Guest Ralph Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2906071430000001@66-52-22-78.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <Dkehi.18055$19.2828@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-2906071345110001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <FXdhi.18047$19.9282@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:Jason-2906071323570001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> > In article <f63of0$e38$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> >> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> >> > 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? >> >> >> >> >> >> Do you believe something should be taught in schools that has no >> >> >> scientific backing? >> >> > >> >> > If you are referring to Intelligent Design, it does have fossil >> >> > evidence >> >> > as scientific backing. There have been two books written related to >> >> > fossil >> >> > evidence that supports creation science and intelligent design. Dr. >> >> > Steven >> >> > Austin has a degree in geology from Penn State. He has led 15 >> >> > research >> >> > expeditions to the Grand Canyon. His specialty is the sedimentary >> >> > processes that form rock strata and fossils. >> >> > Jason >> >> >> >> Yes and he maintains that the Grand Canyon is less than 10,000 yeas >> >> old. >> >> It >> >> would appear to me that his specialty is bullshit! >> > >> > No, but during the expeditions to the Grand Canyon, they have to watch >> > out >> > for mule shit. >> >> No Jason, the answer is bullshit!! > > In the report that I read related to the latest expedition, mules were > mentioned since tourists use mules to carry their camping supplies. Bulls > were not mentioned. Perhaps you are referring to the bull.... related to > some of the posts that contained derogatory language. No, I am referring to the claims made by you and your fellow 'scientists'. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 In article <Xvehi.18060$19.16542@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-2906071349500001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <Q_dhi.18049$19.2518@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> news:Jason-2906071331170001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> > In article <6Vdhi.18044$19.13430@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> >> news:Jason-2906071316160001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> >> > In article <SGchi.6374$09.2830@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > >> >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> >> >> news:Jason-2906071056190001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> >> >> > In article <5ekkkiF386fk4U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > >> >> >> > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> snip > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > There were thousands of people attending the crucifixion. The > >> >> >> >> > disciples > >> >> >> >> > were probably part of the crowd. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> How would you know? Were you there? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > It's speculation based upon the fact that at least three of the > >> >> >> > disciples > >> >> >> > discussed aspects of the crucifixion in their gospels. The Bible > >> >> >> > does > >> >> >> > indicate that one disciple and the two Marys were present when > >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> > body > >> >> >> > of > >> >> >> > Jesus was placed in the tomb. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> The disciples didn't write the gospels. In addition, no disciple > >> >> >> was > >> >> >> present > >> >> >> when the he was placed in the tomb. This is, of course, calling a > >> >> >> spade a > >> >> >> spade. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > According to the Bible, one disciple and the two Marys were present > >> >> > when > >> >> > Jesus was placed in the tomb. Of course, if you do not believe the > >> >> > Bible > >> >> > is true than you will not believe that one disciple and the two > >> >> > Marys > >> >> > were > >> >> > present when the body of Jesus was placed in the tomb. > >> >> > Jason > >> >> > >> >> Gee Jason, I read the gospels to see which disciple was there and I > >> >> saw > >> >> no > >> >> reference to one. Perhaps you can give a reference for your assertion. > >> > > >> > Matthew 27: 57-61 > >> > >> Sorry Jason, no disciple here. > > > > I copied these words from the King James verison of the Bible: > > > > When the evening was come, there came a rich man of Arimathea, named > > Joseph, who also himself was Jesus's diciple. > > The word 'disciple' isn't used in several versions of the bible. In > addition, where I said above 'calling a spade a spade was aimed directly at > the scenario. The use of the word disciple is a connotation that it is one > of the twelve. Joseph of Arimathea was mentioned only once in the bible and > it was at this spot. Not much of a disciple, was he? I guess that is why > some versions say, 'one of Jesus' followers'. Amazing what you can get the > bible to say, isn't it? As a result of your post, I checked my other Bible which is the "New American Standard" version. It states: And when it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who himself had also became a disciple of Jesus. I don't know whether or not Joseph was an official disciple of Jesus. I looked up the word "disciple" in my Bible dictionary and it did not have a list of the original 12 disciples. Paul was never an official disciple of Jesus but I seem to recall (and could be wrong) that he was also referred to as an apostle (or disciple) of Christ. Some of the disciples stayed in the background. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 In article <f63t7l$iqv$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <ajVgi.1480$ca.1355@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> news:Jason-2806071036540001@66-52-22-99.