Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Jun 28, 1:00 pm, "Bob T." <b...@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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial "Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not "teaching" ID but instead is merely "making students aware of it." In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree." (footnote 7 on page 46) Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 In article <Xu-dnQbqCvpMzB7bnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > 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. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I have taken a high school biology course (college prep). I have also taken a college biology course (biology 101). In both courses, the text books and the teacher and professor explained the basics of biology and the basics of evolution theory. In the labs, we only done simple experiments. The proposed ID course would be the same sort of thing. It would cover the basics of Intelligent Design. Several posters have mentioned lies in relation to preparing a ID court case. You would have to do some basic research related to how judges go about making rulings before you could understand my points. I only know about it since I was recently on jury duty and had to take a short course before they would allow us to serve on jury duty. The judge discussed "rules of evidence". The lawyers have to prepare their cases with the rules of evidence in mind. In relation to the ID court case, the IDers done a poor job of preparing the case. I made the point that they need to do a better job to prepare the next case. It involves making sure the text book and curriculum guide contain no evidence of God, Jesus or scriptures. The reason is because it is against the law to discuss religion in public class rooms. If the judge finds any evidence of religion, we will lose the next court case. Court decisions are not suppose to be based on assumptions--just evidence. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Jun 28, 1:13 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1183006015.234811.244...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > <phippsmar...@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. > Unlike you, I don't always trust the experts. No, you trust people like Gish and Morris, people who are not experts in any way shape or form. In any case, I don't have to trust experts because I have an education: I was taught way back in high school not to believe anything until it is proven to you. You're 57, Jason, and you still haven't learned that lesson. > For hundreds of years, the > experts believed the earth was the center of the universe. The church "experts". > Copernicus and > Galileo proved that the experts were wrong. Yes, scientists proved the church "experts" wrong. Your point? > The experts claimed that man > could not fly--the Wright brothers proved they were wrong. Again, man used science to do what people had thought was impossible. Your point? > 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. And yet the proof experiment proving this possible was done fifty years ago, the result being amino acids, and some people on this group have replicated this experiment themselves. Since then, scientists have produced protiens, bilipid membranes and even RNA. You're asking scientists to produce a virus cell in an experiment but even a layman would realize that this would be 1) a difficult thing to do and 2) a remarkably stupid thing to do unless it were done under highly controlled circumstances. > 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. Incredible. So what you're telling me is that if it wasn't for that biology professor then you would be even more ignorant than you are now?! Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 In article <Xu-dnQHqCvo1zx7bnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > 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? I would appreciate your comments about the article. It's an article about how religion in the public schools. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Jun 28, 1:20 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <pmd683pm19c9edpc4h5c2jfsal95do2...@4ax.com>, John Baker > > If the IDiots eliminate everything that points to religion, they'll > > have no case to present. > > They have fossil evidence No, they don't, Jason. Show us a fossil of your god or stop lying to us. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 In article <1183012036.428416.157470@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Lots of people consider it an alternative to evolution. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Jun 28, 1:53 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1183006109.973557.269...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@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? > > Don't you have a sense of humor? If I didn't have a sense of humour then I would have given up on you long ago, Jason. Now answer the question (that you "failed to answer" by the way). Martin Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <Xu-dnQbqCvpMzB7bnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: >> 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. