Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Jun 28, 8:29 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <4dp583lqrr9fhgchqv0633889v7s6mt...@4ax.com>, Michael Gray > > <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 07:41:07 -0000, Martin <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> > > wrote: > > - Refer: <1182930067.182358.221...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com> > > >On Jun 27, 2:25 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> It's obvious to me that the evolutionists are afraid that the > > >> children will realize that ID makes more sense > > > >You don't seriously believe that, Jason. If you were then you would > > >be calling every qualified scientist alive today a liar. > > > He has done that very thing on several occasions. > Yes, I believe that evolutionists are afraid that the children will > realize that ID makes more sense than evolution. Otherwise, they would not > millions of dollars keeping ID from being taught in the public school > system. So much for Bob T.'s theory that you are not a liar. "Evolutionists" want evolution taught because it is a theory that is actually based on facts supported by evidence, as you have admitted already yourself. On Jun 27, 2:34 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > We are in agreement--evolution is a theory. Yes, the theory explains the > facts that are backed up with evidence. ID is not a theory because it is not supported by any facts nor evidence. There is, therefore, nothing to be taught on the subject. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Jun 28, 8:37 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > I explained why I use the term 'evolutionist' in another post. Summary > version: I found the term on page 8 of the Nov/2004 issue of National > Geographic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism "Scientists object to the terms evolutionism and evolutionist because the -ism and -ist suffixes accentuate belief rather than scientific study. Conversely, creationists use those same two terms partly because the terms accentuate belief, and partly perhaps because they provide a way to package their opposition into one group, seemingly atheist and materialist, designations which are irrelevant to science." To use the term "evolutionist" makes as much sense as calling scientists who believe in gravity "gravitationists" as if gravity were something that one had to believe in. Learn. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Jun 28, 8:44 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <jjk5835ml389gjcsnj4kbkiisposlq1...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > In alt.atheism On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:52:48 -0700, J...@nospam.com > > (Jason) let us all know that: > > > >In article <BUzgi.2268$K9....@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > ><mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > >>news:Jason-2706071037190001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > >> > In article <f5tl6k$53...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > >> > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> >> Jason wrote: > > >> >> > In article <1182914771.873163.36...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > >> >> > Martin > > >> >> > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> >> >> On Jun 27, 2:54 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > >> >> >>> Why is there a symbol of a crescent moon on top of every Muslim > > >> >> >>> mosque in > > >> >> >>> the world? > > >> >> >> Why does a halo appear on the head of every saint in pictures? Why > > >> >> >> does sun symbolism continue to the present day on robes, banners, > > >> >> >> icons, behind the cross in a ray of light, flames coming from the > > >> >> >> heart of Jesus, etc.? Who do priests bow and kiss a monstrance which > > >> >> >> is a gold statue of the sun on a pedestal during processions? Why do > > >> >> >> Christians go to church on Sunday when the old testament claimed that > > >> >> >> Jesus would rise after three days, ie three days after Friday and > > >> >> >> therefore on Monday? > > > >> >> >> Answer the damn questions, Jason. > > > >> >> >> Martin > > > >> >> > I am not a Catholic so as a result have never done any research > > >> >> > regarding > > >> >> > Catholics. I don't why artists painted halos on the heads of saints. > > >> >> > Perhaps it was part of the culture or a rule established by a > Pope. You > > >> >> > may want to visit the art department and ask that question to the > > >> >> > professor that teaches courses related to the history of art. I > suggest > > >> >> > that you visit Wikipedia and type "Easter Sunday". It clearly states > > >> >> > that > > >> >> > Christ rose from the dead on Sunday. > > > >> >> And yet your bible clearly says he would rise after THREE days. > > > >> >> Where's the 3rd day, Jason? Do you now believe wikipedia over your own > > >> >> bible? > > > >> > The deciples worshipped on Sunday. They knew more about the time aspects > > >> > than we know today since they were witnesses. > > >> > Jason > > > >> What time aspects Jason? Three days and three nights is the same > today as it > > >> was two thousand years ago. > > > >Our days end at 12 midnight. Are you 100% sure that was the way is was in > > >the first century? > > > Sundown-sundown. > > > That still doesn't make three days and three nights. > Does the Bible state that Jesus was in the tomb 72 hours or three days? > If Jesus was placed in the tomb prior to sundown on Friday that would be day 1 > Saturday would be day 2 and Sunday-after sun-up would be day 3. That would > not be 72 hours but as far as the deciples were concerned--it would count > as the third day. but not "three days and three nights" as stated in Matthew. IF Jesus was entombed late Friday afternoon then you can't say that he had spent Friday in the tomb. Nor could you say that Jesus spent Sunday in the tomb IF he rose at sunset on Sunday. Your attempt to wiggle out of this proves your intellectual dishonesty. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Jun 28, 8:55 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <mrDgi.17313$19.3...@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-2706071727150001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <7rAgi.2306$K9....@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > >>news:Jason-2706071403510001@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > >> > In article <NVzgi.2269$K9.1...@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > >> > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:Jason-2706071042260001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > >> >> > In article <k3m4839mgss0cijljuel3pm2nk3jonl...@4ax.com>, Matt > > >> >> > Silberstein > > >> >> > <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > >> >> >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:16:11 -0700, in alt.atheism , > > >> >> >> J...@nospam.com > > >> >> >> (Jason) in > > >> >> >> <Jason-2606072216110...@66-52-22-64.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> > > >> >> >> wrote: > > > >> >> >> >In article <fqp3839gge41v4q43tmsag4qdme6g95...@4ax.com>, Matt > > >> >> >> >Silberstein > > >> >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > >> >> >> >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:12:36 -0700, in alt.atheism , > > >> >> >> >> J...@nospam.com > > >> >> >> >> (Jason) in > > >> >> >> >> <Jason-2606072112370...@66-52-22-64.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> > > >> >> >> >> wrote: > > > >> >> >> >> >In article <vfk383lau8cr3oq9f2kglqucrlkn8mg...@4ax.com>, Matt > > >> >> >> >> >Silberstein > > >> >> >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:49:32 -0700, in alt.atheism , > > >> >> >> >> >> J...@nospam.com > > >> >> >> >> >> (Jason) in > > >> >> >> >> >> <Jason-2606071749330...@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> > > >> >> >> >> >> wrote: > > > >> >> >> >> >> [snip] > > > >> >> >> >> >> >The poll indicated that over 60% of the people that live in > > >> >> >> >> >> >Ohio > > >> >> >> >> >> >wanted > > >> >> >> >> >> >both ID and evolution be taught in the public schools. > > > >> >> >> >> >> What if 60% wanted separate schools for blacks and whites? > > > >> >> >> >> >It would be illegal for a school board to do that. > > > >> >> >> >> And it was illegal for the school board to put ID into the > > >> >> >> >> curriculum. > > > >> >> >> >> I suggest you go and look up the history of complaint about > > >> >> >> >> legislation from the bench. They started in the '50s pretty much > > >> >> >> >> with > > >> >> >> >> Brown v Topeka Board of Education. When people complained about > > >> >> >> >> the > > >> >> >> >> Court making law what they specifically meant was when the Court > > >> >> >> >> ruled > > >> >> >> >> that separate but "equal" schools were illegal. > > > >> >> >> >Yes, we studied that case while I was in college. I understand > > >> >> >> >your > > >> >> >> >point. > > >> >> >> >The ID people should have done a better job in making sure they > > >> >> >> >had > > >> >> >> >no > > >> >> >> >religion mixed in--they failed. Perhaps they will do a better job > > >> >> >> >the > > >> >> >> >next > > >> >> >> >time. > > > >> >> >> How? I mean that. ID is religion, you admit over and over that your > > >> >> >> motives and goals are religious in nature and that your source > > >> >> >> material is religious. ID is religion and any attempt by its > > >> >> >> supporters to say otherwise is just lying. Do you support lying to > > >> >> >> promote Christianity? > > > >> >> > Matt, > > >> >> > Yes, you are correct. However, the people in the ID movement could > > >> >> > arrange > > >> >> > to do it in such a way that no court could find any evidence of > > >> >> > religion. > > >> >> > They tried to do it in the Dover case but they failed. Perhaps they > > >> >> > will > > >> >> > never succeed. > > >> >> > Jason > > > >> >> They will never succeed because ID contains no science. Religion > > >> >> abounds > > >> >> in > > >> >> ID and creation science for one important reason, it is there! > > > >> > I agree that religion abounds in ID and creation science. However, if > > >> > God, > > >> > Jesus and scriptures are NEVER mentioned in the text book or curriculum > > >> > guide--it seems to me that a judge could not call it religion. For > > >> > example, some people believe that astronauts from some other planet > > >> > came > > >> > to this planet millions of years ago and left behind dozens of people; > > >> > some plants and some animals. Is that idea based on religion? The > > >> > answer > > >> > is no. In the last court case, the IDers did a terrible job since > > >> > lawyers > > >> > representing evolutionists found all sorts of evidence indicating that > > >> > religion was involved. > > >> > Jason > > > >> You don't have to specifically name your religious figure in order to > > >> find > > >> that religion is involved. When the descriptions fit the bible then it > > >> will > > >> be assumed that it is the bible. > > > > Judges are to suppose to base their rulings on evidence--not assumptions. > > > They do, Jason, the evidence points to religion. > > It did in the Dover case. My point was that the IDers will have to make > sure there is NO evidence related to religion in the next court case. Then the case is a non-starter because ID is about religion and not science. Martin Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 Martin Phipps wrote: > On Jun 28, 8:37 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> I explained why I use the term 'evolutionist' in another post. Summary >> version: I found the term on page 8 of the Nov/2004 issue of National >> Geographic. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism > > "Scientists object to the terms evolutionism and evolutionist because > the -ism and -ist suffixes accentuate belief rather than scientific > study. Conversely, creationists use those same two terms partly > because the terms accentuate belief, and partly perhaps because they > provide a way to package their opposition into one group, seemingly > atheist and materialist, designations which are irrelevant to > science." > > To use the term "evolutionist" makes as much sense as calling > scientists who believe in gravity "gravitationists" as if gravity were > something that one had to believe in. Or studies. I can't get too offended by someone calling a scientist who studies evolution, an evolutionist. Not when other scientists are called chemists, physicists, cosmologists and biologists. It is when non scientists, ordinary people who have incorporated the evolutionary process into their general understanding of reality, are called evolutionists, that "faithful, religious followers of evolutionary mysteries" is being implied. And then, yes, it is a slur, because it implies blind faith and acceptance without reason. Still, I can see why a concept like blind acceptance and unreasoned following makes so much sense to the religious. So I doubt we will talk many of them out of this mis usage. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Jun 28, 9:05 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <dtv58312phiktfiqtpv32v17teslrgg...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > And no Christian has to believe the lies you teach about life on earth > > to be a Christian. The _vast_ majority of Christians in this country > > have no problem with the evidence that shows that evolution happened. It > > takes heretics like you to tell lies about this. > > Not according to polls. They took a poll in Ohio and the result was that > 68% wanted both evolution and ID to be taught. Do you honestly think that this reflects a belief on their part that evolution didn't happen or even that evolution and ID should be taught as competing theories? It is not only a lie to say that ID is true, it is a lie to say that it is a viable theory competing with evolution. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Jun 28, 9:08 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <Gr2dnTUtqYqunh7bnZ2dnUVZ_gWdn...@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > (snip) > > > Yes, a creationist school board and evolutionist both have agendas. > > > I agree. How about taking a stab at summarizing what you > > thing each of those agendas is about. > > One group wants to teach ID and evolution to the children. > One group wants to teach only evolution to the the children. One group wants to lie to children whereas the "evolutionists" only want to teach the truth. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Jun 28, 8:59 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <0m06839l4gvfhtku198i6q55ed2odt2...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:42:25 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-2706071042260...@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <k3m4839mgss0cijljuel3pm2nk3jonl...@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein > > ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:16:11 -0700, in alt.atheism , J...@nospam.com > > >> (Jason) in > > >> <Jason-2606072216110...@66-52-22-64.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: > > > >> >In article <fqp3839gge41v4q43tmsag4qdme6g95...@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein > > >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > >> >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:12:36 -0700, in alt.atheism , J...@nospam.com > > >> >> (Jason) in > > >> >> <Jason-2606072112370...@66-52-22-64.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: > > > >> >> >In article <vfk383lau8cr3oq9f2kglqucrlkn8mg...@4ax.com>, Matt > Silberstein > > >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > >> >> >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:49:32 -0700, in alt.atheism , J...@nospam.com > > >> >> >> (Jason) in > > >> >> >> <Jason-2606071749330...@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: > > > >> >> >> [snip] > > > >> >> >> >The poll indicated that over 60% of the people that live in > Ohio wanted > > >> >> >> >both ID and evolution be taught in the public schools. > > > >> >> >> What if 60% wanted separate schools for blacks and whites? > > > >> >> >It would be illegal for a school board to do that. > > > >> >> And it was illegal for the school board to put ID into the curriculum. > > > >> >> I suggest you go and look up the history of complaint about > > >> >> legislation from the bench. They started in the '50s pretty much with > > >> >> Brown v Topeka Board of Education. When people complained about the > > >> >> Court making law what they specifically meant was when the Court ruled > > >> >> that separate but "equal" schools were illegal. > > > >> >Yes, we studied that case while I was in college. I understand your point. > > >> >The ID people should have done a better job in making sure they had no > > >> >religion mixed in--they failed. Perhaps they will do a better job the next > > >> >time. > > > >> How? I mean that. ID is religion, you admit over and over that your > > >> motives and goals are religious in nature and that your source > > >> material is religious. ID is religion and any attempt by its > > >> supporters to say otherwise is just lying. Do you support lying to > > >> promote Christianity? > > > >Matt, > > >Yes, you are correct. However, the people in the ID movement could arrange > > >to do it in such a way that no court could find any evidence of religion. > > >They tried to do it in the Dover case but they failed. Perhaps they will > > >never succeed. > > >Jason > > > I still cannot tell if you want them to actually engage in science or > > try to be more subtle in telling lies. > > I want them to engage in science. We all want them to engage in science, the problem being that ID is not science. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Jun 28, 9:14 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <km0683tbmtg36nahn4q30vvuc1af0hf...@4ax.com>, Doug Meredith > <doug.mered...