Guest Michael Gray Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:25:44 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: - Refer: <sbk883p8er97b9iere74fdt130fl69c1dr@4ax.com> >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. But not in that order... -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:39:20 -0700, johac <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: - Refer: <jhachmann-10F8C1.15392028062007@news.giganews.com> >In article <h1078311ckh892ma7qpjl56v0h105p40qu@4ax.com>, > Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:19:06 -0700, johac >> <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> - Refer: <jhachmann-E4FD13.16190627062007@news.giganews.com> >> >In article <dc648397hljrpucad3mdd3d8ub31lmd1gq@4ax.com>, >> > Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:15:52 -0700, johac >> >> <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> - Refer: <jhachmann-DB11DE.22155226062007@news.giganews.com> >> >> >In article <1vj3835t86vajghq9n05jc1n7qdhe7ntud@4ax.com>, >> >> > Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 15:58:27 -0700, johac >> >> >> <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> >> - Refer: <jhachmann-2EB388.15582726062007@news.giganews.com> >> >> >> >In article >> >> >> ><Jason-2506071038350001@66-52-22-83.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, >> >> >> > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> In article <5ea5jrF383thsU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >> >> >> >> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > snip >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > If they read their Bibles, they will know all about the true God. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > What makes your god the "true" one? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Books have been written on that subject. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >I read books on Greek mythology. Does that mean that Zeus is the true >> >> >> >god? >> >> >> >> >> >> Of course. >> >> >> The non-existent Zeus can kick the non-existent YHWH's butt any time! >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >With one thunderbolt tied behind his back. So could Odin. >> >> >> >> Odin is feeling a little thor at the moment... >> >> >> > >> >Thor's kid? He should be careful. He could get hammered. >> >> His dad could drink an ocean, apparently, just on a bet. >> I imagine that the tyke will inherit his old man's capacity... > >I wouldn't want to get into a drinking contest with him. Heaven forbid! -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:44:09 -0700, johac <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: - Refer: <jhachmann-476633.15440928062007@news.giganews.com> >In article <740783hjnp1rl69hncffbem3j5p90ls05v@4ax.com>, > Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:17:50 -0700, johac >> <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> - Refer: <jhachmann-5CB182.16175027062007@news.giganews.com> >> >In article <5efchvF36n37vU1@mid.individual.net>, >> > "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1vj3835t86vajghq9n05jc1n7qdhe7ntud@4ax.com... >> >> > On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 15:58:27 -0700, johac >> >> > <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> > - Refer: <jhachmann-2EB388.15582726062007@news.giganews.com> >> >> >>In article >> >> >><Jason-2506071038350001@66-52-22-83.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> In article <5ea5jrF383thsU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >> >> >>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > snip >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > If they read their Bibles, they will know all about the true God. >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > What makes your god the "true" one? >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Books have been written on that subject. >> >> >> >> >> >>I read books on Greek mythology. Does that mean that Zeus is the true >> >> >>god? >> >> > >> >> > Of course. >> >> > The non-existent Zeus can kick the non-existent YHWH's butt any time! >> >> >> >> True, but as a long-time fan of Norse mythology, I think Odin could give >> >> Zeus a run for his money >> > >> >I don't know. Maybe we could get all the gods in an arena and let them >> >fight it out to see who's the toughest non-existent being. Sort of a >> >divine bum fight. :-) >> >> Is that "bum" as in "vagrant", or "bum" as in "derriere"? > >Vagrants. A few years back some idiots in this country were paying >homeless people to fight each other while being taped. The would sell >the tapes to bigger idiots who got off watching such violence. The Police will watch anything... -- Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On Jun 29, 10:17 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <aik8831uiifgo0n0jspivql28c3jcuk...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > 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. People choose not to believe the Bible because it's been proven to be nothing but lies. You yourself cannot point to a single line of the Bible which is objectively true. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On Jun 29, 10:21 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <gDXgi.5693$09.1...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Sorry to burst your bubble Jason, but the disciples were in hiding. > > That may or may not be true. It isn't true: they never existed. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On Jun 29, 10:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <m1l883tn1apiut59eflv5di5gf3a2fa...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:41:57 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-2806071641570...@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > 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. You were refering (unknowingly) to clergymen, who are always wrong anyway. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On Jun 29, 10:32 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <h0j8839af6lpv6ddmmfjm8s4f1ok32c...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:55:14 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-2706072155140...@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >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. > > > 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? You've just admitted that ID is a crock of $h!t based on your religion. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On Jun 29, 10:35 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <ptk883l55t40lqmutk0pac0uh4u3o2n...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:57:04 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-2806071657040...@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <HAVgi.1548$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. Their mistake was believing that their god ever existed. All of us here hope they learn from that mistake. Perhaps you too will one day learn from your mistake. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On Jun 29, 10:42 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <e0l883t608fc0d1nfsgeqg3ccqh8s5e...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:59:57 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-2806071659570...@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >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. You've also stated that no amount of evidence could convince you that you were wrong. So which is of your statements was true and which one was a lie? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On Jun 29, 10:42 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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. And yet... > 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. Really? Explain to us, oh great fountain of scientific knowledge, what exactly is the difference between something which is alive and something which reproduces itself chemically? What qualities do your individual cells possess that cause you to say they are "alive"? The evidence that you requested is already available but you lack the scientific know-how to realize it and so you dismiss it out of hand even after promising you wouldn't! Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On Jun 29, 10:47 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Keep in mind that about 88% of Americans agree with me related to this issue. Stop accusing 88% of Americans of being complete idiots like yourself. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On Jun 29, 1:16 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article > <DipthotDipthot-677E57.20063928062...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > 655321 <DipthotDipt...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > > How many of the numerous creation [myths] 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 What makes yours so special? What about all the others? http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html Babylonian Creation Myth "The Moon he caused to shine, entrusting the night to him. He appointed him a creature of the night to signify the days, And marked off every month, without cease, by means of his crown." African Creation Myth - Olori "the Yoruba creation myth traces the origin of the human body to an archetypal sculpture (ere) modeled by the artist-deity Obatala and then activated by the divine breath (emi) of Olodumare," [Check the rest yourself.] African Creation Myths Korean & Japanese Creation Myth comparisons Navajo Creation Myth Norse Creation Myth Creation Myth from India Japanese Creation Myth Comanche Creation Myth Chinese Creation Myth Chelan Creation Myth Pima Creation Myth Mayan Creation Myth Miwok Creation Myth Scandinavian (Norse) Creation Myths Salish Creation Myth Australian Aboriginal Creation Myth Hopi Creation Myth Tahitian Creation Myth Yokut Creation Myth Comanche Creation Myth Egyptian Creation Myths African - Mande, Yoruba Creation Myths Several different short Creation Stories Micmac Creation Myth Lakota Creation Myth Several Creation Stories: India, Romania, Mongol, etc.. Chinese Creation / Flood Myth Assyrian / Babylonian Creation Myth Maori Creation Myth Christian & Jewish Creation Myth (Genesis) Aztec Creation Myth Digueno Creation Myth Apache Creation Myth African Creation Myths Dakota Creation Myth Hungarian Creation Myth Iroquois Creation Myth Inuit Creation Myth Huron Creation Myth Hawaiian Creation Myth Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On Jun 29, 2:06 pm, cactus <b...@nonespam.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > 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. And like flat Earth theory, there had been people who had known for centuries that the world was round (by observing how ships disappear over the horizon or how the sun can be seen directly overhead in Egypt but not in Greece) but the majority of people were scientifically illiterate and ignorant of the truth. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On Jun 29, 1:16 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > When I > took a high school biology class, we only spent about two weeks on > evolution. Did you study genetics in your high school biology class? Genetics is significant evidence for evolution: the fact that what we are can and is encoded in our genes proves that we don't come to be by magic or miracles. Did you study biodiversity? That's a major part of any biology course. All the animals can be classificed into phylums, classes, orders, families, genuses and species. The diversity of life on Earth alone is evidence of evolution: it is, in fact, the only evidence that Darwin had available to him when he constructed his theory. Did you ever spend any time comparing human and animal anatomy, say for example when you dissected a frog or a pig and identified the parts? Did you study the gestation process? All mammals, including humans, begin as embryo inside the mother. If you think your teacher only spent two weeks on evolution then you were not paying attention at all: evolution explains more than just the fossil record; it's the theory that explains all that we observe when we study biology. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On Jun 29, 1:01 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f608fq$pr...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <f5tl6k$53...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > >> Where's the 3rd day, Jason? Do you now believe wikipedia over your own > > >> bible? > > > > The deciples worshipped on Sunday. They knew more about the time aspects > > > than we know today since they were witnesses. > > > So was there some kind of "old math" in place? 