Guest Martin Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Jun 28, 12:12 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182996100.383023.275...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@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. > Based on the above information, evolutionist is a great term. It is if you deliberately want to reveal yourself to be an ignorant bigot. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 In article <1182997554.014108.315410@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 I am not trying to wiggle out--The deciples are the witnesses and I tried to look at it from their point of view. Quote
Guest johac Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 In article <4681fa7e$0$12189$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Christopher Morris" <Draccus@roadrunner.com> wrote: > "johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > news:jhachmann-DB11DE.22155226062007@news.giganews.com... > > In article <1vj3835t86vajghq9n05jc1n7qdhe7ntud@4ax.com>, > > Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 15:58:27 -0700, johac > >> <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> - Refer: <jhachmann-2EB388.15582726062007@news.giganews.com> > >> >In article > >> ><Jason-2506071038350001@66-52-22-83.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > >> > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > > >> >> In article <5ea5jrF383thsU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > >> >> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote > >> >> > > >> >> > snip > >> >> > > >> >> > > If they read their Bibles, they will know all about the true God. > >> >> > > >> >> > What makes your god the "true" one? > >> >> > >> >> Books have been written on that subject. > >> > > >> >I read books on Greek mythology. Does that mean that Zeus is the true > >> >god? > >> > >> Of course. > >> The non-existent Zeus can kick the non-existent YHWH's butt any time! > >> > > > > With one thunderbolt tied behind his back. So could Odin. > > Thor has thunderbolts not Odin, Odin is the God of War. Thor uses his hammer > Mojnoir (excuse the spelling) to make lighting and thunder. > Zeus has thunderbolts too. Maybe Zeus vs. Thor would make a better contest. -- John #1782 "We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides." - Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order. Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Jun 28, 12:23 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182999837.081663.66...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@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. > > For some people, evolution appears to me to be their religion. And yet you admit... 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. Evolution is not a religion if it "explains the facts" and is "backed up with evidence". > 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. You've never provided any criticism of evolution, Jason. All you said was that you didn't believe in "abiogenesis and common descent". Well, Jason, Natural Selection says nothing about abiogenesis: you've been told that over and over again. Besides, the mere fact that you don't believe in something is not a criticism: you keep telling us that you don't believe in common descent as if you were some sort of expert and your opinion should matter to us. There's a reason why most people choose to bow to the authority of experts: it's because the experts actually know what they are talking about. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Jun 28, 12:27 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f136839av8uped9120293qqesobkbfe...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:08:35 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-2706071808350...@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >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. > > > 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. What "lies" do you believe "evolutionists" are telling children. As you said 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. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Jun 28, 12:29 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <IIKdnSM1ZKRVkB7bnZ2dnUVZ_tyin...@comcast.com>, John Popelish > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > > Free Lunch wrote: > > > On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:08:35 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > <Jason-2706071808350...@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> 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. > > > > 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. You, like most creation advocates, are not qualified to teach anything. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 In article <1183005349.015957.157410@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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: I'll try again: I don't think that the majority of people in America have a problem with the evidence that shows that evolution happened. I don't think that the majority of people in America have a problem with public school teachers teaching an alternative to evolution theory such as Intelligent design. Jason Quote
Guest Bob T. Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Jun 27, 5:29 pm, 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. Please stop saying this. It is really stupid. We don't want ID taught in school because it is a lie told by liars who are trying to sneak religion in under the guise of science. Have you read about the Dover trial? If you read the Wikipedia article (or any other objective writeup) you will discover that the creationists lied over and over again. I have explained before that the evidence for evolution and common descent is overwhelming. If there is a God who created us, He did so using evolution as His tool. - Bob T. Quote
