Guest Jason Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 In article <ptk883l55t40lqmutk0pac0uh4u3o2nv7m@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > 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$ca.49@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > ... > >> Jason, we have also told you many times that ID itself is religious. You > >> can't prepare the case any differently because ID is what it is, a variation > >> of creation science! > > > >I could not do it since I am now a lawyer. The lawyer should read the > >textbook and curriculum guide from cover to cover and underline any > >references to God, Jesus, religion or scriptures. The textbook and > >curriculum guide should be re-written with those items deleted. > > > Did you mean to say that you are _not_ a lawyer? > > If you would bother to read the Dover case, you would find out that > there is really no way that Pandas could survive if they actually had to > tell the truth. I met to say--I could not do it since I am not a lawyer. Based on what I have read, the IDers really screwed up in the Dover case. Hopefully, they have learned from their mistakes. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 In article <e0l883t608fc0d1nfsgeqg3ccqh8s5efpk@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:59:57 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2806071659570001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <tsVgi.1516$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? I don't reject evidence. I have stated in other posts that I would accept abiogenesis if scientists could conduct a lab experiment that proved that life could evolve from non-life. Someone referred me to a site that discussed an experiment that proved that some genetic material could be produced from non-genetic material. As you know, there is a vast amount of difference between genetic material and life. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 In article <1qYgi.655$Qz4.434@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-2806071711050001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <KwVgi.1532$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. Keep in mind that about 88% of Americans agree with me related to this issue. Quote
Guest 655321 Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 In article <Jason-2806071932410001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Do you believe humans evolved from other life-forms without any > involvement of god? yes or no That's easy: Why should I? There has been no good reason to do so. That's the main point for being an atheist. No one has set forth a good reason to believe in any gods. When posed with question whose answer is unknown, the skeptic is pretty darned comfortable with the answer, "As yet, the answer to that question is unknown." We don't feel the need to fill in the void with invented gods who, amazingly, fit the void so precisely that they, suddenly, simply must be true -- looking back post-invention, that is. > Do you believe that both evolution and intelligent design should be taught > in the public schools or just evolution? ID isn't something someone can teach, because there is no teachable element of it. It's all preaching when it comes to ID. You have to invent a god(s) concept to teach; you have to invent the process by which the god(s) did the creating, and then, perhaps the purpose. All this invention has nothing to do with observation. And that's what makes it unscientific. No "textbook" of any number of pages can conceal that fact. And teaching post-invention is PREACHING, pure and simple. So "teaching" ID has no place in public schools. Sunday School, perhaps. (Bad ones.) But you have run away from one of my questions. I'll repeat it here, and you'll probably run again, or pretend you didn't read it: How many of the numerous creation theories do you want to bring into the ID curriculum? One? A dozen? Two hundred? (Don't worry, there are that many -- scores more, in fact.) In other words, how far down the twisted, branched theological path do you want to take your 'science' students before you admit to them that you're NOT teaching them science at all? I anticipate that you will again run from this question. Do prove me wrong. I salivate at the opportunity. ------------------------------ "Creation theories" are more accurately called "myths," but I'll set that aside for now for the purpose of this discussion , because I know how skittish you believers get around that word. I choose to call this thread a "discussion" at this time, even though you, the dishonest coward that you will demonstrate that you are, will likely run from my question, which negates the possibility that it's a discussion at all. --------------------------------- -- 655321 "We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi Quote
Guest 655321 Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 In article <Jason-2806071925330001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > I don't know .....much of anything. -- 655321 "We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi Quote
Guest 655321 Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 In article <Jason-2806071658110001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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. Translation: "I will now ignore your point and continue to repeat my illogical arguments in favor of preaching to science students." -- 655321 "We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi Quote
Guest 655321 Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 In article <Jason-2806071935400001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Based on what I have read, the IDers really screwed up in the Dover case. > Hopefully, they have learned from their mistakes. The screwed up by trying to argue it. Their case was indefensible on its face. This is the classic "we wuz robbed" defense made by the losing team. The wind was blowing in our faces; our place-kicker missed that crucial field goal; the ref blew a call. Only thing is, the game was a blowout. Not even close. -- 655321 "We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi Quote