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >>> In article <5ehuo4F3867mbU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > >>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >>>> news:Jason-2706071755270001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >>>>> In article <mrDgi.17313$19.3321@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > >>>>> <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >>>>>> news:Jason-2706071727150001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >>>>>>> In article <7rAgi.2306$K9.485@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > >>>>>>> <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >>>>>>>> news:Jason-2706071403510001@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >>>>>>>>> In article <NVzgi.2269$K9.1264@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > >>>>>>>>> <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >>>>>>>>>> > > news:Jason-2706071042260001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >>>>>>>>>>> In article <k3m4839mgss0cijljuel3pm2nk3jonlg9c@4ax.com>, Matt > >>>>>>>>>>> Silberstein > >>>>>>>>>>> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:16:11 -0700, in alt.atheism , > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com > >>>>>>>>>>>> (Jason) in > >>>>>>>>>>>> <Jason-2606072216110001@66-52-22-64.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <fqp3839gge41v4q43tmsag4qdme6g95nts@4ax.com>, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Silberstein > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:12:36 -0700, in alt.atheism , > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Jason) in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Jason-2606072112370001@66-52-22-64.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <vfk383lau8cr3oq9f2kglqucrlkn8mgn5s@4ax.com>, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Silberstein > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:49:32 -0700, in alt.atheism , > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Jason) in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > <Jason-2606071749330001@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The poll indicated that over 60% of the people that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ohio > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wanted > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both ID and evolution be taught in the public schools. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What if 60% wanted separate schools for blacks and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whites? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be illegal for a school board to do that. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it was illegal for the school board to put ID into the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> curriculum. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest you go and look up the history of complaint > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislation from the bench. They started in the '50s > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> much > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brown v Topeka Board of Education. When people complained > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Court making law what they specifically meant was when the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Court > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ruled > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that separate but "equal" schools were illegal. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we studied that case while I was in college. I > >>>>>>>>>>>>> understand > >>>>>>>>>>>>> your > >>>>>>>>>>>>> point. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The ID people should have done a better job in making sure > >>>>>>>>>>>>> they > >>>>>>>>>>>>> had > >>>>>>>>>>>>> no > >>>>>>>>>>>>> religion mixed in--they failed. Perhaps they will do a > >>>>>>>>>>>>> better > >>>>>>>>>>>>> job > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> next > >>>>>>>>>>>>> time. > >>>>>>>>>>>> How? I mean that. ID is religion, you admit over and over > >>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>> your > >>>>>>>>>>>> motives and goals are religious in nature and that your > >>>>>>>>>>>> source > >>>>>>>>>>>> material is religious. ID is religion and any attempt by its > >>>>>>>>>>>> supporters to say otherwise is just lying. Do you support > >>>>>>>>>>>> lying > >>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>> promote Christianity? > >>>>>>>>>>> Matt, > >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you are correct. However, the people in the ID movement > >>>>>>>>>>> could > >>>>>>>>>>> arrange > >>>>>>>>>>> to do it in such a way that no court could find any evidence > >>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>> religion. > >>>>>>>>>>> They tried to do it in the Dover case but they failed. Perhaps > >>>>>>>>>>> they > >>>>>>>>>>> will > >>>>>>>>>>> never succeed. > >>>>>>>>>>> Jason > >>>>>>>>>> They will never succeed because ID contains no science. Religion > >>>>>>>>>> abounds > >>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>> ID and creation science for one important reason, it is there! > >>>>>>>>> I agree that religion abounds in ID and creation science. > >>>>>>>>> However, > >>>>>>>>> if > >>>>>>>>> God, > >>>>>>>>> Jesus and scriptures are NEVER mentioned in the text book or > >>>>>>>>> curriculum > >>>>>>>>> guide--it seems to me that a judge could not call it religion. > >>>>>>>>> For > >>>>>>>>> example, some people believe that astronauts from some other > >>>>>>>>> planet > >>>>>>>>> came > >>>>>>>>> to this planet millions of years ago and left behind dozens of > >>>>>>>>> people; > >>>>>>>>> some plants and some animals. Is that idea based on religion? The > >>>>>>>>> answer > >>>>>>>>> is no. In the last court case, the IDers did a terrible job since > >>>>>>>>> lawyers > >>>>>>>>> representing evolutionists found all sorts of evidence indicating > >>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>> religion was involved. > >>>>>>>>> Jason > >>>>>>>> You don't have to specifically name your religious figure in order > >>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> find > >>>>>>>> that religion is involved. When the descriptions fit the bible then > >>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>> will > >>>>>>>> be assumed that it is the bible. > >>>>>>> Judges are to suppose to base their rulings on evidence--not > >>>>>>> assumptions. > >>>>>> They do, Jason, the evidence points to religion. > >>>>> It did in the Dover case. My point was that the IDers will have to make > >>>>> sure there is NO evidence related to