trillions of mitochondria like cells were digested before a pair came together that were each "defective" in just the right way to allow for this very functional partnership to be possible. Though the article may not have referred to any of the facts it fit into the evolutionary story made possible by evolutionary theory, as facts of evolution, all of the facts mentioned are, in reality, evolutionary facts. The theory of evolution is the concept that makes that collection of facts fit together into a coherent and non contradictory story. So to sum up, there are countless evolutionary facts... simple observations that appear to show details about life changing over time, and there is evolution theory, that is an explanatory framework that fits all those facts together into an understandable process. Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 On Jun 26, 8:53 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <3pl083134ng61n3ep4jt0u9ii9e2e7p...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:01:26 -0000, in alt.talk.creationism > > Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote in > > <1182769286.811353.191...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>: > > >On Jun 25, 1:43 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> In article <1182748554.698371.315...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > >> <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> > 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? > > > >> Some Christians (Seventh Day Adventist) do go to church on Saturday. Most > > >> Christians go to church on Sunday since it is the Lord's Day--the day that > > >> Jesus rose from the dead. > > > >Read your Bible, Jason: Jesus was supposedly buried on a Friday (the > > >day before the Jewish Sabbath) and it is said that he rose again after > > >THREE DAYS. Three days after Friday is Monday, not Sunday, Jason. No > > >wonder you only barely passed Math 101. > > > There is a Gospel claim that Jesus said He would do it in three days, > > but the story-line that we find in the Gospels in the passion narrative > > is pretty clear that it took 39 hours from death to resurrection (3 pm > > on Friday to 6 am on Sunday). The writers of the Creed were cognizant of > > this possible problem and stated "on the third day" which is perfectly > > consistent with the narrative. > > > I think Jason rejects the creeds, so that doesn't help him. > > I recall learning that Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday. I don't know > much about how they measured time in those days. You recall being lied to and you don't know much about any actual facts. Martin Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 Jason wrote: > Why is there the symbol of a crescent moon on top of every mosque? That would be a good question for you to research with Google or Wikipedia, and show us what you find. Traditions are often fascinating. Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 On Jun 26, 8:57 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182816528.662652.63...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 26, 7:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1182812886.632371.303...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 26, 2:46 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > In article <1182769286.811353.191...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 25, 1:43 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > In article > > > > <1182748554.698371.315...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > Some Christians (Seventh Day Adventist) do go to church on > > > Saturday. Most > > > > > > > Christians go to church on Sunday since it is the Lord's Day--the > > > day that > > > > > > > Jesus rose from the dead. > > > > > > > Read your Bible, Jason: Jesus was supposedly buried on a Friday (the > > > > > > day before the Jewish Sabbath) and it is said that he rose again after > > > > > > THREE DAYS. Three days after Friday is Monday, not Sunday, Jason. No > > > > > > wonder you only barely passed Math 101. > > > > > > I copied the following information from a book entitled, "The Bible Has > > > > > the Answer" by Dr. Henry M. Morris > > > > > > "The worship on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor 16:2) > > > > > follows the practice of the early Christians, who evidently began it in > > > > > commemoration of Christ's resurrection on that day (Luke 24:1, John 20: > > > > > 19, 26). That day is highly apropriate, since the completion of > His great > > > > > work of redemption was demonstred on that day...." > > > > > Thank you for proving that Henry Morris ia a liar whom you are willing > > > > to believe ahead of your own Bible. > > > > He mentioned scriptures from the Bible to support his statements. > > > Which doesn't change the fact that the Bible disagrees with him. > > First look at Mark: > > > Mark 8:31: "And He [Jesus] began to teach them that the Son of Man > > must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief > > priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again." > > > Mark 9:31: "For He taught His disciples and said to them, `The Son of > > Man is being delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill Him. > > And after He is killed, He will rise the third day.' " > > > So if Jesus was buried on "Good" Friday then there is no way he could > > have risen on Sunday. And it was supposedly Friday, the day before > > the Sabbath according to John and Luke: > > > John 19:31. "Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day, that the > > bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath [for that Sabbath > > was a high day). > > > Luke 23:56. The women ".. prepared spices and fragrant oils. And they > > rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment " > > > Some have argued that a "day" meant 12 hours but Matthew makes it > > clear that "three days" includes "three nights": > > > Matthew 12:40, "three days and three nights in the heart of the > > earth." > > > Why are so you ignorant of what your Bible says, the book which you > > claim to believe in? > I recall learning that Easter Sunday was derived from the tradition that > Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday. Well now you know you were lied to. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 On Jun 26, 9:00 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <hgn083dgbnu6f7r3cme0dga2qu8gkgf...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@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. As do dictators in theist countries, which is precisely why your constitution guarantees the separation of church and state, namely to protect individual freedoms and preserve the truth. > In America, > evolutionists control the science curriculum in schools. Why shouldn't scientists control science education? > The opinions of > the people that live in Ohio are of no concern to evolutionists. Because the opinions of 68% of the population of Ohio do not change scientific facts. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 On Jun 26, 9:04 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <K3Zfi.7097$n9.2...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-2506071704090001@66-52-22-98.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > 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. > > > 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. Only science is to be taught in science class, Jason and ID is not science. You admitted that even a child would realise that it wasn't science. Martin Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 John Popelish wrote: > Jason wrote: > >> 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. > > Not at all surprising. The theory of evolution is a story, and > explanation. This magazine was telling a part of that story. But there > are many millions of evolution facts, indisputable bits of evidence that > one species descended from an earlier species. That generics in every > living thing (snip) Genetics, not generics. Sorry. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 On Jun 26, 9:05 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182816781.073818.317...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@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. > > You are assumming that most of the qualified teachers would leave. That > may or may not be true. They would lose their retirement pay. To hell with retirement pay. I'd devote my time to a lawsuit against those who forced me to quit because they wanted me to lie to students. And I'd win. And there'd be thousands of teachers who would do likewise. They can't force teachers to lie to their students. It would be a violation of their constitution rights. Martin 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.