Guest Bob T. Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On Jun 28, 7:35 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <ptk883l55t40lqmutk0pac0uh4u3o2n...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:57:04 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-2806071657040...@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <HAVgi.1548$ca...@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > ><mmman...@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. > > I met to say--I could not do it since I am not a lawyer. > > Based on what I have read, the IDers really screwed up in the Dover case. > Hopefully, they have learned from their mistakes. Yes, I hope they have learned from their mistakes... and now acknowledge that the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation for the nature and diversity of life on Earth. - Bob T. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 In article <0uYgi.16272$2v1.3247@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f60tng$fqm$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <f5tmlm$535$7@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>> In article <1182888536.294395.68200@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > >>>>> gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >>>>>> Why do Christians celebrate a holiday named after a pagan goddess? > >>>>> You failed to answer the above question. > >>>>> > >>>>> I don't know if that is true. If it is true, I don't know the reason. I am > >>>>> not an expert related to Bible history. A Jehovahs Witness told me > >>>>> something about the origin of Christmas. I don't worship any pagan > >>>>> goddesses. > >>>> You failed to answer the above question. > >>> Thanks for your post. > >> You still failed to answer the question (did you honestly think we > >> wouldn't notice?) > > > > I just checked my Bible dictionary and it does state that Easter was named > > after the Goddess Eastra. The dictionary states: "In the Bible, Easter is > > only mentioned one time but is a mistranslation. The original is > > pascha--the ordinary Greek word for passover." (Acts 12:4). "In the > > revised version of the Bible, the word "Easter" was replaced with Passover > > due to the translation problem related to Easter." > > Jason > > > > > Yet another case where Tanach does it right and the Greek Testament does > it wrong. The Hebrew term for Passover is Pesach. I just checked Acts 12:4 in the New American Standard Bible and the term used in Acts 12:4 is "passover" and not "easter". In the original King James Bible, the term in 12:4 is "easter". Quote
Guest cactus Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <wMVgi.27339$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. >> -- >> 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 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 In article <DipthotDipthot-677E57.20063928062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, 655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > In article > <Jason-2806071932410001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > Do you believe humans evolved from other life-forms without any > > involvement of god? yes or no > > That's easy: Why should I? There has been no good reason to do so. > That's the main point for being an atheist. No one has set forth a good > reason to believe in any gods. > > When posed with question whose answer is unknown, the skeptic is pretty > darned comfortable with the answer, "As yet, the answer to that question > is unknown." > > We don't feel the need to fill in the void with invented gods who, > amazingly, fit the void so precisely that they, suddenly, simply must be > true -- looking back post-invention, that is. > > > Do you believe that both evolution and intelligent design should be taught > > in the public schools or just evolution? > > ID isn't something someone can teach, because there is no teachable > element of it. It's all preaching when it comes to ID. You have to > invent a god(s) concept to teach; you have to invent the process by > which the god(s) did the creating, and then, perhaps the purpose. > > All this invention has nothing to do with observation. And that's what > makes it unscientific. No "textbook" of any number of pages can conceal > that fact. > > And teaching post-invention is PREACHING, pure and simple. > > So "teaching" ID has no place in public schools. Sunday School, > perhaps. (Bad ones.) > > But you have run away from one of my questions. I'll repeat it here, > and you'll probably run again, or pretend you didn't read it: > > How many of the numerous creation theories do you want to bring into > the ID curriculum? One? A dozen? Two hundred? (Don't worry, there are > that many -- scores more, in fact.) Only one--Visit the Discovery Institute website for details. They have already published a textbook entitled, "Of Pandas and People". > > In other words, how far down the twisted, branched theological path do > you want to take your 'science' students before you admit to them that > you're NOT teaching them science at all? It's a basic course related to the basics of Intelligent Design. When I took a high school biology class, we only spent about two weeks on evolution. The teacher could cover Intelligent Design in about two weeks. > > I anticipate that you will again run from this question. > > Do prove me wrong. I salivate at the opportunity. > > ------------------------------ > > "Creation theories" are more accurately called "myths," but I'll set > that aside for now for the purpose of this discussion , because I know > how skittish you believers get around that word. > > I choose to call this thread a "discussion" at this time, even though > you, the dishonest coward that you will demonstrate that you are, will > likely run from my question, which negates the possibility that it's a > discussion at all. > > --------------------------------- Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 In article <1183088116.373342.15810@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, "Bob T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > On Jun 28, 7:35 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <ptk883l55t40lqmutk0pac0uh4u3o2n...