Guest Bob T. Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Jun 27, 9:23 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182999837.081663.66...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > <phippsmar...@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. Um, no. For a simple example, take politics. People often get extremely angry and upset in political discussions, but that does not mean that the Republican party is a 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. Jason, people become upset with you, in part, because you are very repetitive and slow to learn. They get frustrated when they explain something to you several times, and then you make the same old statement in the same old way and prove that you haven't learned anything. Take, for example, your repeatition of the incredibly stupid notion that "evolutionists don't want ID taught in schools because they are afraid people will think it makes more sense than evolution." I am a pretty mellow guy, but when I read your post above where you repeated that for the tenth time it made me angry. - Bob T. > > - Show quoted text - Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 In article <1183006015.234811.244140@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 28, 12:23 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1182999837.081663.66...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmar...@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. > > > > For some people, evolution appears to me to be their religion. > > And yet you admit... > > 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. > > Evolution is not a religion if it "explains the facts" and is "backed > up with evidence". > > > 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. > > You've never provided any criticism of evolution, Jason. All you said > was that you didn't believe in "abiogenesis and common descent". > Well, Jason, Natural Selection says nothing about abiogenesis: you've > been told that over and over again. Besides, the mere fact that you > don't believe in something is not a criticism: you keep telling us > that you don't believe in common descent as if you were some sort of > expert and your opinion should matter to us. There's a reason why > most people choose to bow to the authority of experts: it's because > the experts actually know what they are talking about. > > Martin Martin, Unlike you, I don't always trust the experts. For hundreds of years, the experts believed the earth was the center of the universe. Copernicus and Galileo proved that the experts were wrong. The experts claimed that man could not fly--the Wright brothers proved they were wrong. Just because experts tell me that life evolved from non-life, I don't automatically believe them unless they can prove it in a lab experiment. I did not believe and accept Natural Selection until a biology professor proved it to me and I also later read research results that proved it to me. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 In article <pmd683pm19c9edpc4h5c2jfsal95do25ed@4ax.com>, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: > 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. > > > > > They have fossil evidence and rock strata data. They could discuss the research projects that have been done at the Grand Canyon and Mount St. Helens. Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. I think the agenda of I.D supporters is to make sure their children's education does not contradict their religious beliefs. If they cannot expel evolution from the class room, they want to at least make it look to their children that there is another reasonable explanation that is compatible with their religious beliefs. They don't want their children to realize that their beliefs have no basis in the evidence. These people place their religious dogma and its propagation above all other considerations. I think the agenda of scientists that want only established science being taught in public schools is that they want a new generation of scientists to get the education necessary to take their places and continue their work, finding out how reality works, for the long term good of mankind. They see teaching I.D as if it were science is just a way to derail the education the students will need to become scientists. They also realize that if most people are taught that science is equal or inferior to religious dogma, it won't be long before society values science so little that it will cease to function and hard earned knowledge will be lost, or that our country will lose its place of leadership in the sciences, and all the bounty that leadership has produced for us. Have I been unfair to either side? Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <IIKdnSM1ZKRVkB7bnZ2dnUVZ_tyinZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > >> Free Lunch wrote: (snip) >>> 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. If only you had a method to sort ideas into those two groups that has as good a track record as the scientific method. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 In article <1183006109.973557.269960@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 28, 12:27 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <f136839av8uped9120293qqesobkbfe...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:08:35 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > <Jason-2706071808350...@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > >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. > > > > > 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. > > What "lies" do you believe "evolutionists" are telling children. As > you said yourself... Don't you have a sense of humor? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 In article <bPednRXK68-o1B7bnZ2dnUVZ_vyunZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > 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. > > I think the agenda of I.D supporters is to make sure their > children's education does not contradict their religious > beliefs. If they cannot expel evolution from the class > room, they want to at least make it look to their children > that there is another reasonable explanation that is > compatible with their religious beliefs. They don't want > their children to realize that their beliefs have no basis > in the evidence. These people place their religious dogma > and its propagation above all other considerations. > > I think the agenda of scientists that want only established > science being taught in public schools is that they want a > new generation of scientists to get the education necessary > to take their places and continue their work, finding out > how reality works, for the long term good of mankind. They > see teaching I.D as if it were science is just a way to > derail the education the students will need to become > scientists. They also realize that if most people are > taught that science is equal or inferior to religious dogma, > it won't be long before society values science so little > that it will cease to function and hard earned knowledge > will be lost, or that our country will lose its place of > leadership in the sciences, and all the bounty that > leadership has produced for us. > > Have I been unfair to either side? Your grade is A Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 Jason wrote: > They have fossil evidence and rock strata data. They could discuss the > research projects that have been done at the Grand Canyon and Mount St. > Helens. Okay, they have collected some evidence and do their best to interpret it to make a case for I.D. And, of course that is exactly not science. If they were doing science, they would formulate a hypothesis, then figure out every possible that they could imagine what evidence might be used to shoot down their hypothesis. Then they would try to get help form others to either think up how this new hypothesis could be shot down or criticized in any way, and if the evidence is available to do that. Then they could publish papers on this process, and how, no matter how they look at the evidence, their hypothesis stands, unfalsifiable, and so deserves the respect of others trying to falsify it. If, after conscientious efforts by many to shoot down their hypothesis, their hypothesis still stood, it would become part of science. Do you see the different between cherry picking facts to build a case for a hypothesis, much like a team of lawyers building a case for a client by arranging the facts in the most persuasive way to, support an argument, the alternative, doing science (trying to falsify hypotheses and keeping what you cannot falsify) are exact opposites? I.D. do lawyering, not science. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 In article <1183007444.727851.229020@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Bob T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > On Jun 27, 9:23 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1182999837.081663.66...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > <phippsmar...@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. > > Um, no. For a simple example, take politics. People often get > extremely angry and upset in political discussions, but that does not > mean that the Republican party is a 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. > > Jason, people become upset with you, in part, because you are very > repetitive and slow to learn. They get frustrated when they explain > something to you several times, and then you make the same old > statement in the same old way and prove that you haven't learned > anything. Take, for example, your repeatition of the incredibly > stupid notion that "evolutionists don't want ID taught in schools > because they are afraid people will think it makes more sense than > evolution." I am a pretty mellow guy, but when I read your post above > where you repeated that for the tenth time it made me angry. > > - Bob T. > > > > - Show quoted text - I understand your point of view. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 Just for a minute, realize what it must have been like for a Christian student or a Christian teacher involved in these circumstances: Northeast Intelligence Network is a leading anti-terrorist web site, that offers practical reference information, vital links, and other valuable information from an investigative perspective in today's troubled times. broken watermains print Freep digg newsvine Catering to Muslim needs, Liberal bias Double Standard For Christians and Jews Versus Muslim Students? By Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, ChairmanTraditional Values Coalition Saturday, June 23, 2007 June 19, 2007 - In April, incidents in New Jersey and California involving Christians and Muslims makes me wonder if there Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 In article <1183006804.224891.285750@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, "Bob T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > On Jun 27, 5:29 pm, 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. > > Please stop saying this. It is really stupid. We don't want ID > taught in school because it is a lie told by liars who are trying to > sneak religion in under the guise of science. Have you read about the > Dover trial? If you read the Wikipedia article (or any other > objective writeup) you will discover that the creationists lied over > and over again. > > I have explained before that the evidence for evolution and common > descent is overwhelming. If there is a God who created us, He did so > using evolution as His tool. > > - Bob T. I believe the evidence for common descent and abiogenesis is underwhelming. Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Jun 28, 12:39 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182993748.382493.238...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@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. > > > > >> > 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. > > 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. You're a liar, Jason. In article <1182816528.662652.63...