religion in the next court case. > >>>> You mean they need to be more dishonest? > >>> You would have to understand the "rules of evidence" before you could > >>> understand the reasons for properly preparing a court case. I only know > >>> about the rules of evidence since I was recently on jury duty and we had > >>> to listen to a lecture from the judge related to the rules of evidence > >>> before we were allowed to serve on juries. I heard that same lecture > >>> several years ago. > >> Jason, most all of us have been on juries. many of us have taken law courses > >> in college. Many of us understand about the rules of evidence. Since I > >> belong in all three categories what I don't understand is how you intend to > >> take a sow and make her into a ballerina. > > > > If you understand the rules of evidence as well as you claim, than you > > should already know that the IDers have to remove all evidence of religion > > from the textbook and curriculum guide. > > And when you do so, you're left with nothing. > > Judges are suppose to base their > > final decisions on EVIDENCE and not on assumptions. > > Rightly so. When are you going to do the same? The same time that you realize that there is no evidence to indicate that life ever natually evolved from non-life. It's based on speculation and not evidence. Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 In alt.atheism On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:23:57 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <f63of0$e38$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > I understand your point: This is how I would ask the questions: >> > >> > Do you believe humans evolved from other life-forms without any >> > involvement of god? yes or no >> > >> > Do you believe that both evolution and intelligent design should be taught >> > in the public schools or just evolution? >> >> Do you believe something should be taught in schools that has no >> scientific backing? > >If you are referring to Intelligent Design, it does have fossil evidence >as scientific backing. No it doesn't. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2906071450450001@66-52-22-78.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <f63t7l$iqv$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <ajVgi.1480$ca.1355@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:Jason-2806071036540001@66-52-22-99.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >>> In article <5ehuo4F3867mbU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >> >>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >>>> news:Jason-2706071755270001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >>>>> In article <mrDgi.17313$19.3321@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> >>>>> <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >>>>>> news:Jason-2706071727150001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >>>>>>> In article <7rAgi.2306$K9.485@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> >>>>>>> <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >>>>>>>> news:Jason-2706071403510001@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >>>>>>>>> In article <NVzgi.2269$K9.1264@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> >>>>>>>>> <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >>>>>>>>>> >> > news:Jason-2706071042260001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >>>>>>>>>>> In article <k3m4839mgss0cijljuel3pm2nk3jonlg9c@4ax.com>, Matt >> >>>>>>>>>>> Silberstein >> >>>>>>>>>>> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:16:11 -0700, in alt.atheism , >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com >> >>>>>>>>>>>> (Jason) in >> >>>>>>>>>>>> <Jason-2606072216110001@66-52-22-64.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <fqp3839gge41v4q43tmsag4qdme6g95nts@4ax.com>, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Silberstein >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:12:36 -0700, in alt.atheism , >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Jason) in >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Jason-2606072112370001@66-52-22-64.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <vfk383lau8cr3oq9f2kglqucrlkn8mgn5s@4ax.com>, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Silberstein >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:49:32 -0700, in alt.atheism , >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Jason) in >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > <Jason-2606071749330001@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip] >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The poll indicated that over 60% of the people that >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ohio >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wanted >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both ID and evolution be taught in the public schools. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What if 60% wanted separate schools for blacks and >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whites? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be illegal for a school board to do that. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it was illegal for the school board to put ID into the >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> curriculum. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest you go and look up the history of complaint >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislation from the bench. They started in the '50s >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> much >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brown v Topeka Board of Education. When people complained >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Court making law what they specifically meant was when the >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Court >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ruled >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that separate but "equal" schools were illegal. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we studied that case while I was in college. I >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> understand >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> your >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> point. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The ID people should have done a better job in making sure >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> they >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> had >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> no >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> religion mixed in--they failed. Perhaps they will do a >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> better >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> job >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> next >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> time. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> How? I mean that. ID is religion, you admit over and over >> >>>>>>>>>>>> that >> >>>>>>>>>>>> your >> >>>>>>>>>>>> motives and goals are religious in nature and that your >> >>>>>>>>>>>> source >> >>>>>>>>>>>> material is religious. ID is religion and any attempt by its >> >>>>>>>>>>>> supporters to say otherwise is just lying. Do you support >> >>>>>>>>>>>> lying >> >>>>>>>>>>>> to >> >>>>>>>>>>>> promote Christianity? >> >>>>>>>>>>> Matt, >> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you are correct. However, the people in the ID movement >> >>>>>>>>>>> could >> >>>>>>>>>>> arrange >> >>>>>>>>>>> to do it in such a way that no court could find any evidence >> >>>>>>>>>>> of >> >>>>>>>>>>> religion. >> >>>>>>>>>>> They tried to do it in the Dover case but they failed. >> >>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps >> >>>>>>>>>>> they >> >>>>>>>>>>> will >> >>>>>>>>>>> never succeed. >> >>>>>>>>>>> Jason >> >>>>>>>>>> They will never succeed because ID contains no science. >> >>>>>>>>>> Religion >> >>>>>>>>>> abounds >> >>>>>>>>>> in >> >>>>>>>>>> ID and creation science for one important reason, it is there! >> >>>>>>>>> I agree that religion abounds in ID and creation science. >> >>>>>>>>> However, >> >>>>>>>>> if >> >>>>>>>>> God, >> >>>>>>>>> Jesus and scriptures are NEVER mentioned in the text book or >> >>>>>>>>> curriculum >> >>>>>>>>> guide--it seems to me that a judge could not call it religion. >> >>>>>>>>> For >> >>>>>>>>> example, some people believe that astronauts from some other >> >>>>>>>>> planet >> >>>>>>>>> came >> >>>>>>>>> to this planet millions of years ago and left behind dozens of >> >>>>>>>>> people; >> >>>>>>>>> some plants and some animals. Is that idea based on religion? >> >>>>>>>>> The >> >>>>>>>>> answer >> >>>>>>>>> is no. In the last court case, the IDers did a terrible job >> >>>>>>>>> since >> >>>>>>>>> lawyers >> >>>>>>>>> representing evolutionists found all sorts of evidence >> >>>>>>>>> indicating >> >>>>>>>>> that >> >>>>>>>>> religion was involved. >> >>>>>>>>> Jason >> >>>>>>>> You don't have to specifically name your religious figure in >> >>>>>>>> order >> >>>>>>>> to >> >>>>>>>> find >> >>>>>>>> that religion is involved. When the descriptions fit the bible >> >>>>>>>> then >> >>>>>>>> it >> >>>>>>>> will >> >>>>>>>> be assumed that it is the bible. >> >>>>>>> Judges are to suppose to base their rulings on evidence--not >> >>>>>>> assumptions. >> >>>>>> They do, Jason, the evidence points to religion. >> >>>>> It did in the Dover case. My point was that the IDers will have to >> >>>>> make >> >>>>> sure there is NO evidence related to religion in the next court >> >>>>> case. >> >>>> You mean they need to be more dishonest? >> >>> You would have to understand the "rules of evidence" before you could >> >>> understand the reasons for properly preparing a court case. I only >> >>> know >> >>> about the rules of evidence since I was recently on jury duty and we >> >>> had >> >>> to listen to a lecture from the judge related to the rules of >> >>> evidence >> >>> before we were allowed to serve on juries. I heard that same lecture >> >>> several years ago. >> >> Jason, most all of us have been on juries. many of us have taken law > courses >> >> in college. Many of us understand about the rules of evidence. Since I >> >> belong in all three categories what I don't understand is how you > intend to >> >> take a sow and make her into a ballerina. >> > >> > If you understand the rules of evidence as well as you claim, than you >> > should already know that the IDers have to remove all evidence of >> > religion >> > from the textbook and curriculum guide. >> >> And when you do so, you're left with nothing. >> >> Judges are suppose to base their >> > final decisions on EVIDENCE and not on assumptions. >> >> Rightly so. When are you going to do the same? > > The same time that you realize that there is no evidence to indicate that > life ever natually evolved from non-life. It's based on speculation and > not evidence. Who cares? There is evidence that evolution operated from the beginnings of life. This evidence is undeniable, to most of us. Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 In alt.atheism On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 10:53:28 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <5eklksF39dc2mU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" ><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> >> >> snip >> >> > 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. >> >> So? That doesn't make it true. > >Many of the advocates of evolution believe that life evolved from >non-life. That doesn't make it true. And many of the advocates of literalist biblical creationism...err...intelligent design believe that the designer wasn't designed. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2906071446190001@66-52-22-78.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <Xvehi.18060$19.16542@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-2906071349500001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <Q_dhi.18049$19.2518@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:Jason-2906071331170001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> > In article <6Vdhi.18044$19.13430@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> >> news:Jason-2906071316160001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> >> > In article <SGchi.6374$09.2830@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> >> >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> news:Jason-2906071056190001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> >> >> > In article <5ekkkiF386fk4U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >> >> >> >> > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> snip >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > There were thousands of people attending the crucifixion. >> >> >> >> >> > The >> >> >> >> >> > disciples >> >> >> >> >> > were probably part of the crowd. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> How would you know? Were you there? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > It's speculation based upon the fact that at least three of >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> > disciples >> >> >> >> > discussed aspects of the crucifixion in their gospels. The >> >> >> >> > Bible >> >> >> >> > does >> >> >> >> > indicate that one disciple and the two Marys were present when >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> > body >> >> >> >> > of >> >> >> >> > Jesus was placed in the tomb. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The disciples didn't write the gospels. In addition, no disciple >> >> >> >> was >> >> >> >> present >> >> >> >> when the he was placed in the tomb. This is, of course, calling >> >> >> >> a >> >> >> >> spade a >> >> >> >> spade. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > According to the Bible, one disciple and the two Marys were >> >> >> > present >> >> >> > when >> >> >> > Jesus was placed in the tomb. Of course, if you do not believe >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > Bible >> >> >> > is true than you will not believe that one disciple and the two >> >> >> > Marys >> >> >> > were >> >> >> > present when the body of Jesus was placed in the tomb. >> >> >> > Jason >> >> >> >> >> >> Gee Jason, I read the gospels to see which disciple was there and I >> >> >> saw >> >> >> no >> >> >> reference to one. Perhaps you can give a reference for your >> >> >> assertion. >> >> > >> >> > Matthew 27: 57-61 >> >> >> >> Sorry Jason, no disciple here. >> > >> > I copied these words from the King James verison of the Bible: >> > >> > When the evening was come, there came a rich man of Arimathea, named >> > Joseph, who also himself was Jesus's diciple. >> >> The word 'disciple' isn't used in several versions of the bible. In >> addition, where I said above 'calling a spade a spade was aimed directly >> at >> the scenario. The use of the word disciple is a connotation that it is >> one >> of the twelve. Joseph of Arimathea was mentioned only once in the bible >> and >> it was at this spot. Not much of a disciple, was he? I guess that is why >> some versions say, 'one of Jesus' followers'. Amazing what you can get >> the >> bible to say, isn't it? > > As a result of your post, I checked my other Bible which is the "New > American Standard" version. It states: > > And when it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named > Joseph, who himself had also became a disciple of Jesus. > > I don't know whether or not Joseph was an official disciple of Jesus. I > looked up the word "disciple" in my Bible dictionary and it did not have a > list of the original 12 disciples. > > Paul was never an official disciple of Jesus but I seem to recall (and > could be wrong) that he was also referred to as an apostle (or disciple) > of Christ. > > Some of the disciples stayed in the background. > > Jason Tell you what Jason. Since the story of Joseph is in all four gospels, why don't you read what Mark calls Joseph. You know Jason,to be a rabid Christian you know very little about the bible. Quote
Guest Brian E. Clark Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On 25 Jun., 03:35, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > For those people that believe Yahweh and Allah are > the same God--please explain why there is a symbol > of a crescent moon on top of every [Muslim] Mosque > in the world? For those who believe that the god of the Hebrews and the god of the Christians are the same God -- please explain why there is a symbol of a cross in every Christian church. -- ----------- Brian E. Clark Quote
Guest Dan Drake Posted June 29, 2007 Posted June 29, 2007 On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:02:05 UTC, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <hpk0831bpvg6k5opju35jsrineoqapd09d@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 23:17:54 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > ... > > > > > >Overwhelming Support in Ohio For Teaching Both Sides of Evolution, Zogby > > >Poll Shows > > > > > >By: Staff > > >Discovery Institute > > >February 13, 2006 > > > > > > > > >By more than a 3-to-1 margin, Ohio residents strongly support public > > >school teachers presenting both the evidence for evolution, as well as the > > >evidence challenging the theory, according to a new poll by Zogby > > >International released today. [Pardon the piggybacking, but it's hard to track things in a monster thread like this.] People are being very unfair to Jason on this point; or at least misleading. Or maybe he's entrapping everyone. Anyway, I have not objection to schools' teaching the scientific evidence agains evolution. Nor, I think, does anyone else. You can't call it a waste of time, since it would occupy virtually no time at all. It could be done along with enumerating all the naturally pure white crows in Ohio. Teaching reams of non-science that's being given out about evolution: that would be a bad thing. -- Dan Drake dd@dandrake.com http://www.dandrake.com/ porlockjr.blogspot.com Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 In article <ncfhi.18090$19.11659@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-2906071446190001@66-52-22-78.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <Xvehi.18060$19.16542@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> news:Jason-2906071349500001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> > In article <Q_dhi.18049$19.2518@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> >> news:Jason-2906071331170001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> >> > In article <6Vdhi.18044$19.13430@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > >> >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> >> >> news:Jason-2906071316160001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> >> >> > In article <SGchi.6374$09.2830@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > >> >> >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> >> >> >> news:Jason-2906071056190001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> >> >> >> > In article <5ekkkiF386fk4U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > >> >> >> >> > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> snip > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > There were thousands of people attending the crucifixion. > >> >> >> >> >> > The > >> >> >> >> >> > disciples > >> >> >> >> >> > were probably part of the crowd. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> How would you know? Were you there? > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > It's speculation based upon the fact that at least three of > >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> > disciples > >> >> >> >> > discussed aspects of the crucifixion in their gospels. The > >> >> >> >> > Bible > >> >> >> >> > does > >> >> >> >> > indicate that one disciple and the two Marys were present when > >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> > body > >> >> >> >> > of > >> >> >> >> > Jesus was placed in the tomb. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> The disciples didn't write the gospels. In addition, no disciple > >> >> >> >> was > >> >> >> >> present > >> >> >> >> when the he was placed in the tomb. This is, of course, calling > >> >> >> >> a > >> >> >> >> spade a > >> >> >> >> spade. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > According to the Bible, one disciple and the two Marys were > >> >> >> > present > >> >> >> > when > >> >> >> > Jesus was placed in the tomb. Of course, if you do not believe > >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> > Bible > >> >> >> > is true than you will not believe that one disciple and the two > >> >> >> > Marys > >> >> >> > were > >> >> >> > present when the body of Jesus was placed in the tomb. > >> >> >> > Jason > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Gee Jason, I read the gospels to see which disciple was there and I > >> >> >> saw > >> >> >> no > >> >> >> reference to one. Perhaps you can give a reference for your > >> >> >> assertion. > >> >> > > >> >> > Matthew 27: 57-61 > >> >> > >> >> Sorry Jason, no disciple here. > >> > > >> > I copied these words from the King James verison of the Bible: > >> > > >> > When the evening was come, there came a rich man of Arimathea, named > >> > Joseph, who also himself was Jesus's diciple. > >> > >> The word 'disciple' isn't used in several versions of the bible. In > >> addition, where I said above 'calling a spade a spade was aimed directly > >> at > >> the scenario. The use of the word disciple is a connotation that it is > >> one > >> of the twelve. Joseph of Arimathea was mentioned only once in the bible > >> and > >> it was at this spot. Not much of a disciple, was he? I guess that is why > >> some versions say, 'one of Jesus' followers'. Amazing what you can get > >> the > >> bible to say, isn't it? > > > > As a result of your post, I checked my other Bible which is the "New > > American Standard" version. It states: > > > > And when it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named > > Joseph, who himself had also became a disciple of Jesus. > > > > I don't know whether or not Joseph was an official disciple of Jesus. I > > looked up the word "disciple" in my Bible dictionary and it did not have a > > list of the original 12 disciples. > > > > Paul was never an official disciple of Jesus but I seem to recall (and > > could be wrong) that he was also referred to as an apostle (or disciple) > > of Christ. > > > > Some of the disciples stayed in the background. > > > > Jason > > Tell you what Jason. Since the story of Joseph is in all four gospels, why > don't you read what Mark calls Joseph. You know Jason,to be a rabid > Christian you know very little about the bible. I have never claimed to be a Bible scholar. I learn new things almost every time I listen to another sermon. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 In article <MPG.20ef550998157ce198a6ce@216.196.97.136>, Brian E. Clark <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote: > On 25 Jun., 03:35, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > For those people that believe Yahweh and Allah are > > the same God--please explain why there is a symbol > > of a crescent moon on top of every [Muslim] Mosque > > in the world? > > For those who believe that the god of the Hebrews > and the god of the Christians are the same God -- > please explain why there is a symbol of a cross > in every Christian church. Because Jesus was crucified on a cross. Quote
Guest Dan Drake Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 02:40:34 UTC, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:55:44 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> > wrote: > - Refer: <f5rcu0$p8o$1@news04.infoave.net> > >Michael Gray wrote: > >> I managed to complete my entire Computer Sciewnce degree using IBM > >> punched cards! (With 12 hour turnaround!) > >> I remember having a subroutine that amounted to three of those 2 foot > >> long boxes of cards, and dropping one of them on the way to the > >> counter, shuffling its entire contents down the hallway. > >> I nearly cried. > > > >You didn't number them???????????? > > I did, but only AFTER that! > Ah, columns 73-80 became very overused. > But, wouldn't you know it? > I did not drop a deck after that! >... Well, duh! DIdn't anyone tell you that the real reason for marking the deck [oops, dangerous choice of phrase] was as a spell that would prevent it from being dropped in the future? -- Dan Drake dd@dandrake.com http://www.dandrake.com/ porlockjr.blogspot.com Quote