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:57:04 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > <Jason-2806071657040...@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > >In article <HAVgi.1548$ca...@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > ><mmman...@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. > > > > I met to say--I could not do it since I am not a lawyer. > > > > Based on what I have read, the IDers really screwed up in the Dover case. > > Hopefully, they have learned from their mistakes. > > Yes, I hope they have learned from their mistakes... and now > acknowledge that the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation for > the nature and diversity of life on Earth. > > - Bob T. They still have a web site. I just hope they have their ducks in a row and are better prepared for the next case than they were prepared for the Dover case. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 In article <DipthotDipthot-68E504.20110728062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, 655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > In article > <Jason-2806071935400001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > Based on what I have read, the IDers really screwed up in the Dover case. > > Hopefully, they have learned from their mistakes. > > The screwed up by trying to argue it. Their case was indefensible on > its face. > > This is the classic "we wuz robbed" defense made by the losing team. > The wind was blowing in our faces; our place-kicker missed that crucial > field goal; the ref blew a call. > > Only thing is, the game was a blowout. Not even close. Perhaps it will be different during the next court case. Quote
Guest cactus Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1qYgi.655$Qz4.434@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "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. > > Keep in mind that about 88% of Americans agree with me related to this issue. > > This doesn't make them right. Remember, there was almost universal consensus that the world was flat until the late 15th Century CE. "Intelligent Design" rates about the same as flat Earth in terms of scientific merit. But, like a flat Earth, it is easier and more convenient to believe because it fits with what we want things to be. Quote
Guest cactus Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <ptk883l55t40lqmutk0pac0uh4u3o2nv7m@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> 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. > > I met to say--I could not do it since I am not a lawyer. > > Based on what I have read, the IDers really screwed up in the Dover case. > Hopefully, they have learned from their mistakes. > > They will never learn. If they were to learn from their mistakes, they would not try to force their religion, under the guise of science, on everyone else. Quote
Guest cactus Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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 Yes. > > Do you believe that both evolution and intelligent design should be taught > in the public schools or just evolution? > Just evolution. Anything else is false, bad science, and stealth religious doctrine. > Quote
Guest cactus Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. I always thought that being a Christian meant that a person accepted Jesus as their lord and savior. I also thought that they were required to believe that Jesus was the son of god, or whatever it is you call it. I didn't think that they were required to believe anything else. > Jason > > Quote
Guest Christopher Morris Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2806072216570001@66-52-22-36.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article > <DipthotDipthot-677E57.20063928062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > 655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > >> In article >> <Jason-2806071932410001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > Do you believe humans evolved from other life-forms without any >> > involvement of god? yes or no >> >> That's easy: Why should I? There has been no good reason to do so. >> That's the main point for being an atheist. No one has set forth a good >> reason to believe in any gods. >> >> When posed with question whose answer is unknown, the skeptic is pretty >> darned comfortable with the answer, "As yet, the answer to that question >> is unknown." >> >> We don't feel the need to fill in the void with invented gods who, >> amazingly, fit the void so precisely that they, suddenly, simply must be >> true -- looking back post-invention, that is. >> >> > Do you believe that both evolution and intelligent design should be >> > taught >> > in the public schools or just evolution? >> >> ID isn't something someone can teach, because there is no teachable >> element of it. It's all preaching when it comes to ID. You have to >> invent a god(s) concept to teach; you have to invent the process by >> which the god(s) did the creating, and then, perhaps the purpose. >> >> All this invention has nothing to do with observation. And that's what >> makes it unscientific. No "textbook" of any number of pages can conceal >> that fact. >> >> And teaching post-invention is PREACHING, pure and simple. >> >> So "teaching" ID has no place in public schools. Sunday School, >> perhaps. (Bad ones.) >> >> But you have run away from one of my questions. I'll repeat it here, >> and you'll probably run again, or pretend you didn't read it: >> >> How many of the numerous creation theories do you want to bring into >> the ID curriculum? One? A dozen? Two hundred? (Don't worry, there are >> that many -- scores more, in fact.) > > Only one--Visit the Discovery Institute website for details. They have > already published a textbook entitled, "Of Pandas and People". > Jason that is not a text book it is a fraud more of the snake oil they have been trying to