3 days would be more than > > 48 hours. From Friday evening to Sunday morning was only 36 or so hours. > > So did Jesus lie or did the disciples? (this isn't an essay question. > > It's a question answered only by either "Jesus" or "the disciples.") > > Yes, only the witnesses could properly answer the question. Any answers > that I gave would only be guesses. The disciples The disciples never existed, Jason. They are fictional characters in a fictional story. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On Jun 29, 3:52 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f60utd$h1...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <f608fq$pr...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > > >>> 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. > > >> So was there some kind of "old math" in place? 3 days would be more than > > >> 48 hours. From Friday evening to Sunday morning was only 36 or so hours. > > >> So did Jesus lie or did the disciples? (this isn't an essay question. > > >> It's a question answered only by either "Jesus" or "the disciples.") > > > > Yes, only the witnesses could properly answer the question. Any answers > > > that I gave would only be guesses. The disciples worshipped on Sunday so > > > that is good enough for the millions of people that worship on Sunday. > > > Like I said, it's not an essay question. You have a choice; Jesus lied > > or the disciples lied. Which was it? > > > > Perhaps you could explain why people that don't believe in Jesus are > > > so concerned about how many days Jesus remained in the tomb. > > > Perhaps you can tell us why you can't answer a simple question? > > The answer: I don't believe that Jesus or the disciples lied. Neither do we: we know that neither of them existed. It was the early Christians who lied when they made up the gospels in the first place. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On Jun 29, 7:07 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > 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. Then what's left? That's the question. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On Jun 29, 7:33 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > There were thousands of people attending the crucifixion. Not at the cruxifiction of Jesus, because Jesus never existed. Other people were cruxified by the Romans, however. The early Christians mixed fact and fiction to create a plausible story and have had people hoodwinked for almost two thousand years. It stops now. Martin Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On 27 Jun., 18:56, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182942920.940426.276...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 27 Jun., 02:02, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <trWdnVoGW5eUORzbnZ2dnUVZ_tDin...@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > > > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > > > > Jason wrote: > > > > > > It seems to me that the child would be more comforted knowing that the > > > > > child's grandmother was in heaven than being told that her > grandmother was > > > > > lying in a casket buried in the dirt. > > > > > It also seems that the child would be even more comforted > > > > with a dose of morphine. Unfortunately, if you raise > > > > children on doses of either lies or opiates, they grow up to > > > > be adults with poorly developed minds. > > > > You may have to give the child a dose of morphine after telling the child > > > that her grandmother was not in heaven but instead was still in the casket > > > that was buried in the dirt. > > > Nobody but you has suggested that the child need be told that. In any > > case it would not be true. The person no longer exists, so she is not > > to be found anywhere buried or otherwise. > > The grandmother is dead but the realiity is that the grandmother's body is > still in the casket. Many Christians explain to children when they visit > the grave that the relative's body is still in the casket but the > relative's soul is in heaven with God. I don't know what atheists tell > their children when they visit the graves of relatives. If you visited the > grave of a relative with a small child, what would you tell the child? > Jason- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On Jun 29, 7:41 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <fFVgi.1567$ca.1...@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-2706072350230001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <1183012036.428416.157...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> "Intelligent design" is not "an > > >> alternative to evolution theory" and you're lying when you say it is: > > >> you've already admitted that even chidren "realize who the intelligent > > >> designer is". Thus, by your own admission, ID isn't even science, let > > >> alone "an alternative to evolution theory". > > > > Lots of people consider it an alternative to evolution. > > > 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. Name ONE other scientist who lived at the time of Galileo: Galileo INVENTED the scientific method. It's true that Copernicus was an astronomer but he was reluctant to publish his results for fear of how the church would react. > Only 12% of Americans believe that humans evolved from other life-forms > without any involvement of a God. And 93% of biologists don't even believe in your god or any god. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On Jun 29, 7:48 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <wMVgi.27339$YL5.8...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, 655321 > <DipthotDipt...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <2nq783hp1qahgi8f07oq7p5t8bsd52j...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > > > <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > > >> In alt.atheism On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:05:56 -0700, J...@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. They are a good way to determine political opinion but not a good way to determine scientific truth. Martin Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On 27 Jun., 19:06, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <468286BD.8080...@osu.edu>, James Burns <burns...@osu.edu> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > [in reply to article <46811A14.2050...@osu.edu>, > > > James Burns <burns...