Guest Ralph Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2706072341580001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. We have been asking you for weeks and weeks to give us the basics of ID. When you decide to do this you will then see how bankrupt ID is as a scientific theory. > 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. Jason, we have also told you many times that ID itself is religious. You can't prepare the case any differently because ID is what it is, a variation of creation science! Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2706072104030001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. His point is, that religion is at the base of the drive for ID. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2706072253410001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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? I don't imagine he does when he is dealing with you. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2706072127100001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. What lies? Please be specific. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2706072220170001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. And these support ID in exactly what way?? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2706072312130001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. Then you are ignorant of the scientific evidence. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2706072350230001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. Lots of people would be wrong. Ninety-three per cent of biologists can't be wrong :-))). Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2706072101500001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1182999027.010644.21390@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 28, 9:05 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <dtv58312phiktfiqtpv32v17teslrgg...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > > And no Christian has to believe the lies you teach about life on >> > > earth >> > > to be a Christian. The _vast_ majority of Christians in this country >> > > have no problem with the evidence that shows that evolution happened. >> > > It >> > > takes heretics like you to tell lies about this. >> > >> > Not according to polls. They took a poll in Ohio and the result was >> > that >> > 68% wanted both evolution and ID to be taught. >> >> Do you honestly think that this reflects a belief on their part that >> evolution didn't happen or even that evolution and ID should be taught >> as competing theories? It is not only a lie to say that ID is true, >> it is a lie to say that it is a viable theory competing with >> evolution. >> >> Martin > > I think that poll indicated that 68% of the people that live in Ohio > believe that both evolution and ID should be taught in the public school > system. I agree with 68% of the people in Ohio. About 32% of the people in > Ohio agree with you. So what??? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2706071809470001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <4tDgi.17316$19.1318@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-2706071713420001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <G3Agi.2276$K9.86@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:Jason-2706070154310001@66-52-22-64.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> > 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. >> >> >> >> The 'evolutionists' have won because they are right. In the weeks I >> >> have >> >> dealt with you, you have been unable to tell any of us the science >> >> involved >> >> in creation science or ID and yet you continue to return to the court >> >> cases. >> >> You need to learn what is in the court cases if you want to continue >> >> to >> >> use >> >> them as an example. By the way, you have never defined for us your use >> >> of >> >> the word 'evolutionists'. Care to give that a try now, since you >> >> continue >> >> to >> >> use the term? >> > >> > This is where I found the term "evolutionist": >> > >> > I found these sentences on page 8 of the Nov/2004 issue of National >> > Geographic: >> > >> > "...[Darwin] spent years classifying baracles. By 1854 he was known as >> > a >> > barnacle expert--though not yet an evolutionist." >> > >> > The science involved related to creation science and ID is related to >> > fossils and rock strata. Dr. John Baumgardner is a geophysics professor >> > at >> > the ICR Graduate School. He obtained his Ph.D in geophysics at UCLA. He >> > served as a staff scientist in the Theoretical Division of Los Alamos >> > National Laboratory for 20 years. Dr. Baumgardner and Dr. Steve Austin >> > have done lots of research at the Grand Canyon related to fossils and >> > rock >> > strata >> >> I asked you, Jason, I don't care where you got the term. I want to know >> in >> what context you use the term. Do you want me to spell it out for you??? > > yes The term evolutionists doesn't describe anyone in science. We have biologists of different types, astronomers, cosmologists, astro-physicists, paleontologists and so forth. If you wish to criticize science, please use the god damn correct terminology Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2706071759280001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <0m06839l4gvfhtku198i6q55ed2odt2n6v@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:42:25 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2706071042260001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <k3m4839mgss0cijljuel3pm2nk3jonlg9c@4ax.com>, Matt >> >Silberstein >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:16:11 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com >> >> (Jason) in >> >> <Jason-2606072216110001@66-52-22-64.