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > >I have read at least one book related to people that died for a short > > >period of time (such as during surgery). The author interviewed dozens of > > >those people and many of them told very similar stories. They saw a tunnel > > >with a bright light at the end of it. They traveled to the light and ended > > >up in heaven. Some of them told stories about relatives and friends that > > >they met in heaven. Others told about meeting Jesus or God. Some told > > >about seeing the river of life and huge trees. One lady actully made > > >paintings of the grass and flowers that were similar to grass and flowers > > >on the earth but the colors were MUCH brighter. I believed the testimonies > > >of those people but I already know that atheists will NOT believe the > > >testimonies of those people. > > >Jason > > > So what happened, God thought they were going to die, brought them to > > heaven and realized he was wrong? > No--they all learned something from their experiences and that was > probably the reason that God God doesn't exist. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Jun 28, 9:22 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182992335.878074.202...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 28, 1:10 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <f5u2fa$im...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > > Jason wrote: > > > > > In article <f5j9aa$nq...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Jason wrote: > > > > >>> In article > > <1182559237.898964.32...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > > >>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > >>>> On Jun 23, 2:54 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > >>>>> In article <dgtn73hm11dl8eval8ne1s1155rl2td...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > >>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > >>>>>> What scientific facts can they teach about Intelligent Design? > > > > >>>>> They have a textbook. The teachers would use the text book and > > > curriculum > > > > >>>>> guide to teach those classes. > > > > >>>> You didn't answer the question, Jason. > > > > > >>>> Martin > > > > >>> Martin, > > > > >>> I don't have a copy of the textbook or curriculum guide so don't > know what > > > > >>> sort of facts are in that textbook and curriculum guide. > > > > >> Again, you didn't answer the question, Jason. It was "what scientific > > > > >> facts can they teach about ID?" and NOT "what scientific facts are > > > > >> contained in a specific book?" > > > > > >> If ID is scientific, then there should be some specific > scientific facts > > > > >> that can be taught about it. What are some of them? > > > > > > Regardless, I don't know what scientific facts ID has. > > > > > Then how do you know it's scientific? > > > > > Try visiting their > > > > > website. > > > > > I don't need to. > > > > > > You never did answer my question. > > > > > Yes, I did and no, you didn't. > > > > > You mentioned all of the research that > > > > > has been done on that cluster of cells. What sort of creature > evolved from > > > > > that cluster of cells? > > > > > All the creatures that you see around you. > > > > Please tell me about an experiment where a cluster of cells evolved into a > > > life form. > > > When your parents chose to have you, Jason, they performed an > > experiment in which they gave birth to a life form that had originally > > evolved from a mere cluster of cells. > I was discussing a lab experiment. Some people do it in the lab. I've never had that pleasure. Martin Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 Martin wrote: > On Jun 28, 9:08 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> In article <Gr2dnTUtqYqunh7bnZ2dnUVZ_gWdn...@comcast.com>, John Popelish >> >> <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: >>> Jason wrote: >>> (snip) >>>> Yes, a creationist school board and evolutionist both have agendas. >>> I agree. How about taking a stab at summarizing what you >>> thing each of those agendas is about. >> One group wants to teach ID and evolution to the children. >> One group wants to teach only evolution to the the children. > > One group wants to lie to children whereas the "evolutionists" only > want to teach the truth. Shucks, I was hoping that if Jason didn't want to elaborate about agendas, at least he would ask me my opinion, since I agreed with him that both sides have agendas. Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Jun 28, 10:42 am, John Popelish <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > Martin Phipps wrote: > > On Jun 28, 8:37 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> I explained why I use the term 'evolutionist' in another post. Summary > >> version: I found the term on page 8 of the Nov/2004 issue of National > >> Geographic. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism > > > "Scientists object to the terms evolutionism and evolutionist because > > the -ism and -ist suffixes accentuate belief rather than scientific > > study. Conversely, creationists use those same two terms partly > > because the terms accentuate belief, and partly perhaps because they > > provide a way to package their opposition into one group, seemingly > > atheist and materialist, designations which are irrelevant to > > science." > > > To use the term "evolutionist" makes as much sense as calling > > scientists who believe in gravity "gravitationists" as if gravity were > > something that one had to believe in. > > Or studies. I can't get too offended by someone calling a > scientist who studies evolution, an evolutionist. Not when > other scientists are called chemists, physicists, > cosmologists and biologists. Perhaps, but the sciences are called chemistry, physics, cosmology and biology and not "chemistrism", "physicism", "cosmologism" or "biologism". Scientists who study evolution are studying evolution and not "evolutionism". The latter is a clear attempt of trying to paint science as religion. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 In article <1182999027.010644.21390@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 28, 9:05 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <dtv58312phiktfiqtpv32v17teslrgg...