Guest Dan Drake Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:48:32 UTC, cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote: > Meeting religious dietary restrictions (kosher or halal, for example) > would probably get the schools entangled in issues of what food is > appropriate. It would also require everyone to participate. Perhaps > there could be some special dishes. Vegetarian dishes would work, for > example, although some Orthodox Jews will eat only food prepared in > kosher kitchens. Best to keep food out of it. See what a bunch of young guys are in this group. Three words: Fish on Fridays. Plenty of places -- tax-supported institutions including schools -- wouldn't serve meat at meals on Friday back in the 50s when that was problematic for Catholics -- I do hope we agree here that Catholics are Christians? -- and it would be too expensive to provide a choice. (Though, in all fairness I think that a choice was usually provided; your mileage may vary.) > > Accommodating Jewish students is relatively simple - allow head > coverings in school and don't penalize students for missing school in > the High Holy Days. The norm, of course, in my public high school back in the 50s, days of true Christian religious freedom, meaning domination, that Jason would admire. (Come to think of it, very few head coverings because very few Orthodox in that West Coast suburb back then.) Point: Accommodating minority religious groups is traditional in the civilized parts of the USA. I can't speak for the South, and don't want to. -- Dan Drake dd@dandrake.com http://www.dandrake.com/ porlockjr.blogspot.com Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 10:48:21 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: - Refer: <Jason-2906071048220001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> >In article <tvr983danoug2a215tderdq40s2fqfpoil@4ax.com>, Michael Gray ><mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: : >> Jason has proven time andd time again that he is so retarded that he >> is quite unable to distinguish fiction from fact. >> >> -- > >And so are many advocates of evolution. Various posters have told me that >there is evidence of life evolving from non-life. Quod erat demonstrandum. -- Quote
Guest Dan Drake Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:41:57 UTC, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >... Doesn't ANYBODY snip the old crap out of postings? > > Yes they can--In the days of Galileo and Copernicus, all of the scientists > (except for those two people) were wrong. Now there's a statement that's impressively wrong. But it turns out there's a better place, a little down-thread, for a detailed response. > > Only 12% of Americans believe that humans evolved from other life-forms > without any involvement of a God. 88% of Americans can't be wrong :-)))) Joke taken. Not a very good one, though, as it implies that a head-count of actual scientists (not, of course, 100% conclusive; just a dumb thing to try to go against unless you think you're a true isolated genius, which is paranoia rather than simple dumbth) is exactly on a par with a head-count of mostly ill-educated people. It isn't. -- Dan Drake dd@dandrake.com http://www.dandrake.com/ porlockjr.blogspot.com Quote
Guest Dan Drake Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 10:36:12 UTC, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 29, 7:41 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >... > > > > 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. With a little help from his friends :-) > It's true that Copernicus was an > astronomer but he was reluctant to publish his results for fear of how > the church would react. That the "scientists" (a word that hadn't been invented yet, for good reason; they were philosophers in those days) were all against Galileo is very, very far from the truth. I interpret the name-one challenge as meaning that you can't name any because there weren't any; and that's essentially true. Still there were some people who were close enough, and maybe one who really qualifies: Johannes Kepler. He was on the Copernicus-Galileo side, of course. His modern followers, in fact, look on Galileo as an old fuddy-duddy who didn't keep up with the latest developments in planetary astronomy. He was an odd mystical sort, and not all his attempts at scientific explanation worked out, but he did science. Then there were Benedetto Castelli (whom no one has heard of, but is that my fault?) and his student Evangelista Torricelli, whom people ought to have heard of, but who knows what they teach in the schools these days? Both supporters of Galileo. And -- returning to the story of Galileo as the utterly unique lone hero -- supporters of Galileo included a fair number of Church officials, so far as they were allowed to be. All of which diminshes neither the credit due to Galileo nor the disgraceful behavior of the Church; but Galileo as the only guy who know what was going on just won't fly. BTW it's not quite clear just how much Copernicus was afraid of rasining controversy. But certainly there was one Church official who thought Copernicus needed some cover, and therefore added a preface explaining that Copernicus didn't really mean it. -- Dan Drake dd@dandrake.com http://www.dandrake.com/ porlockjr.blogspot.com Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:35:40 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2806071935400001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >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. > But they screwed up the case at a fundamental level. They didn't lose because their lawyers were bad. They lost because they had no science to support the doctrines they wanted to teach in science class. To learn from their mistakes, they would have to admit their dishonesty and beg forgiveness. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:23:15 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <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. > No, it won't, not unless the Supreme Court decides we don't need a Constitution any more. They have zero chance of winning as long as they are trying to teach religion in a science class and ID is only religion, there is no science involved at all. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 In article <vhIsdqY67dTD-pn2-wbYyEuD7IdP7@M>, dd@dandrake.com wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:48:32 UTC, cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote: > > > Meeting religious dietary restrictions (kosher or halal, for example) > > would probably get the schools entangled in issues of what food is > > appropriate. It would also require everyone to participate. Perhaps > > there could be some special dishes. Vegetarian dishes would work, for > > example, although some Orthodox Jews will eat only food prepared in > > kosher kitchens. Best to keep food out of it. > > See what a bunch of young guys are in this group. Three words: > Fish on Fridays. > > Plenty of places -- tax-supported institutions including schools -- > wouldn't serve meat at meals on Friday back in the 50s when that was > problematic for Catholics -- I do hope we agree here that Catholics are > Christians? -- and