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Matthew 12:40, "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." I posted this already. You apparently don't read your Bible. Martin Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <bPednRXK68-o1B7bnZ2dnUVZ_vyunZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> 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. >> I think the agenda of I.D supporters is to make sure their >> children's education does not contradict their religious >> beliefs. If they cannot expel evolution from the class >> room, they want to at least make it look to their children >> that there is another reasonable explanation that is >> compatible with their religious beliefs. They don't want >> their children to realize that their beliefs have no basis >> in the evidence. These people place their religious dogma >> and its propagation above all other considerations. >> >> I think the agenda of scientists that want only established >> science being taught in public schools is that they want a >> new generation of scientists to get the education necessary >> to take their places and continue their work, finding out >> how reality works, for the long term good of mankind. They >> see teaching I.D as if it were science is just a way to >> derail the education the students will need to become >> scientists. They also realize that if most people are >> taught that science is equal or inferior to religious dogma, >> it won't be long before society values science so little >> that it will cease to function and hard earned knowledge >> will be lost, or that our country will lose its place of >> leadership in the sciences, and all the bounty that >> leadership has produced for us. >> >> Have I been unfair to either side? > > Your grade is A Well, my point was to have you ponder the motivation of people on each side of this, and understand that, from their own point of view and priorities, both are trying to do good. Just as you may have trouble granting good intentions to people who have not the slightest care for your religious dogma, I have trouble remembering that people who lie for a a "good cause" (pretending that I.D. is science, when they know it is a sham that must be carefully managed and protected from scrutiny) can be admired for their good intentions (Christian beliefs being an inherent good, in their minds). However, getting their "good" through dishonesty grates on my sense of fair play and reeks of hypocrisy, since lying is forbidden in one of their commandments from their hypothetical god. Can one do good for your god by breaking his commandments? Not lying is one of my personal rules, but when I break it, I don't have to answer to some deity, I have to face the fact that haven't measured up to my own standards. Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 Jason wrote: > Just for a minute, realize what it must have been like for a Christian > student or a Christian teacher involved in these circumstances: > > > Northeast Intelligence Network > is a leading anti-terrorist web site, that offers practical reference > information, vital links, and other valuable information from an > investigative perspective in today's troubled times. > broken watermains (snip) Shouldn't this be placed in a new thread? Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Jun 28, 12:41 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182997554.014108.315...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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. > I am not trying to wiggle out--The deciples are the witnesses and I tried > to look at it from their point of view. The disciples never existed, Jason. They were just part of the fictional Jesus story. The fact that the story is inconsistent and is logically flawed proves that it is fictional. Oh, by the way, Jason, could ypu actually learn to spell "disciple"?! I originally thought you had made a typo but you have continuously misspelledhe word. These are your religious beliefs, Jason, not mine and it is sad that you know so little about them! Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 In article <kr6dnfCYcIjV0B7bnZ2dnUVZ_umlnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > > They have fossil evidence and rock strata data. They could discuss the > > research projects that have been done at the Grand Canyon and Mount St. > > Helens. > > Okay, they have collected some evidence and do their best to > interpret it to make a case for I.D. And, of course that is > exactly not science. > > If they were doing science, they would formulate a > hypothesis, then figure out every possible that they could > imagine what evidence might be used to shoot down their > hypothesis. Then they would try to get help form others to > either think up how this new hypothesis could be shot down > or criticized in any way, and if the evidence is available > to do that. Then they could publish papers on this process, > and how, no matter how they look at the evidence, their > hypothesis stands, unfalsifiable, and so deserves the > respect of others trying to falsify it. If, after > conscientious efforts by many to shoot down their > hypothesis, their hypothesis still stood, it would become > part of science. > > Do you see the different between cherry picking facts to > build a case for a hypothesis, much like a team of lawyers > building a case for a client by arranging the facts in the > most persuasive way to, support an argument, the > alternative, doing science (trying to falsify hypotheses and > keeping what you cannot falsify) are exact opposites? > > I.D. do lawyering, not science. Yes, they need to do the things that you suggested. I do understand the points you made in your last paragraph. Lots of work needs to be done before the next court case takes place. I would appreciate your comments related to the article that I posted about 5 minutes ago. Jason Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Jun 28, 12:55 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1183005349.015957.157...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > 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: > I don't think that the majority of people in America have a problem with > the evidence that shows that evolution happened. You're contradicting yourself again. On Jun 28, 9:05 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <dtv58312phiktfiqtpv32v17teslrgg...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > 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. > I don't think that the > majority of people in America have a problem with public school teachers > teaching an alternative to evolution theory such as Intelligent design. That's where you'd be wrong. "Intelligent design" is not "an alternative to evolution theory" and you're lying when you say it is: you've already admitted that even chidren "realize who the intelligent designer is". Thus, by your own admission, ID isn't even science, let alone "an alternative to evolution theory". 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.