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > I have taken a high school biology course (college prep). I have also > taken a college biology course (biology 101). In both courses, the text > books and the teacher and professor explained the basics of biology and > the basics of evolution theory. In the labs, we only done simple > experiments. > > The proposed ID course would be the same sort of thing. It would cover the > basics of Intelligent Design. > > Several posters have mentioned lies in relation to preparing a ID court > case. You would have to do some basic research related to how judges go > about making rulings before you could understand my points. I only know > about it since I was recently on jury duty and had to take a short course > before they would allow us to serve on jury duty. The judge discussed > "rules of evidence". The lawyers have to prepare their cases with the > rules of evidence in mind. In relation to the ID court case, the IDers > done a poor job of preparing the case. I made the point that they need to > do a better job to prepare the next case. It involves making sure the text > book and curriculum guide contain no evidence of God, Jesus or scriptures. > The reason is because it is against the law to discuss religion in public > class rooms. If the judge finds any evidence of religion, we will lose the > next court case. Court decisions are not suppose to be based on > assumptions--just evidence. Yes, lawyering, not science. But their problem, is, that once you try to find out what science there in in I.D., you just find lawyering. They make no attempt to falsify their own hypotheses, let alone invite others to attempt it. They may eventually craft a legal case that succeeds, and may force I.D. into science classes, but it won't make it science. The whole I.D. hypothesis is that life is too complicated for it to be the result of materialistic processes. Only outside intelligent input could bring matter to a living state and must have designed each form of life, as separate interventions. They know that every scientific biological fact that is uncovered that shows how one more tiny part of life's unfolding has happened (and there are thousands off those facts already known to science), they get backed up one more step from any support for their hypothesis. Science is busy finding out what definitely can be ruled out, that definitely did not happen, and by shrinking the boundaries of the possible, all the time, is getting a pretty good picture of what must have happened, and that picture keeps getting clearer. I.D. proponents aren't the slightest bit interested in whittling away at what can be demonstrated to be wrong with their hypothesis. It is perfect as it is, in all its open endedness, since a creator god is holding all those loose ends, as far as they are concerned. They have no interest in finding out, that in fact, they might be completely wrong as scientists do. They just want what they want. Evidence? Logic? Falsification? They don't need no stinkin' falsification. They need a court win. Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 Jason wrote: > Lots of people consider it an alternative to evolution. Yes. Lots of people can't bear to face the possibility that science has figured out, and continues to refine, a very different history of life on this planet than the one they learned as religious dogma. They will eventually be left behind by that ongoing life process, and, eventually, this won't matter any longer. But I understand their distaste for this transitional part of the process. Extinctions, whether of species or of religious beliefs, are not pleasant. A fight for survival, no matter how futile, is expected. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Jun 28, 1:56 pm, John Popelish <jpopel...@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. As a side note, this is also an unintended slam at social sciences like psychology, ecomonics and sociology: whereas in the hard sciences experiments can be performed in laboratories, the same cannot be said of social sciences in general. Certainly you cannot model an entire economic system or society in a lab and, in any case, experiments on actual human beings would be unethical. As I said before, that leaves people relying mainly on anecdotal evidence. That is not to say that no science is ever done in the social sciences but that it takes longer for new theories to gain acceptance. In the meantime, people rely on their preconceived beliefs and it may be difficult for people to accept that different theories may equally well apply in different circumstances. Martin Quote
Guest cactus Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <4Gngi.16066$2v1.2805@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>, > bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <1182920084.264354.52290@k29g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, >>> gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: >>> >>>> On 26 Jun., 21:00, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> In article <1182873774.679677.7...@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>> On 26 Jun., 02:12, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>> In article <1182813471.492210.280...@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, >>>>>>> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>>>> On 25 Jun., 20:04, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article <1182770555.111873.24...