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > And no Christian has to believe the lies you teach about life on earth > > > to be a Christian. The _vast_ majority of Christians in this country > > > have no problem with the evidence that shows that evolution happened. It > > > takes heretics like you to tell lies about this. > > > > Not according to polls. They took a poll in Ohio and the result was that > > 68% wanted both evolution and ID to be taught. > > Do you honestly think that this reflects a belief on their part that > evolution didn't happen or even that evolution and ID should be taught > as competing theories? It is not only a lie to say that ID is true, > it is a lie to say that it is a viable theory competing with > evolution. > > Martin I think that poll indicated that 68% of the people that live in Ohio believe that both evolution and ID should be taught in the public school system. I agree with 68% of the people in Ohio. About 32% of the people in Ohio agree with you. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 In article <qfudnSPFtMzXkR7bnZ2dnUVZ_sfinZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <Gr2dnTUtqYqunh7bnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >> (snip) > >>> Yes, a creationist school board and evolutionist both have agendas. > >> I agree. How about taking a stab at summarizing what you > >> thing each of those agendas is about. > > > > One group wants to teach ID and evolution to the children. > > One group wants to teach only evolution to the the children. > > Yes, yes, but why do they want those things? Because both groups believe they are correct. Please state your point. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 In article <1182999220.492790.130940@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 28, 9:08 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <Gr2dnTUtqYqunh7bnZ2dnUVZ_gWdn...@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > > > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > > > Jason wrote: > > > (snip) > > > > Yes, a creationist school board and evolutionist both have agendas. > > > > > I agree. How about taking a stab at summarizing what you > > > thing each of those agendas is about. > > > > One group wants to teach ID and evolution to the children. > > One group wants to teach only evolution to the the children. > > One group wants to lie to children whereas the "evolutionists" only > want to teach the truth. > > Martin Guess which group will rush to court if they don't get their way? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 In article <1182996100.383023.275930@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 28, 8:37 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > I explained why I use the term 'evolutionist' in another post. Summary > > version: I found the term on page 8 of the Nov/2004 issue of National > > Geographic. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism > > "Scientists object to the terms evolutionism and evolutionist because > the -ism and -ist suffixes accentuate belief rather than scientific > study. Conversely, creationists use those same two terms partly > because the terms accentuate belief, and partly perhaps because they > provide a way to package their opposition into one group, seemingly > atheist and materialist, designations which are irrelevant to > science." > > To use the term "evolutionist" makes as much sense as calling > scientists who believe in gravity "gravitationists" as if gravity were > something that one had to believe in. > > Learn. > > Martin Based on the above information, evolutionist is a great term. Quote
Guest John Baker Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:55:27 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >In article <mrDgi.17313$19.3321@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-2706071727150001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <7rAgi.2306$K9.485@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:Jason-2706071403510001@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> > In article <NVzgi.2269$K9.1264@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> >> news:Jason-2706071042260001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> >> > In article <k3m4839mgss0cijljuel3pm2nk3jonlg9c@4ax.com>, Matt >> >> >> > Silberstein >> >> >> > <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:16:11 -0700, in alt.atheism , >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com >> >> >> >> (Jason) in >> >> >> >> <Jason-2606072216110001@66-52-22-64.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <fqp3839gge41v4q43tmsag4qdme6g95nts@4ax.com>, Matt >> >> >> >> >Silberstein >> >> >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:12:36 -0700, in alt.atheism , >> >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com >> >> >> >> >> (Jason) in >> >> >> >> >> <Jason-2606072112370001@66-52-22-64.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> >> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <vfk383lau8cr3oq9f2kglqucrlkn8mgn5s@4ax.com>, Matt >> >> >> >> >> >Silberstein >> >> >> >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:49:32 -0700, in alt.atheism , >> >> >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com >> >> >> >> >> >> (Jason) in >> >> >> >> >> >> <Jason-2606071749330001@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> >> >> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> [snip] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >The poll indicated that over 60% of the people that live in >> >> >> >> >> >> >Ohio >> >> >> >> >> >> >wanted >> >> >> >> >> >> >both ID and evolution be taught in the public schools. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> What if 60% wanted separate schools for blacks and whites? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >It would be illegal for a school board to do that. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> And it was illegal for the school board to put ID into the >> >> >> >> >> curriculum. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I suggest you go and look up the history of complaint about >> >> >> >> >> legislation from the bench. They started in the '50s pretty much >> >> >> >> >> with >> >> >> >> >> Brown v Topeka Board of Education. When people complained about >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> Court making law what they specifically meant was when the Court >> >> >> >> >> ruled >> >> >> >> >> that separate but "equal" schools were illegal. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >Yes, we studied that case while I was in college. I understand >> >> >> >> >your >> >> >> >> >point. >> >> >> >> >The ID people should have done a better job in making sure they >> >> >> >> >had >> >> >> >> >no >> >> >> >> >religion mixed in--they failed. Perhaps they will do a better job >> >> >> >> >the >> >> >> >> >next >> >> >> >> >time. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> How? I mean that. ID is religion, you admit over and over that your >> >> >> >> motives and goals are religious in nature and that your source >> >> >> >> material is religious. ID is religion and any attempt by its >> >> >> >> supporters to say otherwise is just lying. Do you support lying to >> >> >> >> promote Christianity? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Matt, >> >> >> > Yes, you are correct. However, the people in the ID movement could >> >> >> > arrange >> >> >> > to do it in such a way that no court could find any evidence of >> >> >> > religion. >> >> >> > They tried to do it in the Dover case but they failed. Perhaps they >> >> >> > will >> >> >> > never succeed. >> >> >> > Jason >> >> >> >> >> >> They will never succeed because ID contains no science. Religion >> >> >> abounds >> >> >> in >> >> >> ID and creation science for one important reason, it is there! >> >> > >> >> > I agree that religion abounds in ID and creation science. However, if >> >> > God, >> >> > Jesus and scriptures are NEVER mentioned in the text book or curriculum >> >> > guide--it seems to me that a judge could not call it religion. For >> >> > example, some people believe that astronauts from some other planet >> >> > came >> >> > to this planet millions of years ago and left behind dozens of people; >> >> > some plants and some animals. Is that idea based on religion? The >> >> > answer >> >> > is no. In the last court case, the IDers did a terrible job since >> >> > lawyers >> >> > representing evolutionists found all sorts of evidence indicating that >> >> > religion was involved. >> >> > Jason >> >> >> >> You don't have to specifically name your religious figure in order to >> >> find >> >> that religion is involved. When the descriptions fit the bible then it >> >> will >> >> be assumed that it is the bible. >> > >> > Judges are to suppose to base their rulings on evidence--not assumptions. >> >> They do, Jason, the evidence points to religion. > >It did in the Dover case. My point was that the IDers will have to make >sure there is NO evidence related to religion in the next court case. If the IDiots eliminate everything that points to religion, they'll have no case to present. > Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 In article <1182999837.081663.66570@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 28, 10:42 am, John Popelish <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > > Martin Phipps wrote: > > > On Jun 28, 8:37 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > >> I explained why I use the term 'evolutionist' in another post. Summary > > >> version: I found the term on page 8 of the Nov/2004 issue of National > > >> Geographic. > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism > > > > > "Scientists object to the terms evolutionism and evolutionist because > > > the -ism and -ist suffixes accentuate belief rather than scientific > > > study. Conversely, creationists use those same two terms partly > > > because the terms accentuate belief, and partly perhaps because they > > > provide a way to package their opposition into one group, seemingly > > > atheist and materialist, designations which are irrelevant to > > > science." > > > > > To use the term "evolutionist" makes as much sense as calling > > > scientists who believe in gravity "gravitationists" as if gravity were > > > something that one had to believe in. > > > > Or studies. I can't get too offended by someone calling a > > scientist who studies evolution, an evolutionist. Not when > > other scientists are called chemists, physicists, > > cosmologists and biologists. > > Perhaps, but the sciences are called chemistry, physics, cosmology and > biology and not "chemistrism", "physicism", "cosmologism" or > "biologism". Scientists who study evolution are studying evolution > and not "evolutionism". The latter is a clear attempt of trying to > paint science as religion. > > Martin For some people, evolution appears to me to be their religion. If you went in to some churches and criticized their religion, they may get very upset with you. When I criticize aspects of evolution, some people in this newsgroup get so upset that they call me childest names. One person became so upset over a minor criticism of evolution that he told me he would never again respond to my posts. For those sorts of people, evolution is their religion since they act just like religious people when you criticize their religion. However, many of the advocates of evolution do not treat evolution as their religion and as a result can discuss my criticisms without becoming upset. Many of those sorts of people would discard evolution if a better theory became available. Quote