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >In article <fqp3839gge41v4q43tmsag4qdme6g95nts@4ax.com>, Matt >> >> >Silberstein >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:12:36 -0700, in alt.atheism , >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com >> >> >> (Jason) in >> >> >> <Jason-2606072112370001@66-52-22-64.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <vfk383lau8cr3oq9f2kglqucrlkn8mgn5s@4ax.com>, Matt > Silberstein >> >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:49:32 -0700, in alt.atheism , >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com >> >> >> >> (Jason) in >> >> >> >> <Jason-2606071749330001@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> [snip] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >The poll indicated that over 60% of the people that live in > Ohio wanted >> >> >> >> >both ID and evolution be taught in the public schools. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> What if 60% wanted separate schools for blacks and whites? >> >> >> > >> >> >> >It would be illegal for a school board to do that. >> >> >> > >> >> >> And it was illegal for the school board to put ID into the >> >> >> curriculum. >> >> >> >> >> >> I suggest you go and look up the history of complaint about >> >> >> legislation from the bench. They started in the '50s pretty much >> >> >> with >> >> >> Brown v Topeka Board of Education. When people complained about the >> >> >> Court making law what they specifically meant was when the Court >> >> >> ruled >> >> >> that separate but "equal" schools were illegal. >> >> > >> >> >Yes, we studied that case while I was in college. I understand your >> >> >point. >> >> >The ID people should have done a better job in making sure they had >> >> >no >> >> >religion mixed in--they failed. Perhaps they will do a better job the >> >> >next >> >> >time. >> >> >> >> How? I mean that. ID is religion, you admit over and over that your >> >> motives and goals are religious in nature and that your source >> >> material is religious. ID is religion and any attempt by its >> >> supporters to say otherwise is just lying. Do you support lying to >> >> promote Christianity? >> > >> >Matt, >> >Yes, you are correct. However, the people in the ID movement could >> >arrange >> >to do it in such a way that no court could find any evidence of >> >religion. >> >They tried to do it in the Dover case but they failed. Perhaps they will >> >never succeed. >> >Jason >> > >> I still cannot tell if you want them to actually engage in science or >> try to be more subtle in telling lies. > > I want them to engage in science. The goal is unrelated to lies. The goal > is comply with the law related to religion. The law states that religion > should not be taught so they have to remove all EVIDENCE of religion in > order to comply with the law. If they do that ID will go away because it is religious. Quote
Guest 655321 Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <2nq783hp1qahgi8f07oq7p5t8bsd52jvt7@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> In alt.atheism On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:05:56 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >>> Not according to polls. They took a poll in Ohio and the result was that >>> 68% wanted both evolution and ID to be taught. >>> >> What if 68% of the people wanted to kill all christians? > > Their opinions would be ignored. So you agree that polls don't always apply when it comes to decision making. Consider: At least 68% of the population of the world are not too bright and are easily confused or distracted, or both. They still believe that Saddam Hussein caused the September 11, 2001 attacks. They still believe that marijuana is a killer drug. They think that lemmings naturally run off cliffs to their deaths in large numbers. Why? As I said, they're not too bright. Nor are they diligent enough to do the necessary research in order to disabuse themselves of these flagrant falsehoods. So why, when talking about educating our young, about making them smarter than the previous generation, should the opinion of these rather dull-witted masses be considered? Do you wish the same level of intellectual mediocrity on our young as that which plagues contemporary American society? If you say no, then enough with the opinion polls, already. -- 655321 Quote
Guest johac Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 In article <h1078311ckh892ma7qpjl56v0h105p40qu@4ax.com>, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > 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... I wouldn't want to get into a drinking contest with him. > > -- -- 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 johac Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 In article <5ehujiF385pl0U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > "johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > news:jhachmann-5CB182.16175027062007@news.giganews.com... > > In article <5efchvF36n37vU1@mid.individual.net>, > > "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > > > >> "Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message > >> news:1vj3835t86vajghq9n05jc1n7qdhe7ntud@4ax.com... > >> > 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! > >> > >> True, but as a long-time fan of Norse mythology, I think Odin could give > >> Zeus a run for his money > > > > I don't know. Maybe we could get all the gods in an arena and let them > > fight it out to see who's the toughest non-existent being. Sort