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,= >>>> Mar=3D >>>>>> tin >>>>>>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2:31 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In article <1182751329.065068.288...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups= >>>> .com=3D >>>>>>> , "Bob >>>>>>>>>>> T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 24, 9:31 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article >>>>>>> <1182738013.400195.243...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Bob >>>>>>>>>>>>> T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 24, 6:35 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is some information about the Christians in Iran. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip article> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Iran is an excellent example of what happens when relig= >>>> ious >>>>>>> nutcases >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are allowed to rule a country. And you, Jason, clearly= >>>> wis=3D >>>>>> h that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> America was more like Iran. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Bob T. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it would be wonderful if everyone in the world were = >>>> Chri=3D >>>>>> stians. >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, then the world would be just like Iran - run by supers= >>>> titi=3D >>>>>> ous >>>>>>>>>>>> fools who allow no dissent. How would you like to live und= >>>> er M=3D >>>>>> uslim >>>>>>>>>>>> religious law, Jason? Well, that's what the world you envi= >>>> sion=3D >>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>>>> be like - we would all have to worry about the Inquisition = >>>> knoc=3D >>>>>> king on >>>>>>>>>>>> our door at any moment to check on our sex lives. >>>>>>>>>>>> I much prefer to live in America, which is still a land of = >>>> free=3D >>>>>> dom, >>>>>>>>>>>> including freedom from religion. >>>>>>>>>>>> - Bob T. >>>>>>>>>>> I also like living in America. The end goal of the Muslims ar= >>>> e to=3D >>>>>> take >>>>>>>>>>> over the world--one country at a time. >>>>>>>>>> Oddly enough I don't see that many Muslim missionaries today. = >>>> How >>>>>>>>>> many countries have muslims invaded over the past ten years? N= >>>> one. >>>>>>>>>> How many muslim countries has the US invaded over the past ten = >>>> year=3D >>>>>> s? >>>>>>>>>> Two. >>>>>>>>>> If at all possible, try to make statements actually supported by >>>>>>>>>> facts, Jason. >>>>>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>>>> Good point--our troops will eventually leave Iraq and Afghanistan= >>>> . If=3D >>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> leaders of either of those countries asked Bush to remove our tro= >>>> ops =3D >>>>>> from >>>>>>>>> their countries--Bush would do it. >>>>>>>>> The Muslims from the middle east are in the process of taking ove= >>>> r the >>>>>>>>> Sudan. >>>>>>>> In the real world Moslems have controlled the Sudan for centuries. >>>>>>>> At present, they are committing genocide against the people in >>>>>>>>> Darfur. >>>>>>>> People supposedly supported by the government of the Sudan are doing >>>>>>>> that not Moslems as a group, and Darfur is part of the Sudan. >>>>>>>>> Various experts are concerned that once they have total control >>>>>>>>> over the Sudan--they will use the Sudan as a staging area to take= >>>> ove=3D >>>>>> r the >>>>>>>>> surrounding African countries. >>>>>>>> Name one of these experts. The Sudan is barely able to take over t= >>>> he >>>>>>>> Sudan. Many of the surrounding countries have been Moslem for a >>>>>>>> thousand years. Your experts seem to have missed a lot. >>>>>>>>> You may want to google "genocide in Darfur" >>>>>>>>> if you don't believe me. >>>>>>>> Nobody believes you. I doubt that you believe you. >>>>>>> The muslims from the middle east want to have total contrl of the Sud= >>>> an. >>>>>>> Upon request, I'll post an article about it.- Skjul tekst i anf=3DF8r= >>>> selste=3D >>>>>> gn - >>>>>>> - Vis tekst i anf=3DF8rselstegn - >>>>>> The Moslems of the Middle East are not involved in the Sudan. You are >>>>>> making =3DEDt up as you go along. >>>>> Are there any Arab Muslims in Darfur?- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >>>>> >>>>> - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >>>> The relevant question is why do you argue for a position that has >>>> already been demonstrated to be wrong? The article you yourself >>>> posted contradicts your description of the situation in Darfur. In >>>> any event I would be very surprised if there were no Arabs in Darfur, >>>> or Frenchmen or Americans etc., but you are still completely wrong; >>>> and you have provided documentation that shows you are wrong. >>> Yes, I found out from my web search that the Christians live in the >>> southern part of the Sudan. I was under the impression there were some >>> Christians living in Darfur but found out I was wrong. There are Arabs in >>> Darfur that are funded by Arabs from the Middle East. The Arabs in the >>> Middle East probably have a long range plan that involves taking over all >>> oil wells in the Sudan. I only posted one of the reports that I read. >> Probably? Jason, where is your Christian charity? If you have >> evidence, produce it. If you don't, this sort of baseless speculation >> is rumormongering and talebearing. One might be Christian, but the >> other probably isn't. > > Please note that I used the term "probably" in my post. If you google > "Arabs in Darfur"--you will probably read the same sort of info. that I > wrote in my post. > > The mullahs preach about the end goal of the Muslims. The end goal is to > take over the world--one country at a time. They learned a very important > lesson from Hitler. Hitler tried to take over the world in about 10 years. > The Muslims don't make 10 year plans. They make 100 year plans. The end > goal of the 100 year plan is to take over the world. Getting the control > of all the oil wells in Africa is part of that plan. Feel free to trust > the Muslims if you want to--just keep in mind 9/11. > It will get very complicated. Ultimately the West will reduce its dependency on oil and become more energy self-sufficient. This will reduce the flow of money to the Arab states, and reduce their ability to engage in jihad. Also Islam is a faith that teaches moral behavior and acceptance of others. It has been hijacked by fundamentalists just as Christianity is experiencing. There are many divisions within Islam, and these will manifest over time. Islam is about the same age as Christianity when it entered its Dark Ages. It will emerge, just as did Christianity. In the meantime, the worst thing we can do is become as oppressive as our attackers. They are attacking our freedoms under the guise of religion. If we surrender those, they will have won. Quote
Guest cactus Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <dMngi.16072$2v1.8743@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>, > bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <8di383tk4k8aadt0l1ac85ua22n1mmct4f@4ax.com>, Don Kresch >>> <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >>> >>>> In alt.atheism On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:02:36 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >>>> (Jason) let us all know that: >>>> >>>>> In article <trWdnVoGW5eUORzbnZ2dnUVZ_tDinZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish >>>>> <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> It seems to me that the child would be more comforted knowing that the >>>>>>> child's grandmother was in heaven than being told that her >>> grandmother was >>>>>>> lying in a casket buried in the dirt. >>>>>> It also seems that the child would be even more comforted >>>>>> with a dose of morphine. Unfortunately, if you raise >>>>>> children on doses of either lies or opiates, they grow up to >>>>>> be adults with poorly developed minds. >>>>> You may have to give the child a dose of morphine after telling the child >>>>> that her grandmother was not in heaven but instead was still in the casket >>>>> that was buried in the dirt. >>>> It's better to have the truth than a comfortable lie, don't >>>> you agree? Comfortable lies come back to bite you later in life. >>>> >>>> >>>> Don >>>> --- >>>> aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde >>>> Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. >>>> >>>> "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" >>>> Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" >>> Christians do not consider it a lie. >>> >>> >> And yet, Jason, you want to usurp my rights and my childrens' rights to >> a secular education. > > Don't worry--as of now--the evolutionists are winning all of the court > cases. They don't want any competition. > > I do worry because the attacks are unceasing. And I do not want science to have to compete with religious dogma and ignorance. The price of keeping religious dogma out of our public schools is unceasing vigilance. Quote
Guest cactus Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <6Lngi.16070$2v1.14695@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>, > bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <1182911724.230962.192450@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Jun 27, 1:47 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> In article <5eclv9F38b9m...@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >>>>> <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: >>>>>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:Jason-2506072238410001@66-52-22-54.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>>>>> In article <1182828376.590242.59...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >>> Martin >>>>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Jun 26, 9:12 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article <yAZfi.7126$n9.6...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >>>>>>>>> <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:Jason-2406071818230001@66-52-22-6.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>>>>>>>>> In article >>>>>>>>>>> >>> <DipthotDipthot-A725FE.16174624062...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, >>>>>>>>>>> 655321 <DipthotDipt...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In article >>>>>>>>>>>> <Jason-2306071116110...@66-52-22-111.