it would be too expensive to provide a choice. (Though, > in all fairness I think that a choice was usually provided; your mileage > may vary.) > > > > > Accommodating Jewish students is relatively simple - allow head > > coverings in school and don't penalize students for missing school in > > the High Holy Days. > > The norm, of course, in my public high school back in the 50s, days of > true Christian religious freedom, meaning domination, that Jason would > admire. (Come to think of it, very few head coverings because very few > Orthodox in that West Coast suburb back then.) > > Point: Accommodating minority religious groups is traditional in the > civilized parts of the USA. I can't speak for the South, and don't want > to. Don, I posted an article indicating that one American public school that had a large number of Muslim students actully placed all Muslim girls in their own class. There were NO boys allowed in that class. This was because it was part of the Muslim religion. All of the Muslim students were granted a special recess so that they could have a group prayer session. Do you think that school principal (or perhaps it was the school board) should have done those things? If your answer is "yes", should Christian students be allowed to pass out a free booklet entitled "The Bible, Science and Creation" (the cost is 75 cents per booklet) to all of their fellow biology students? Jason Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:16:57 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <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". Pandas and People is a book of religious doctrine. No science teacher, even homeschooling, should ever use this book. >> 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. There are no basics of Intelligent Design. It is a lie, completely. There is no excuse for anyone to teach 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 Free Lunch Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:42:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2806071942490001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >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 > You reject evidence. You are not a scientist. You don't get to tell scientists what evidence you accept and what you reject. You don't even know what evidence is. -- "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Jun 30, 1:48 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Various posters have told me that > there is evidence of life evolving from non-life. They seem to honestly > believe there is evidence that life evolved from non-life. What is the > fact? The fact is that no scientist has ever done a lab experiment that > has indicated that life can evolve from non-life. You are a liar. The evidence has been presented to you over a dozen times. 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 Jason Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 In article <vhIsdqY67dTD-pn2-VysIWHQ8cE0y@M>, dd@dandrake.com wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 10:36:12 UTC, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Jun 29, 7:41 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >... > > > > > > 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. > > With a little help from his friends :-) > > > It's true that Copernicus was an > > astronomer but he was reluctant to publish his results for fear of how > > the church would react. > > That the "scientists" (a word that hadn't been invented yet, for good > reason; they were philosophers in those days) were all against Galileo is > very, very far from the truth. > > I interpret the name-one challenge as meaning that you can't name any > because there weren't any; and that's essentially true. Still there were > some people who were close enough, and maybe one who really qualifies: > > Johannes Kepler. > He was on the Copernicus-Galileo side, of course. His modern followers, in > fact, look on Galileo as an old fuddy-duddy who didn't keep up with the > latest developments in planetary astronomy. He was an odd mystical sort, > and not all his attempts at scientific explanation worked out, but he did > science. > > Then there were Benedetto Castelli (whom no one has heard of, but is that > my fault?) and his student Evangelista Torricelli, whom people ought to > have heard of, but who knows what they teach in the schools these days? > Both supporters of Galileo. > > And -- returning to the story of Galileo as the utterly unique lone hero > -- supporters of Galileo included a fair number of Church officials, so > far as they were allowed to be. > > All of which diminshes neither the credit due to Galileo nor the > disgraceful behavior of the Church; but Galileo as the only guy who know > what was going on just won't fly. > > BTW it's not quite clear just how much Copernicus was afraid of rasining > controversy. But certainly there was one Church official who thought > Copernicus needed some cover, and therefore added a preface explaining > that Copernicus didn't really mean it. Don, Thanks for your interesting post. I don't recall learning about Castelli, Torricelli or Kepler. Did any of the "scientists" of that day not take Galileo side? Jason Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Jun 30, 1:50 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f63eh0$3v...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > Then you believe two contradictory things. > > > Jesus said "3 days and 3 nights." The disciples said "less than 48 > > hours." Three days and 3 nights would have to be more than 48 hours. > > It's simple math (oh, wait, I forgot how boring math is to you.) > > The deciples believed it The disciples never existed. Nor did Jesus. Nor did the Marys. It was all a story and the contradictions prove that it was a story. That's the point. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Jun 30, 1:53 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <5eklksF39dc2...@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > > <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> > > > snip > > > > 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. > > > So? That doesn't make it true. > > Many of the advocates of evolution believe that life evolved from > non-life. That doesn't make it true. No, but the evidence shows that it is. Martin 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.