pass off as science. There is no science in the whole book and it is a thinly veiled cover for their religous beliefs not science. > > >> >> In other words, how far down the twisted, branched theological path do >> you want to take your 'science' students before you admit to them that >> you're NOT teaching them science at all? > > It's a basic course related to the basics of Intelligent Design. When I > took a high school biology class, we only spent about two weeks on > evolution. The teacher could cover Intelligent Design in about two weeks. What is the Theory of Intellegent Design? The Discovery Institute was asked this very question and you know what they did not have an answer. See Jason a Theory needs to be able to be shown to be false you can not do that with God did it. >> >> I anticipate that you will again run from this question. >> >> Do prove me wrong. I salivate at the opportunity. >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> "Creation theories" are more accurately called "myths," but I'll set >> that aside for now for the purpose of this discussion , because I know >> how skittish you believers get around that word. >> >> I choose to call this thread a "discussion" at this time, even though >> you, the dishonest coward that you will demonstrate that you are, will >> likely run from my question, which negates the possibility that it's a >> discussion at all. >> >> --------------------------------- > > Quote
Guest Christopher Morris Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2806072221340001@66-52-22-36.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1183088116.373342.15810@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, "Bob > T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 28, 7:35 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> Yes, I hope they have learned from their mistakes... and now >> acknowledge that the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation for >> the nature and diversity of life on Earth. >> >> - Bob T. > > They still have a web site. I just hope they have their ducks in a row and > are better prepared for the next case than they were prepared for the > Dover case. > Jason > Jason they got caught selling snake oil they have nothing else to present. There is no theory, there is no hypothesis, and there is no lesson plan. It is all smoke and mirrors, it is folks like you that they do not want to look behind the curtain and see who it is that is pulling the pulleys and levers. They are not going to make it rain and the snake oil is just alcohol with a new coloring. You have a religious belief teach that to your kids at home and let the teachers teach science in the classroom. The forts of religion and science are not the same and both have their places they simply are different ones. Quote
Guest Bob T. Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On Jun 28, 10:21 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1183088116.373342.15...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, "Bob > > > > > > > > T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > > On Jun 28, 7:35 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <ptk883l55t40lqmutk0pac0uh4u3o2n...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:57:04 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > > <Jason-2806071657040...@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > >In article <HAVgi.1548$ca...@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > > ><mmman...@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. > > > > I met to say--I could not do it since I am not a lawyer. > > > > Based on what I have read, the IDers really screwed up in the Dover case. > > > Hopefully, they have learned from their mistakes. > > > Yes, I hope they have learned from their mistakes... and now > > acknowledge that the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation for > > the nature and diversity of life on Earth. > > > - Bob T. > > They still have a web site. I just hope they have their ducks in a row and > are better prepared for the next case than they were prepared for the > Dover case. You mean, you hope they are better at lying? I don't. - Bob T. > Jason- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Quote
Guest Christopher Morris Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2806072223150001@66-52-22-36.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article > <DipthotDipthot-68E504.20110728062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > 655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > >> In article >> <Jason-2806071935400001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > Based on what I have read, the IDers really screwed up in the Dover >> > case. >> > Hopefully, they have learned from their mistakes. >> >> The screwed up by trying to argue it. Their case was indefensible on >> its face. >> >> This is the classic "we wuz robbed" defense made by the losing team. >> The wind was blowing in our faces; our place-kicker missed that crucial >> field goal; the ref blew a call. >> >> Only thing is, the game was a blowout. Not even close. > > Perhaps it will be different during the next court case. > Jason it will not be different because ID is not science it is religion and it has no place in the science class. Quote
Guest Christopher Morris Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 "cactus" <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote in message news:Pn1hi.7304$Rw1.6291@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... > Jason wrote: >> 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. > > I always thought that being a Christian meant that a person accepted Jesus > as their lord and savior. I also thought that they were required to > believe that Jesus was the son of god, or whatever it is you call it. I > didn't think that they were required to believe anything else. > > Jason does not seem to know that Biblical literalism is not a requirement of being a Christian and that the mainstream of the faith reject it. Those who believe the Bible is inerrant make up a very small number of overall Christians in the world, somewhere between 1 and 5 % are the numbers I have seen. Quote