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, >>>>>>>>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> I want to make it legal for teachers >>>>>>>>>>>>> to teach ID >>>>>>>>>>>> But it is legal to do that... >>>>>>>>>>>> ... in a comparative religions, class, for example. >>>>>>>>>>>> So what's your problem? >>>>>>>>>>> I was referring to high school science and biology classes. Of >>>>>>>>>>> course, >>>>>>>>>>> evolution should also be taught in those same classes. >>>>>>>>>> Tell me Jason, just how would you propose teaching ID as science? >>>>>>> Please be >>>>>>>>>> specific in your reply. >>>>>>>>> Teachers and students would use the textbook "Of Pandas and People" >>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>> has no Biblical content. >>>>>>>> It also has no scientific content. And you can't argue that it does >>>>>>>> because you've never seen it. >>>>>>> That's true--just a book review. >>>>>> How can you advocate something you haven't even bothered to read? >>>>> Since I know the basics of creation... >>>> So you, Jason, consider yourself qualified to teach a science class? >>>> That's exactly the kind of travesty we want to avoid. >>>> >>>> Martin >>> Martin, >>> No--I don't have a degree in science. A graduate of the ICR college could >>> teach a science class. >> Not in my town unless credentialled, and not unless he or she followed >> the standard curriculum. Which BTW does not include creationism or >> "intelligent design." >> >> Many of their students are high school biology and >>> chemistry teachers. >> Frightening. >> >> The ICR college only offers one degree--Master's >>> Degree. I once saw the required classes--most were science classes. >> Real science? >> >> They >>> offer summer classes so the high school science teachers can keep their >>> jobs. >>> Jason >>> >>> > > Most teachers follow the rules. The teachers that don't follow the > standard curriculum usually get another job--perhaps at a Christian school > or get fired. > Jason > > Yep Quote
Guest cactus Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 Martin wrote: > On Jun 27, 2:45 pm, cactus <b...@nonespam.com> wrote: >> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >>> On 26 Jun., 22:16, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>> In article <1182887737.836228.164...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, >>>> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >>>>> On 26 Jun., 02:57, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>> In article <1182816528.662652.63...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>>>>> snip >>>>>> Martin, >>>>>> I recall learning that Easter Sunday was derived from the tradition that >>>>>> Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday. Google "Easter Sunday" to find out the >>>>>> reason it is called Easter Sunday and not Easter Monday. >>>>>> Jason- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >>>>> And, according to your "logic", Christians must be pagans, since the >>>>> word "Easter" comes from the name of a pagan goddess. >>>> This is from Wikipedia: >>>> Easter, the Sunday of the Resurrection, Pascha, or Resurrection Day, is >>>> the most important religious feast of the Christian liturgical year, >>>> observed at some point between late March and late April each year (early >>>> April to early May in Eastern Christianity), following the cycle of the >>>> moon. It celebrates the resurrection of Jesus, which Christians believe >>>> occurred on the third day of his death by crucifixion some time in the >>>> period AD 27 to 33. Easter also refers to the season of the church year, >>>> called Eastertide or the Easter Season. Traditionally the Easter Season >>>> lasted for the forty days from Easter Day until Ascension Day but now >>>> officially lasts for the fifty days until Pentecost. The first week of the >>>> Easter Season is known as Easter Week or the Octave of Easter. >>>> Today many families celebrate Easter in a completely secular way, as a >>>> non-religious holiday. >>> And, according to your "logic", Christians must be pagans, since the >>> word "Easter" comes from the name of a pagan goddess. >> I regard Christianity as being closer to paganism than Judaism or Islam >> because Christianity is the only "monotheistic" religion that has a >> deity mating with a human, that divides its deity into two or three >> parts, and is the only one to limit its god with a definition of what it >> is. All three are attributes of paganism. > > Don't forget angels, daemons and saints, the latter to whom Catholics > may pray directly. > > Martin > Right, although it depends on how the angels etc are viewed. Judaism allows the existence of angels, but is very careful to specify that they do G-d's bidding and have no free will of their own. They may be invoked as protectors in bedtime prayers, but the prayer is to G-d to send them, and not to the angels themselves. Quote
Guest cactus 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 > 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 Martin Phipps Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Jun 28, 2:12 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1183006804.224891.285...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, "Bob > T." <b...@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. > I believe the evidence for common descent and abiogenesis is underwhelming. Whatever. Evidence for ID is non-existant. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Jun 28, 2:50 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1183012036.428416.157...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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". > > Lots of people consider it an alternative to evolution. Including you? Seriously? 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. Now tell us what facts support ID. What evidence backs this up? Martin Quote
