Guest Jason Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 In article <GBVgi.1551$ca.961@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-2706072104030001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <qfudnSPFtMzXkR7bnZ2dnUVZ_sfinZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >> > In article <Gr2dnTUtqYqunh7bnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John > >> > Popelish > >> > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Jason wrote: > >> >> (snip) > >> >>> Yes, a creationist school board and evolutionist both have agendas. > >> >> I agree. How about taking a stab at summarizing what you > >> >> thing each of those agendas is about. > >> > > >> > One group wants to teach ID and evolution to the children. > >> > One group wants to teach only evolution to the the children. > >> > >> Yes, yes, but why do they want those things? > > > > Because both groups believe they are correct. > > > > Please state your point. > > His point is, that religion is at the base of the drive for ID. Thanks for your post. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 In article <tsVgi.1516$ca.481@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-2706072213310001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <1183006015.234811.244140@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jun 28, 12:23 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > In article <1182999837.081663.66...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, > >> > Martin > >> > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > > On Jun 28, 10:42 am, John Popelish <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > >> > > > Martin Phipps wrote: > >> > > > > On Jun 28, 8:37 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > > >> > > > >> I explained why I use the term 'evolutionist' in another post. > > Summary > >> > > > >> version: I found the term on page 8 of the Nov/2004 issue of > >> > > > >> National > >> > > > >> Geographic. > >> > > >> > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism > >> > > >> > > > > "Scientists object to the terms evolutionism and evolutionist > >> > > > > because > >> > > > > the -ism and -ist suffixes accentuate belief rather than > >> > > > > scientific > >> > > > > study. Conversely, creationists use those same two terms partly > >> > > > > because the terms accentuate belief, and partly perhaps because > >> > > > > they > >> > > > > provide a way to package their opposition into one group, > >> > > > > seemingly > >> > > > > atheist and materialist, designations which are irrelevant to > >> > > > > science." > >> > > >> > > > > To use the term "evolutionist" makes as much sense as calling > >> > > > > scientists who believe in gravity "gravitationists" as if gravity > >> > > > > were > >> > > > > something that one had to believe in. > >> > > >> > > > Or studies. I can't get too offended by someone calling a > >> > > > scientist who studies evolution, an evolutionist. Not when > >> > > > other scientists are called chemists, physicists, > >> > > > cosmologists and biologists. > >> > > >> > > Perhaps, but the sciences are called chemistry, physics, cosmology > >> > > and > >> > > biology and not "chemistrism", "physicism", "cosmologism" or > >> > > "biologism". Scientists who study evolution are studying evolution > >> > > and not "evolutionism". The latter is a clear attempt of trying to > >> > > paint science as religion. > >> > > >> > For some people, evolution appears to me to be their religion. > >> > >> And yet you admit... > >> > >> On Jun 27, 2:34 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > We are in agreement--evolution is a theory. Yes, the theory explains > >> > the > >> > facts that are backed up with evidence. > >> > >> Evolution is not a religion if it "explains the facts" and is "backed > >> up with evidence". > >> > >> > However, many of the advocates of evolution do not treat evolution as > >> > their religion and as a result can discuss my criticisms without > > becoming upset. > >> > >> You've never provided any criticism of evolution, Jason. All you said > >> was that you didn't believe in "abiogenesis and common descent". > >> Well, Jason, Natural Selection says nothing about abiogenesis: you've > >> been told that over and over again. Besides, the mere fact that you > >> don't believe in something is not a criticism: you keep telling us > >> that you don't believe in common descent as if you were some sort of > >> expert and your opinion should matter to us. There's a reason why > >> most people choose to bow to the authority of experts: it's because > >> the experts actually know what they are talking about. > >> > >> Martin > > > > Martin, > > Unlike you, I don't always trust the experts. For hundreds of years, the > > experts believed the earth was the center of the universe. Copernicus and > > Galileo proved that the experts were wrong. The experts claimed that man > > could not fly--the Wright brothers proved they were wrong. Just because > > experts tell me that life evolved from non-life, I don't automatically > > believe them unless they can prove it in a lab experiment. I did not > > believe and accept Natural Selection until a biology professor proved it > > to me and I also later read research results that proved it to me. > > Jason > > Glad to see that you are an evolutionist. Yes, I accept Natural Selection but not common descent and abiogenesis. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:55:14 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2706072155140001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1183005349.015957.157410@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 28, 12:01 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1182999027.010644.21...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > On Jun 28, 9:05 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > > In article <dtv58312phiktfiqtpv32v17teslrgg...