@osu.edu> ] snip > Jim, > I doubt that ID will ever be taught in the public schoools so you have > nothing to fear. Even if ID was taught, all of the problems you discussed > would probably not happen. I have never done any research related to the > many adults that are graduates of Christian high schools. It's my guess > that the vast majority of them are not guilty of any of those things that > you mentioned in your post. > Jason- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On 27 Jun., 19:10, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f5u2fa$im...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > > > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <f5j9aa$nq...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > > >>> In article <1182559237.898964.32...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > >>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >>>> On Jun 23, 2:54 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >>>>> In article <dgtn73hm11dl8eval8ne1s1155rl2td...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > >>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > >>>>>> What scientific facts can they teach about Intelligent Design? > > >>>>> They have a textbook. The teachers would use the text book and > curriculum > > >>>>> guide to teach those classes. > > >>>> You didn't answer the question, Jason. > > > >>>> Martin > > >>> Martin, > > >>> I don't have a copy of the textbook or curriculum guide so don't know what > > >>> sort of facts are in that textbook and curriculum guide. > > >> Again, you didn't answer the question, Jason. It was "what scientific > > >> facts can they teach about ID?" and NOT "what scientific facts are > > >> contained in a specific book?" > > > >> If ID is scientific, then there should be some specific scientific facts > > >> that can be taught about it. What are some of them? > > > > Regardless, I don't know what scientific facts ID has. > > > Then how do you know it's scientific? > > > Try visiting their > > > website. > > > I don't need to. > > > > You never did answer my question. > > > Yes, I did and no, you didn't. > > > You mentioned all of the research that > > > has been done on that cluster of cells. What sort of creature evolved from > > > that cluster of cells? > > > All the creatures that you see around you. > > Please tell me about an experiment where a cluster of cells evolved into a > life form.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On Jun 29, 8:11 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > The best decision that the advocates of evolution ever made > was to disassociate with the advocates of abiogenesis. And yet you yourself agree that abiogenesis happened, except that you claim your god did it. > There is NO evidence to indicate that life evolved from non-life > in a primordial soup. Amazing. This has been posted almost twenty times now so you couldn't have missed it. In 1953, the Miller-Uley experiment showed that amino acids could form spontaneously from elements present in the "primorial soup". (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment ) Other experiments showed that bilipid membranes can form spontaneously. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_bilayer ) Sidney Fox's research showed that amino acids can spontaneously form protein chains. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_W._Fox ) Protein chains can then guide the formation of RNA chains just as RNA chains are known to guide the formation of protein chains. (See http://www.hhmi.org/news/lindquist2.html ). German scientists have already produced molecules in the laboratory that are capable of reproducing themselves and are therefore alive. (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/217054.stm ). Primative cells would have formed as a way to prevent the contents of the cell from drying out. (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stm ). The simplest cells would have been prokaryote cells (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote ) which would have been the ancestors of modern bacteria and archaea while more advanced eukaryotic cells (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryotic ) would have been the ancestors of modern animal, plant and fungis cells. Eukaryotic cells could have formed through a process known as viral eukaryogenesis (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_eukaryogenesis ) in which a virus forms an endosymbiosic relationship with a host prokaryote cell. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory ) Mitochondria and plastids are also believed to have arisen as a result of endosymbiosis, the evidence being that mitochondria and plastids share characteristics with bacteria cells, the only difference being that they cannot survive independent of the rest of the cell, but that's fine because human cells cannot survive independent of the rest of the body either. In both cases, the parts have evolved to depend on the whole. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Major_Transitions_in_Evolution which has links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_multicellularity Martin Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On 27 Jun., 19:19, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1182957003.068411.237...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 27 Jun., 08:18, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1182921562.532086.9...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, snip > > > > And he is not talking about the Moon god. > > > > That is correct. He believe Allah and Yahweh are the same God. > > > And he is forbidden to worship the Moon god by the Quran. Thank you > > for admitting that you were lying. It would be even better if you > > stopped. > > snip > > I continue to believe that Allah was derived from the moon God. The word was derived from a word once used as the name of a Moon deity. >However, I > now believe that most Muslims honestly believe that Allah and Yahweh are > the same God. The only difference being the name used. Just as Christians have different names (in the various languages spoken by Christians) for the same god, and they believe that all of the names used describe the same, Christian god and that that god is the same as Yahweh. By the way no Moslem who follows the teachings of the Quran worships a Moon god. Furthermore Jews also believe that Moslems worship the same god they do. >One Christian that was once a Muslim believes that Muhammed > mis-informed people about the nature of God in the Quran. What possible significance does that have for anything at all? 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.