of a > > divine bum fight. :-) > > LOL! Diety Death Match? Who knows how to do claymation? LOL! I wish I knew how! I'd love to put something like that on YouTube. :-) -- 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 johac Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 In article <740783hjnp1rl69hncffbem3j5p90ls05v@4ax.com>, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:17:50 -0700, johac > <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: > - Refer: <jhachmann-5CB182.16175027062007@news.giganews.com> > >In article <5efchvF36n37vU1@mid.individual.net>, > > "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > > > >> "Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message > >> news:1vj3835t86vajghq9n05jc1n7qdhe7ntud@4ax.com... > >> > 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! > >> > >> True, but as a long-time fan of Norse mythology, I think Odin could give > >> Zeus a run for his money > > > >I don't know. Maybe we could get all the gods in an arena and let them > >fight it out to see who's the toughest non-existent being. Sort of a > >divine bum fight. :-) > > Is that "bum" as in "vagrant", or "bum" as in "derriere"? Vagrants. A few years back some idiots in this country were paying homeless people to fight each other while being taped. The would sell the tapes to bigger idiots who got off watching such violence. > > -- -- 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 Don Kresch Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 In alt.atheism On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 11:09:10 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <2nq783hp1qahgi8f07oq7p5t8bsd52jvt7@4ax.com>, Don Kresch ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> In alt.atheism On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:05:56 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >> >Not according to polls. They took a poll in Ohio and the result was that >> >68% wanted both evolution and ID to be taught. >> > >> What if 68% of the people wanted to kill all christians? >> >> >> Don >Their opinions would be ignored. But would you think that they should be put into place? After all: it's 68%. 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" Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 In article <ajVgi.1480$ca.1355@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-2806071036540001@66-52-22-99.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <5ehuo4F3867mbU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> news:Jason-2706071755270001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> > 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. > >> > >> You mean they need to be more dishonest? > > > > You would have to understand the "rules of evidence" before you could > > understand the reasons for properly preparing a court case. I only know > > about the rules of evidence since I was recently on jury duty and we had > > to listen to a lecture from the judge related to the rules of evidence > > before we were allowed to serve on juries. I heard that same lecture > > several years ago. > > Jason, most all of us have been on juries. many of us have taken law courses > in college. Many of us understand about the rules of evidence. Since I > belong in all three categories what I don't understand is how you intend to > take a sow and make her into a ballerina. If you understand the rules of evidence as well as you claim, than you should already know that the IDers have to remove all evidence of religion from the textbook and curriculum guide. Judges are suppose to base their final decisions on EVIDENCE and not on assumptions. Jason Quote
Guest 655321 Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 Jason wrote: > Have you ever taking a class where two separate theories to explain the > same thing was discussed. I can't think of any good examples. Actually, it's fairly common in many disciplines, from philosophy to theoretical physics to economics, politics and social sciences. (Your educational background seems to lack depth if you've never come across such things.) Now, as there is no scientific theory related to ID, ID has no place in a science course. There's no way around that. -- 655321 Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. Yes. Well. Those point to Evolution. Not to what they claim.... If they want to base their claim on that, the opposition to that doesn't have to show up... Tokay -- May the Fleas of a Thousand Camels infest one of your Erogenous Zones. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 In article <wDVgi.1560$ca.1542@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-2706072220170001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > 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. > > And these support ID in exactly what way?? Hello, As I have stated in other posts, I no longer own a book entitled, "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by Dr. D.T. Gish They have a newer book entitled, "The Fossil Book" by G and M Parker that discusses paleontology and fossils. Upon request, I'll try to find an article on the web related to fossils. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 In article <wqVgi.1507$ca.1266@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-2706072141260001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > 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. > > What makes you think that the disciples were witnesses? There were thousands of people attending the crucifixion. The disciples were probably part of the crowd. The Bible indicates that Joseph of Arimathea; Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were present when Jesus was buried (Matthew 27: 57-61). Jason Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2806071633490001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <wqVgi.1507$ca.1266@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-2706072141260001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > 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. >> >> What makes you think that the disciples were witnesses? > > There were thousands of people attending the crucifixion. The disciples > were probably part of the crowd. The Bible indicates that Joseph of > Arimathea; Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were present when Jesus was > buried (Matthew 27: 57-61). > Jason Sorry to burst your bubble Jason, but the disciples were in hiding. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 In article <fFVgi.1567$ca.1231@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-2706072350230001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > 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. > > Lots of people would be wrong. Ninety-three per cent of biologists can't be > wrong :-))). Yes they can--In the days of Galileo and Copernicus, all of the scientists (except for those two people) were wrong. Only 12% of Americans believe that humans evolved from other life-forms without any involvement of a God. 88% of Americans can't be wrong :-)))) Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 In article <wMVgi.27339$YL5.8475@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, 655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <2nq783hp1qahgi8f07oq7p5t8bsd52jvt7@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > > <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > > >> In alt.atheism On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:05:56 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > >> (Jason) let us all know that: > >> > >>> Not according to polls. They took a poll in Ohio and the result was that > >>> 68% wanted both evolution and ID to be taught. > >>> > >> What if 68% of the people wanted to kill all christians? > > > > Their opinions would be ignored. > > So you agree that polls don't always apply when it comes to decision making. > > Consider: At least 68% of the population of the world are not too bright > and are easily confused or distracted, or both. They still believe that > Saddam Hussein caused the September 11, 2001 attacks. They still > believe that marijuana is a killer drug. They think that lemmings > naturally run off cliffs to their deaths in large numbers. Why? As I > said, they're not too bright. Nor are they diligent enough to do the > necessary research in order to disabuse themselves of these flagrant > falsehoods. > > So why, when talking about educating our young, about making them > smarter than the previous generation, should the opinion of these > rather dull-witted masses be considered? > > Do you wish the same level of intellectual mediocrity on our young as > that which plagues contemporary American society? > > If you say no, then enough with the opinion polls, already. > -- > 655321 Unlike you, I do think that opinion polls are important. Those people that you mentioned serve on juries and vote in elections. They serve on school boards. Yes, opinion polls are important. Many of them teach their children that God created the world and mankind. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 In article <ome8839pa0tdhquoah9j858j14nqan8soq@4ax.com>, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > In alt.atheism On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 11:09:10 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > (Jason) let us all know that: > > >In article <2nq783hp1qahgi8f07oq7p5t8bsd52jvt7@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > > >> In alt.atheism On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:05:56 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > >> (Jason) let us all know that: > >> > >> > >> >Not according to polls. They took a poll in Ohio and the result was that > >> >68% wanted both evolution and ID to be taught. > >> > > >> What if 68% of the people wanted to kill all christians? > >> > >> > >> Don > > >Their opinions would be ignored. > > But would you think that they should be put into place? After > all: it's 68%. > > > 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" They can if they vote yes on a proposition or ballot measure. Of couse, some judge may overrule the vote. If such a measure did pass, Christians that did not already own guns would buy lots of guns to defend their homes and children. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 In article <HAVgi.1548$ca.49@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-2706072341580001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > 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. > > We have been asking you for weeks and weeks to give us the basics of ID. > When you decide to do this you will then see how bankrupt ID is as a > scientific theory. > > > 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. > > Jason, we have also told you many times that ID itself is religious. You > can't prepare the case any differently because ID is what it is, a variation > of creation science! I could not do it since I am now a lawyer. The lawyer should read the textbook and curriculum guide from cover to cover and underline any references to God, Jesus, religion or scriptures. The textbook and curriculum guide should be re-written with those items deleted. 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.