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> > > > > And no Christian has to believe the lies you teach about life on earth >> > > > > to be a Christian. The _vast_ majority of Christians in this country >> > > > > have no problem with the evidence that shows that evolution >happened. It >> > > > > takes heretics like you to tell lies about this. >> > >> > > > Not according to polls. They took a poll in Ohio and the result was that >> > > > 68% wanted both evolution and ID to be taught. >> > >> > > Do you honestly think that this reflects a belief on their part that >> > > evolution didn't happen or even that evolution and ID should be taught >> > > as competing theories? It is not only a lie to say that ID is true, >> > > it is a lie to say that it is a viable theory competing with >> > > evolution. >> >> > I think that poll indicated that 68% of the people that live in Ohio >> > believe that both evolution and ID should be taught in the public school >> > system. I agree with 68% of the people in Ohio. About 32% of the people in >> > Ohio agree with you. >> >> You didn't answer the question (as usual), Jason. Free Lunch said >> "The _vast_ majority of Christians in this country have no problem >> with the evidence that shows that evolution happened" and you >> disagreed with him, pointing to the Ohio poll. Do you really think >> that this poll indicates that mainstream Christians have a "problem >> with the evidence that shows that evolution happened"? The fact is >> that you, yourself, have admitted that the evidence is in our favour: > > >I'll try again: >I don't think that the majority of people in America have a problem with >the evidence that shows that evolution happened. I don't think that the >majority of people in America have a problem with public school teachers >teaching an alternative to evolution theory such as Intelligent design. >Jason > But that is because Creationist have been lying about their religious doctrine for so long that they have brainwashed many into believing that there is scientific evidence to support ID/Creationism. How many people do you think would want Creationism taught in a science class if the question were asked properly, like this: "Despite the fact that no scientific evidence supports ID/Creationism and much scientific evidence shows that it is wrong, some people want this religious doctrine taught in science class. Do you support violating the Constitution to teach ID/Creationism in science class?" Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 In article <KwVgi.1532$ca.1504@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-2706072123380001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > 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. > > Then you would be wrong. > > > If you went in to some churches and criticized their religion, they may > > get very upset with you. > > Connection??? > > > 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. > > No, they are just dealing with scientific illiterate's like you. It does > make you made when someone with the low level of scientific knowledge that > you posses, criticizes scientists who have spent their lives in their chosen > fields. > > > However, many of the advocates of evolution do not treat evolution as > > their religion and as a result can discuss my criticisms without becoming > > upset. Many of those sorts of people would discard evolution if a better > > theory became available. > > Any true advocate of science would discard a theory if it were proven wrong. > Unfortunately for you and your kind, ID and creation science are not > scientific theories. In fact, evolution has no scientific challengers. I disagree. The best decision that the advocates of evolution ever made was to disassociate with the advocates of abiogenesis. When I attended a college biology class in 1971, abiogenesis was still an important aspect of evolution. The primordial pond (aka primordial soup) theory was in our text book and the professor (an advocate of evolution) firmly believed it happened. There is NO evidence to indicate that life evolved from non-life in a primordial soup. I believe that Natural Selection is the best aspect of evolution. I believe that intelligent design explains how life came to be on this planet. It makes much more sense than abiogenesis. Jason Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:50:23 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <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. > They are wrong, Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:27:10 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <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. > Please identify the lies that you think you have identified in the teaching of evolution. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:53:41 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <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? > Not when you have a history of defaming scientists. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2806071641570001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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 :-)))) If they knew any biology you might be right. Unfortunately they are all just like you. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:12:12 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2706072112120001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1182996100.383023.275930@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 28, 8:37 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > I explained why I use the term 'evolutionist' in another post. Summary >> > version: I found the term on page 8 of the Nov/2004 issue of National >> > Geographic. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism >> >> "Scientists object to the terms evolutionism and evolutionist because >> the -ism and -ist suffixes accentuate belief rather than scientific >> study. Conversely, creationists use those same two terms partly >> because the terms accentuate belief, and partly perhaps because they >> provide a way to package their opposition into one group, seemingly >> atheist and materialist, designations which are irrelevant to >> science." >> >> To use the term "evolutionist" makes as much sense as calling >> scientists who believe in gravity "gravitationists" as if gravity were >> something that one had to believe in. >> >> Learn. >> >> Martin > >Based on the above information, evolutionist is a great term. > Once again, you show that you are rude and dishonest. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:33:49 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <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 There is no independent evidence that Jesus was crucified. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2806071711050001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <KwVgi.1532$ca.1504@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-2706072123380001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > 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. >> >> Then you would be wrong. >> >> > If you went in to some churches and criticized their religion, they may >> > get very upset with you. >> >> Connection??? >> >> > 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. >> >> No, they are just dealing with scientific illiterate's like you. It does >> make you made when someone with the low level of scientific knowledge >> that >> you posses, criticizes scientists who have spent their lives in their >> chosen >> fields. >> >> > However, many of the advocates of evolution do not treat evolution as >> > their religion and as a result can discuss my criticisms without >> > becoming >> > upset. Many of those sorts of people would discard evolution if a >> > better >> > theory became available. >> >> Any true advocate of science would discard a theory if it were proven >> wrong. >> Unfortunately for you and your kind, ID and creation science are not >> scientific theories. In fact, evolution has no scientific challengers. > > I disagree. Wow. What more do we need? Jason, the scientific wonder disagrees. > The best decision that the advocates of evolution ever made > was to disassociate with the advocates of abiogenesis. It has always been a separate theory. > When I attended a > college biology class in 1971, abiogenesis was still an important aspect > of evolution. The primordial pond (aka primordial soup) theory was in our > text book and the professor (an advocate of evolution) firmly believed it > happened. There is NO evidence to indicate that life evolved from non-life > in a primordial soup. Abiogenesis is still mentioned in evolution class but it is still not a part of the TOE > I believe that Natural Selection is the best aspect of evolution. Who cares? Your scientific knowledge is abysmal. > I believe that intelligent design explains how life came to be on this > planet. It makes much more sense than abiogenesis. According to you. Unfortunately your opinion means nothing to anyone other than yourself. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2806071657040001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. THE CONTENT OF ID IS RELIGIOUS!!!!!! REFERENCES BE DAMNED!!!!! Man, you're dense! Quote
Guest cactus Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 Mike wrote: > Jason wrote: >> In article <f5tmlm$535$7@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> >>> Jason wrote: >>>> In article <1182888536.294395.68200@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, >>>> gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: >>>>> Why do Christians celebrate a holiday named after a pagan goddess? >>>> You failed to answer the above question. >>>> I don't know if that is true. If it is true, I don't know the >>>> reason. I am >>>> not an expert related to Bible history. A Jehovahs Witness told me >>>> something about the origin of Christmas. I don't worship any pagan >>>> goddesses. >>> You failed to answer the above question. >> >> Thanks for your post. > > You still failed to answer the question (did you honestly think we > wouldn't notice?) You don't get it. Jason ignores questions he doesn't like, or can't face and does the same for answers that he doesn't like. Except in the latter case he gives an innocuous, meaningless reply before ignoring it. He's sort of a chatterbot who can dodge anything except comments which confront him to the point of being offensive. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2806071607490001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <ajVgi.1480$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 The evidence is ID itself. Learn something while others just think you're stupid, you don't have to prove it! Quote
Guest John Baker Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:39:49 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >In article <5ehv7nF38g2i7U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" ><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> "John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message >> news:eeu6835ui1hmjiibc0rk2kv7rtefq2v76g@4ax.com... >> > 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> >> >> crickets chirping >> >> I think that's a "no" > >No I didn't think so. > Quote
Guest cactus Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f60tng$fqm$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f5tmlm$535$7@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <1182888536.294395.68200@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, >>>>> gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>> Why do Christians celebrate a holiday named after a pagan goddess? >>>>> You failed to answer the above question. >>>>> >>>>> I don't know if that is true. If it is true, I don't know the reason. I am >>>>> not an expert related to Bible history. A Jehovahs Witness told me >>>>> something about the origin of Christmas. I don't worship any pagan >>>>> goddesses. >>>> You failed to answer the above question. >>> Thanks for your post. >> You still failed to answer the question (did you honestly think we >> wouldn't notice?) > > I just checked my Bible dictionary and it does state that Easter was named > after the Goddess Eastra. The dictionary states: "In the Bible, Easter is > only mentioned one time but is a mistranslation. The original is > pascha--the ordinary Greek word for passover." (Acts 12:4). "In the > revised version of the Bible, the word "Easter" was replaced with Passover > due to the translation problem related to Easter." > Jason > > Yet another case where Tanach does it right and the Greek Testament does it wrong. The Hebrew term for Passover is Pesach. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:57:04 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2806071657040001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <HAVgi.1548$ca.49@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: .... >> 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. > Did you mean to say that you are _not_ a lawyer? If you would bother to read the Dover case, you would find out that there is really no way that Pandas could survive if they actually had to tell the truth. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:59:57 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2806071659570001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <tsVgi.1516$ca.481@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-2706072213310001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <1183006015.234811.244140@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Jun 28, 12:23 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > In article <1182999837.081663.66...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, >> >> > Martin >> >> > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > On Jun 28, 10:42 am, John Popelish <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: >> >> > > > Martin Phipps wrote: >> >> > > > > On Jun 28, 8:37 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > > >> I explained why I use the term 'evolutionist' in another post. >> > Summary >> >> > > > >> version: I found the term on page 8 of the Nov/2004 issue of >> >> > > > >> National >> >> > > > >> Geographic. >> >> > >> >> > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism >> >> > >> >> > > > > "Scientists object to the terms evolutionism and evolutionist >> >> > > > > because >> >> > > > > the -ism and -ist suffixes accentuate belief rather than >> >> > > > > scientific >> >> > > > > study. Conversely, creationists use those same two terms partly >> >> > > > > because the terms accentuate belief, and partly perhaps because >> >> > > > > they >> >> > > > > provide a way to package their opposition into one group, >> >> > > > > seemingly >> >> > > > > atheist and materialist, designations which are irrelevant to >> >> > > > > science." >> >> > >> >> > > > > To use the term "evolutionist" makes as much sense as calling >> >> > > > > scientists who believe in gravity "gravitationists" as if gravity >> >> > > > > were >> >> > > > > something that one had to believe in. >> >> > >> >> > > > Or studies. I can't get too offended by someone calling a >> >> > > > scientist who studies evolution, an evolutionist. Not when >> >> > > > other scientists are called chemists, physicists, >> >> > > > cosmologists and biologists. >> >> > >> >> > > Perhaps, but the sciences are called chemistry, physics, cosmology >> >> > > and >> >> > > biology and not "chemistrism", "physicism", "cosmologism" or >> >> > > "biologism". Scientists who study evolution are studying evolution >> >> > > and not "evolutionism". The latter is a clear attempt of trying to >> >> > > paint science as religion. >> >> > >> >> > For some people, evolution appears to me to be their religion. >> >> >> >> And yet you admit... >> >> >> >> On Jun 27, 2:34 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > We are in agreement--evolution is a theory. Yes, the theory explains >> >> > the >> >> > facts that are backed up with evidence. >> >> >> >> Evolution is not a religion if it "explains the facts" and is "backed >> >> up with evidence". >> >> >> >> > However, many of the advocates of evolution do not treat evolution as >> >> > their religion and as a result can discuss my criticisms without >> > becoming upset. >> >> >> >> You've never provided any criticism of evolution, Jason. All you said >> >> was that you didn't believe in "abiogenesis and common descent". >> >> Well, Jason, Natural Selection says nothing about abiogenesis: you've >> >> been told that over and over again. Besides, the mere fact that you >> >> don't believe in something is not a criticism: you keep telling us >> >> that you don't believe in common descent as if you were some sort of >> >> expert and your opinion should matter to us. There's a reason why >> >> most people choose to bow to the authority of experts: it's because >> >> the experts actually know what they are talking about. >> >> >> >> Martin >> > >> > Martin, >> > Unlike you, I don't always trust the experts. For hundreds of years, the >> > experts believed the earth was the center of the universe. Copernicus and >> > Galileo proved that the experts were wrong. The experts claimed that man >> > could not fly--the Wright brothers proved they were wrong. Just because >> > experts tell me that life evolved from non-life, I don't automatically >> > believe them unless they can prove it in a lab experiment. I did not >> > believe and accept Natural Selection until a biology professor proved it >> > to me and I also later read research results that proved it to me. >> > Jason >> >> Glad to see that you are an evolutionist. > >Yes, I accept Natural Selection but not common descent and abiogenesis. > Yet your rejection of these entails rejecting evidence. Why do you reject evidence? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:41:57 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2806071641570001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >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. How many actual astronomers were there then? What sort of work were they doing? > >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 :-)))) > Yes, they can and are. 25% of Americans don't think that George W Bush is totally incompetent. Don't assume that Americans have any idea what they are doing. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:50:59 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2806071651000001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >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. > Christians completely dominate this country. If they get guns to 'defend' themselves, all they'll be doing is shooting other Christians. Quote