Guest John Baker Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:12:13 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >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. And I believe you are an ignorant, uneducated buffoon with an over-inflated ego and a sub-normal IQ. The difference between those two beliefs is that you have no empirical support whatsoever for yours, whereas every time you post, you add to the vast body of evidence supporting mine. > Quote
Guest John Baker Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:27:10 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >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. There are no lies being taught, Jason, because public schools don't teach ID. Which reminds me ... the last time you "visited" us, I gave you a list of documented examples of deliberate creationist lies. To paraphrase one of your favorite lines, you failed to comment on them. Would you like me to repost them so you can have another shot? <G> > Quote
Guest John Baker Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:53:41 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >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? Son, if I didn't have a sense of humor, I'd have plonked you after your first post. > Quote
Guest John Baker Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:23:38 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >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. What "criticisms", Jason? You've offered none. Nothing but your usual never-ending litany of "it's my guess", "I believe" and "in my opinion." >Many of those sorts of people would discard evolution if a better >theory became available. Any scientist would discard any current theory if a better one came along. That's how science works. However, not only is ID not a "better theory" than current evolutionary theory, it isn't a theory at all. It's nothing more or less than spin-doctored creationism, and you damned well know it. > Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:25:56 -0400, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: - Refer: <IIKdnSM1ZKRVkB7bnZ2dnUVZ_tyinZ2d@comcast.com> >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? You missed out the "power" aspect of it all. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:55:45 -0400, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: - Refer: <blq5831br3orbt04qgl28bvschbbmbo43s@4ax.com> >On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:35:13 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> >wrote: > >>Jason wrote: >>> In article <f5rnk0$40j$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Bob T. wrote: >>>>> On Jun 25, 11:04 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>> Good point--our troops will eventually leave Iraq and Afghanistan. If the >>>>>> leaders of either of those countries asked Bush to remove our troops from >>>>>> their countries--Bush would do it. >>>>> <snicker> No, he wouldn't. >>>> He didn't listen when they asked him not to invade (at least in Iraq's >>>> case, he didn't. I'm not saying if the invasion was right or wrong; >>>> simply pointing out that it was against the wishes of the then-current >>>> leader(s) of the country.) so why would he listen when they ask him to >>>> leave? >>> >>> In Iraq--the current leaders are different than the former leaders. If the >>> current leaders asked Bush to remove the troops--I believe Bush would >>> remove the troops. I seem to recall that the citzens voted on this issue >>> about a year ago and they voted to keep our troops in their country. They >>> had to have their finger prints tested and they proudly held up their >>> inked fingers to the cameras to show they had freely voted. >> >>Damned, Jason, you're going to have a heart attack from back-pedalling >>so fast. > > >I've done this before and been wrong, and I may be wrong this time, >but I'm calling Loki on Jason. A bloody determined one, if he is. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:49:49 -0400, "Christopher Morris" <Draccus@roadrunner.com> wrote: - Refer: <4681fa7e$0$12189$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> > >"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. Are you saying that you actually believe in "false" gods? Don't you fuckwits have a penalty for that? -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:19:06 -0700, johac <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: - Refer: <jhachmann-E4FD13.16190627062007@news.giganews.com> >In article <dc648397hljrpucad3mdd3d8ub31lmd1gq@4ax.com>, > Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:15:52 -0700, johac >> <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> - Refer: <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. >> >> Odin is feeling a little thor at the moment... >> > >Thor's kid? He should be careful. He could get hammered. His dad could drink an ocean, apparently, just on a bet. I imagine that the tyke will inherit his old man's capacity... -- 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.