Guest 655321 Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 In article <Jason-2806072216570001@66-52-22-36.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article > <DipthotDipthot-677E57.20063928062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > 655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > > > But you have run away from one of my questions. I'll repeat it here, > > and you'll probably run again, or pretend you didn't read it: > > > > How many of the numerous creation theories do you want to bring into > > the ID curriculum? One? A dozen? Two hundred? (Don't worry, there are > > that many -- scores more, in fact.) > > Only one-- But why? Isn't that intellectual fraud, given the vast complex collection of creation theories? >Visit the Discovery Institute website for details. They have > already published a textbook entitled, "Of Pandas and People". Your political underwear is showing again. The DI has a blatant social and political agenda, and it's proud of it. A pretty Web site does nothing. I tracked down their "Wedge Strategy" brochure (http://tinyurl.com/2kx62c), and took a look at the DI's own attempts to rationalize it away on their Web site (http://tinyurl.com/djnsx). Taken together, it's obvious that the DI is in fact -- at its most benign -- a political organization with an agenda that involves indoctrinating people into a certain philosophical world view. It openly admits as much. Over time, it seems, they've surgically removed their Christian agenda from their public documents, so as to make what they do more "rational." The DI tried to generate some political and legal traction by using the phrase "Teach the controversy." That is not science. What the DI does is what places like Learning Tree are for. That is not science. There is no controversy between evolution and ID. There is no scientific theory of ID to compare to the theory(ies) of evolution. > > In other words, how far down the twisted, branched theological path do > > you want to take your 'science' students before you admit to them that > > you're NOT teaching them science at all? > > It's a basic course related to the basics of Intelligent Design. There's only ONE "basic" concept essential to ID: "A god or gods did it." And it's pure conjecture. Everything beyond that is further philosophical conjecture based on that initial GUESS. That's it. What scientific "course" is required? Answer: None. Take it to Learning Tree or some other private program. Get a church to sponsor it. Keep it out of the science curriculum, or else you're committing fraud against the minds of the students. > When I > took a high school biology class, we only spent about two weeks on > evolution. The teacher could cover Intelligent Design in about two weeks. Talk about a wacky sense of proportion! You have been well indoctrinated by your handlers. Stay tuned to Fox News and everything will be all right. Oh, and, if at some point the fog clears in your head, feel free to sue your teachers. > > I anticipate that you will again run from this question. Okay... you didn't run. You provided the expected answer, based on your own religious bias. The second most expected outcome. -- 655321 "We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi Quote
Guest 655321 Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 In article <Jason-2806072223150001@66-52-22-36.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article > <DipthotDipthot-68E504.20110728062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > 655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > > > In article > > <Jason-2806071935400001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > Based on what I have read, the IDers really screwed up in the Dover case. > > > Hopefully, they have learned from their mistakes. > > > > The screwed up by trying to argue it. Their case was indefensible on > > its face. > > > > This is the classic "we wuz robbed" defense made by the losing team. > > The wind was blowing in our faces; our place-kicker missed that crucial > > field goal; the ref blew a call. > > > > Only thing is, the game was a blowout. Not even close. > > Perhaps it will be different during the next court case. Put more dummies on the bench, and you may be right. You know, Reagan once tried to argue that ketchup was a vegetable, and some people believed him, too. -- 655321 "We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi Quote
Guest 655321 Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 In article <Jason-2806071657040001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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. This isn't a legal question. It's a scientific one. Is it a scientific theory to say that the universe is a product of an intelligent designer? The answer (no lawyers needed) is NO. There's nothing to test, nothing to falsify, no way to model such a thing. The only place to go from there is theological debate: Who/what is/are the intelligent designer/s? Why did he/she/it/they do it? How did he/she/it/they do it? How many intelligent designers can fit on the head of a pin? > The lawyer should read the > textbook and curriculum guide from cover to cover and underline any > references to God, Jesus, religion or scriptures. The phrase "intelligent design" is code for every god out there. That's the only way it can be read. It doesn't have to say 'God,' 'Jesus,' 'Scriptures,' or any such thing. The main thing that is wrong with the "textbook" is that it's NOT A SCIENCE BOOK. If it's not a religious tract, then it's a philosophical text. > The textbook and > curriculum guide should be re-written with those items deleted. They'd have to remove any and all references to an alleged intelligent designer, until someone actually came up for a scientific test for one. What would be left of the "textbook" and "curriculum" then? (You know the answer to that one.) -- 655321 "We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi 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.