Guest John Baker Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:59:28 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >In article <0m06839l4gvfhtku198i6q55ed2odt2n6v@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:42:25 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2706071042260001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <k3m4839mgss0cijljuel3pm2nk3jonlg9c@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:16:11 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com >> >> (Jason) in >> >> <Jason-2606072216110001@66-52-22-64.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >In article <fqp3839gge41v4q43tmsag4qdme6g95nts@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:12:36 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com >> >> >> (Jason) in >> >> >> <Jason-2606072112370001@66-52-22-64.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <vfk383lau8cr3oq9f2kglqucrlkn8mgn5s@4ax.com>, Matt >Silberstein >> >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:49:32 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com >> >> >> >> (Jason) in >> >> >> >> <Jason-2606071749330001@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> [snip] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >The poll indicated that over 60% of the people that live in >Ohio wanted >> >> >> >> >both ID and evolution be taught in the public schools. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> What if 60% wanted separate schools for blacks and whites? >> >> >> > >> >> >> >It would be illegal for a school board to do that. >> >> >> > >> >> >> And it was illegal for the school board to put ID into the curriculum. >> >> >> >> >> >> I suggest you go and look up the history of complaint about >> >> >> legislation from the bench. They started in the '50s pretty much with >> >> >> Brown v Topeka Board of Education. When people complained about the >> >> >> Court making law what they specifically meant was when the Court ruled >> >> >> that separate but "equal" schools were illegal. >> >> > >> >> >Yes, we studied that case while I was in college. I understand your point. >> >> >The ID people should have done a better job in making sure they had no >> >> >religion mixed in--they failed. Perhaps they will do a better job the next >> >> >time. >> >> >> >> How? I mean that. ID is religion, you admit over and over that your >> >> motives and goals are religious in nature and that your source >> >> material is religious. ID is religion and any attempt by its >> >> supporters to say otherwise is just lying. Do you support lying to >> >> promote Christianity? >> > >> >Matt, >> >Yes, you are correct. However, the people in the ID movement could arrange >> >to do it in such a way that no court could find any evidence of religion. >> >They tried to do it in the Dover case but they failed. Perhaps they will >> >never succeed. >> >Jason >> > >> I still cannot tell if you want them to actually engage in science or >> try to be more subtle in telling lies. > >I want them to engage in science. Sure, that would be nice, but if they're actually engaging in science , then they won't be promoting ID. >The goal is unrelated to lies. The goal >is comply with the law related to religion. The law states that religion >should not be taught so they have to remove all EVIDENCE of religion in >order to comply with the law. And once that's done, they'll have nothing left. > Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 In article <f136839av8uped9120293qqesobkbfeqtf@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:08:35 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2706071808350001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <Gr2dnTUtqYqunh7bnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > ><jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >> (snip) > >> > Yes, a creationist school board and evolutionist both have agendas. > >> > >> I agree. How about taking a stab at summarizing what you > >> thing each of those agendas is about. > > > >One group wants to teach ID and evolution to the children. > >One group wants to teach only evolution to the the children. > > > Why would you want to teach lies to children? I would prefer that teachers not teach evolution because of the lies but there is nothing that I can do about. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 In article <IIKdnSM1ZKRVkB7bnZ2dnUVZ_tyinZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > Free Lunch wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:08:35 -0700, in alt.atheism > > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-2706071808350001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> In article <Gr2dnTUtqYqunh7bnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > >> <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > >> > >>> Jason wrote: > >>> (snip) > >>>> Yes, a creationist school board and evolutionist both have agendas. > >>> I agree. How about taking a stab at summarizing what you > >>> thing each of those agendas is about. > >> One group wants to teach ID and evolution to the children. > >> One group wants to teach only evolution to the the children. > >> > > Why would you want to teach lies to children? > > Oh! Let me try. > > Because they are comforting and familiar lies that he and > other believers have built their entire understanding of > reality upon, since childhood. And nothing is more > reassuring, when your mind is built on a foundation of lies, > than to have lots of people all around you who believe the > same lies that you believe. > > How did I do, Jason? Change "lies" to "truths" and you would get an A grade. Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Jun 28, 12:01 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182999027.010644.21...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 28, 9:05 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <dtv58312phiktfiqtpv32v17teslrgg...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > And no Christian has to believe the lies you teach about life on earth > > > > to be a Christian. The _vast_ majority of Christians in this country > > > > have no problem with the evidence that shows that evolution happened. It > > > > takes heretics like you to tell lies about this. > > > > Not according to polls. They took a poll in Ohio and the result was that > > > 68% wanted both evolution and ID to be taught. > > > Do you honestly think that this reflects a belief on their part that > > evolution didn't happen or even that evolution and ID should be taught > > as competing theories? It is not only a lie to say that ID is true, > > it is a lie to say that it is a viable theory competing with > > evolution. > I think that poll indicated that 68% of the people that live in Ohio > believe that both evolution and ID should be taught in the public school > system. I agree with 68% of the people in Ohio. About 32% of the people in > Ohio agree with you. You didn't answer the question (as usual), Jason. Free Lunch said "The _vast_ majority of Christians in this country have no problem with the evidence that shows that evolution happened" and you disagreed with him, pointing to the Ohio poll. Do you really think that this poll indicates that mainstream Christians have a "problem with the evidence that shows that evolution happened"? The fact is that you, yourself, have admitted that the evidence is in our favour: On Jun 27, 2:34 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > We are in agreement--evolution is a theory. Yes, the theory explains the > facts that are backed up with evidence. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Jun 28, 12:04 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <qfudnSPFtMzXkR7bnZ2dnUVZ_sfin...@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <Gr2dnTUtqYqunh7bnZ2dnUVZ_gWdn...@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > > >> (snip) > > >>> Yes, a creationist school board and evolutionist both have agendas. > > >> I agree. How about taking a stab at summarizing what you > > >> thing each of those agendas is about. > > > > One group wants to teach ID and evolution to the children. > > > One group wants to teach only evolution to the the children. > > > Yes, yes, but why do they want those things? > > Because both groups believe they are correct. > > Please state your point. So why have you lied over and over again, claiming that "evolutionists" want to prevent ID from being taught because "they know children will realize ID makes more sense"? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Jun 28, 12:05 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182999220.492790.130...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 28, 9:08 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <Gr2dnTUtqYqunh7bnZ2dnUVZ_gWdn...@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > > > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > > > > Jason wrote: > > > > (snip) > > > > > Yes, a creationist school board and evolutionist both have agendas. > > > > > I agree. How about taking a stab at summarizing what you > > > > thing each of those agendas is about. > > > > One group wants to teach ID and evolution to the children. > > > One group wants to teach only evolution to the the children. > > > One group wants to lie to children whereas the "evolutionists" only > > want to teach the truth. > > Guess which group will rush to court if they don't get their way? The side with the support of the constitution, obviously. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 In article <1182993748.382493.238310@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 28, 4:52 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <BUzgi.2268$K9....@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > > > > > > > > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > >news:Jason-2706071037190001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > In article <f5tl6k$53...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Jason wrote: > > > >> > In article <1182914771.873163.36...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > > >> > Martin > > > >> > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> >> On Jun 27, 2:54 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > >> >>> Why is there a symbol of a crescent moon on top of every Muslim > > > >> >>> mosque in > > > >> >>> the world? > > > >> >> Why does a halo appear on the head of every saint in pictures? Why > > > >> >> does sun symbolism continue to the present day on robes, banners, > > > >> >> icons, behind the cross in a ray of light, flames coming from the > > > >> >> heart of Jesus, etc.? Who do priests bow and kiss a monstrance which > > > >> >> is a gold statue of the sun on a pedestal during processions? Why do > > > >> >> Christians go to church on Sunday when the old testament claimed that > > > >> >> Jesus would rise after three days, ie three days after Friday and > > > >> >> therefore on Monday? > > > > > >> >> Answer the damn questions, Jason. > > > > > >> >> Martin > > > > > >> > I am not a Catholic so as a result have never done any research > > > >> > regarding > > > >> > Catholics. I don't why artists painted halos on the heads of saints. > > > >> > Perhaps it was part of the culture or a rule established by a Pope. You > > > >> > may want to visit the art department and ask that question to the > > > >> > professor that teaches courses related to the history of art. I suggest > > > >> > that you visit Wikipedia and type "Easter Sunday". It clearly states > > > >> > that > > > >> > Christ rose from the dead on Sunday. > > > > > >> And yet your bible clearly says he would rise after THREE days. > > > > > >> Where's the 3rd day, Jason? Do you now believe wikipedia over your own > > > >> bible? > > > > > > The deciples worshipped on Sunday. They knew more about the time aspects > > > > than we know today since they were witnesses. > > > > Jason > > > > > What time aspects Jason? Three days and three nights is the same today as it > > > was two thousand years ago. > > > > Our days end at 12 midnight. Are you 100% sure that was the way is was in > > the first century? > > Night and day, Jason, have always been as different as, well, night > and day. > > Martin If the scripture had stated 72 hours, I would be in agreement with you. If the scripture had stated 3 full days and 3 full nights, I would agree with you. The scripture used the term "3 days"--not 72 hours or 3 full days the day ends at sundown and begins at sunup Jesus was placed in the tomb on friday---prior to sundown--that counts as day 1 Saturday--counts as day 2 Sunday--after sunup--counts as day 3 That is probably the reason the deciples worshipped on Sunday instead of Monday. It's probably the reason Easter is on Sunday instead of on Monday. You don't believe in Jesus so why do you care? 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.