Guest 655321 Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 In article <Jason-2806071648190001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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. > > Unlike you, I do think that opinion polls are important. For certain things, yes. For issues that require expertise and knowledge and intellectual rigor? Not just no, but hell no. > Those people that you mentioned serve on juries and vote in elections. Sad. Also irrelevant. > They serve on school boards. Sad. Also irrelevant. > Yes, opinion polls are important. They are only important in trying to get a rough picture of public sentiment. They are NOT important when it comes to the pursuit of scientific knowledge, and the teaching of said pursuit. > Many of them teach their children that God created the world and mankind. Sad. Also utterly irrelevant. What matters is that one does not seek scientific truth by taking a poll. One does not decide what is a scientific pursuit by taking a poll. One therefore should not design a scientific curricululm by taking a poll. To do so is to dumb down science, dumbing down the pursuit of empirical truth. It's that simple. Of course you clearly don't mind dumbing down the pursuit of truth. Go ahead... prove me wrong. You can't. You can't even give your own reasoned defense for bringing a non-scientific concept (ID) into a science curriculum. You keep trying to dumb down this specific dispute by avoiding anything that requires you to defend your own position. Citing an opinion poll is a dodge. Especially since you will only cite polls that agree with you... as you have proven above. -- 655321 "We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 In article <aik8831uiifgo0n0jspivql28c3jcukc66@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:33:49 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <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 > > There is no independent evidence that Jesus was crucified. If people choose not to believe the information in the Bible, that is their choice. According to the Time Almanac (2005), 1.9 billion people are Christians so they do believe the information in the Bible. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 In article <gDXgi.5693$09.1311@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-2806071633490001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <wqVgi.1507$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. That may or may not be true. At least three disciples discussed the details of the crucifixtion in their gospels. One disciple was present at the burial of Jesus and the two Marys. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 In article <m1l883tn1apiut59eflv5di5gf3a2fa9ca@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:41:57 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2806071641570001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >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. > > How many actual astronomers were there then? What sort of work were they > doing? I was referring to scientists. I don't know the number of scientists or astronomers that were living during those days. > > > >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 :-)))) > > > Yes, they can and are. > > 25% of Americans don't think that George W Bush is totally incompetent. > Don't assume that Americans have any idea what they are doing. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 In article <h0j8839af6lpv6ddmmfjm8s4f1ok32cct6@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:55:14 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2706072155140001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <1183005349.015957.157410@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jun 28, 12:01 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > In article <1182999027.010644.21...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > > On Jun 28, 9:05 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > > > In article <dtv58312phiktfiqtpv32v17teslrgg...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > > >> > > > > And no Christian has to believe the lies you teach about life on earth > >> > > > > to be a Christian. The _vast_ majority of Christians in this country > >> > > > > have no problem with the evidence that shows that evolution > >happened. It > >> > > > > takes heretics like you to tell lies about this. > >> > > >> > > > Not according to polls. They took a poll in Ohio and the result was that > >> > > > 68% wanted both evolution and ID to be taught. > >> > > >> > > Do you honestly think that this reflects a belief on their part that > >> > > evolution didn't happen or even that evolution and ID should be taught > >> > > as competing theories? It is not only a lie to say that ID is true, > >> > > it is a lie to say that it is a viable theory competing with > >> > > evolution. > >> > >> > I think that poll indicated that 68% of the people that live in Ohio > >> > believe that both evolution and ID should be taught in the public school > >> > system. I agree with 68% of the people in Ohio. About 32% of the people in > >> > Ohio agree with you. > >> > >> You didn't answer the question (as usual), Jason. Free Lunch said > >> "The _vast_ majority of Christians in this country have no problem > >> with the evidence that shows that evolution happened" and you > >> disagreed with him, pointing to the Ohio poll. Do you really think > >> that this poll indicates that mainstream Christians have a "problem > >> with the evidence that shows that evolution happened"? The fact is > >> that you, yourself, have admitted that the evidence is in our favour: > > > > > >I'll try again: > >I don't think that the majority of people in America have a problem with > >the evidence that shows that evolution happened. I don't think that the > >majority of people in America have a problem with public school teachers > >teaching an alternative to evolution theory such as Intelligent design. > >Jason > > > But that is because Creationist have been lying about their religious > doctrine for so long that they have brainwashed many into believing that > there is scientific evidence to support ID/Creationism. How many people > do you think would want Creationism taught in a science class if the > question were asked properly, like this: > > "Despite the fact that no scientific evidence supports ID/Creationism > and much scientific evidence shows that it is wrong, some people want > this religious doctrine taught in science class. Do you support > violating the Constitution to teach ID/Creationism in science class?" I understand your point: This is how I would ask the questions: Do you believe humans evolved from other life-forms without any involvement of god? yes or no Do you believe that both evolution and intelligent design should be taught in the public schools or just evolution? 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.