Guest bramble Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On 30 jun, 10:54, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 30, 2:29 pm, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > In article <5ekj7bF398uh...@mid.individual.net>, > > "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > > > "johac" <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > > >news:jhachmann-5CD649.15412328062007@news.giganews.com... > > > > In article <5ehujiF385pl...@mid.individual.net>, > > > > "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > > > >> LOL! Diety Death Match? Who knows how to do claymation? > > > > > LOL! I wish I knew how! I'd love to put something like that on YouTube. > > > > :-) > > > > That would be hilarious > > > Heh! Heh! Tag team. Yaweh and Baal vs. Zeus and The FSM. :-) > > "Baal" is a hebrew word meaning "lord" that was used to refer to any > god other than Yahweh so as far as we know the Baal that teh > Canaanites were worshipping _was_ Zeus. > > Martin An Zeus had more or less the same image as Javeh. A warrior god, or a god of people in frequent warfare. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 14:34:27 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3006071434280001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <Yu6dnT6MQcrGIBvbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." ><spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > >> > I respect Dr. Gish. >> >> Why would you respect a liar? Does he tell lies you want to hear? > >I don't believe that Dr. Gish tells lies. The facts prove that Gish tells lies. Your belief does not change the facts. >He may have stated things that >turned out to be false but that is very different than intentional lies. >Most peole have done this same thing. He has stated things that he knew were false before he said them. He has repeated them after his false claims were publicly corrected. He is a liar. Quote
Guest David V. Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <Yu6dnT6MQcrGIBvbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@sti.net>, "David > V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> Jason wrote: >> >>> I respect Dr. Gish. >> >> Why would you respect a liar? Does he tell lies you want to >> hear? > > > I don't believe that Dr. Gish tells lies. Those that are knowledgeable on the subject say he does. > He may have stated things that turned out to be false but that > is very different than intentional lies. No, he has stated things that he knows to be false. If you've been to his lectures or debates, you'd know that. I have, and I have some knowledge of the subject. He lies. That you refuse to acknowledge that these anti-evolutionists lie tells us more about you than about them. > Most peole have done this same thing. So? Does that make him right? -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 14:38:19 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3006071438190001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <clzhi.1318$3a.1312@bignews9.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-3006071254460001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... .... >> > Thanks for your post. The Muslims were allowed a special recess so they >> > could have a group prayer session. Would you be in favor of a special >> > recess for Christians so that they could have a group prayer meeting? >> > Jason >> >> No. I want all Christians to FOAD! > >What does FOAD mean? > It's a very rude wish that you leave and never return while you are still alive. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 14:28:46 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3006071428460001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <f66dce$458$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <f65k7k$9o8$7@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> >>> 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 ever claimed that life DID evolve from non-life? Jason, why do you >> >> keep repeating this same tired lie? >> > >> > One poster indicated that the main evidence that proves that life evolved >> > from non-life is that we now have life on this planet. He indicated that >> > PROVED that life evolved from non-life since that was the ONLY way that it >> > could have happened. >> >> No, he didn't, Jason. Please don't lie. Life FORMED from non-life. It >> didn't EVOLVE from non-life. >> >> Repeat after me: "formed" is not the same as "evolved." Keep repeating >> till it sinks into what you laughingly call a brain. >> >> Also, if there was EVER a time when there was no life (and there's >> definitely a time now when there is) then there's no possible question >> that life formed from non-life. The ONLY question possible is "what >> caused it to do so?" >> >> When I mentioned that God created mankind; some >> > plants and some animals >> >> Was there life before this creation? If not, then life formed from >> non-life. Plain and simple. >> >> and that Natural Selection kicked in after the >> > creation process was finished--The poster claimed that he did not believe >> > in God. I mentioned Erik von Danikan's (spelling??) theory related to >> > ancient astronauts visiting the earth millions of years ago and leaving >> > behind dozens of people, many seeds and some animals. He did not believe >> > that happened. >> >> Even if it DID happen, where did those "ancient astronauts" come from? >> >> > Several other posters implied or actully stated that the reason life forms >> > are on this planet is because life evolved from non-life millions of years >> > ago. When I have mentioned Intelligent Design--various posters have >> > became angry with me. >> >> They have become frustrated with you because you can't/won't support >> your claim that goddidit. >> >> They are convinced that life came to be on this >> > planet because of abiogenesis. >> >> So are you. > >OKAY--I get it. The advocates of Evolution CLAIM that life formed from >non-life. So do creationists. >If the advocates of evolution want to convince the advocates of >creation science and ID that it happened, scientists should conduct a lab >experiment to make it happen. At some time in the future they will provide such an example. It is unlikely that we will ever know exactly what happened since life has polluted the earth so greatly. >That evidence would convince the advocates >of creation science and ID that it happened that way. No, it won't. They'll find another bogus objection. >Otherwise, encourage >your fellow advocates of evolution to stop trying to convince us that you >have evidence that it happened that way. Absolutely no evidence supports ID/Creationism. Evidence does show that your personal claims about it are false. Your opinion is not based on evidence, not based on reality. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 In article <cbjd83htc6gl9g45vdtjqom31p73kkdn1r@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:17:28 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-3006071317280001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <f66c6r$2td$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >> > In article <f65k0k$9o8$4@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Jason wrote: > >> >>> In article <f63of0$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. Now answer the question: Do you believe something should > >> >> be taught in schools that has no scientific backing? > >> >> > >> >> It's a simple "yes/no" question. No essays required. > >> >> > >> >> There have been two books written related to fossil > >> >>> evidence that supports creation science and intelligent design. > >> >> And there have been thousands of books related to fossil evidence that > >> >> supports evolution. > >> >> > >> >> 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. > >> >> And this supports creationism how? > >> > > >> > Mike, > >> > Should something be taught in a science class that has no scientific > >> > backing? The answer is no. > >> > >> Well, that part didn't answer my question. > >> > >> That is the reason that I don't believe that > >> > abiogenesis should be taught in biology classes. Intelligent Design should > >> > be taught since it has fossil evidence and rock strata evidence. > >> > >> Well, that part didn't answer my question. > >> > >> When I > >> > was taking a college biology class in 1971, the biology professor taught > >> > our class about the primordial soup theory. In response to a question by a > >> > student, the professor told our class that there was NO evidence to > >> > indicate that life evolved from non-life in the primordial soup. > >> > >> Well, that part didn't answer my question. > >> > >> > Dr. Austin is of the opinion that rock strata data and fossil evidence > >> > supports creation science and Intelligent Design. > >> > >> Yes, you already claimed that. Now explain HOW it supports it. > >> > >> The result is ongoing > >> > and as far as I know--Dr. Austin has not written a book related to his > >> > research findings. > >> > >> So you just mysteriously know what his findings are? > > > >He has not yet written a book but has written some articles in the ICR > >newsletter to keep us updated on the progress. He did write one book > >related to the research that has been done at Mount St. Helens. > > > >The title and authors: > >"Footprints in the Ash" by Dr. John Morris and Dr. Steven A. Austin > > > >The book is related to the volcanic eruption at Mount St. Helens. They > >have taken many research teams to Mount St. Helens. > > > Yes, but none of the evidence they have gathered actually supports > creationism. None of it. Dr. John Morris and Dr. Steven A. Austin would disagree with you. I copied this sentence from the above mentioned book: "This evidence [that is mentioned in the above mentioned book]..support God's Word when it claims that God created all things in the not-to-distant past..." page 125). Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:41:44 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3006071341440001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> > Yes, two books have been written related to fossil evidence and rock >> >> > strata evidence that supports Intelligent Design. There is an ongoing >> >> > project at the Grand Canyon and Mount St. Helens related to conducting >> >> > research related to the sedimentary processes that form rock strata and >> >> > fossils. Dr. Steve Austin is in charge of that project. > >> >> Non-answer. > >>> Not true--you may not have liked my answer but I DID provide an answer. > >> Books are not science. You have not pointed to any science that backs it >> up. Scientific papers are written for peer-reviewed journals so the >> results of the research can be tested. Books are not. > >One of the problems is that the editors and members of the peer-reviewed >journals are advocates of evolution. Not really. They are advocates of knowledge, of science, of honesty, something that ID/Creationists refuse to use. >They have a bias related to >scientific papers written by advocates of creation science and Intelligent >design. As a result, the scientific papers written by advocates of >creation science and ID are usually not published in peer-reviewed >journals. There are no scientific papers written by advocates of creation science and ID. That is why they are not published. Don't defame editors of science journals for the failures of the ICR, DI and other creationist liars. Put the blame where it belongs. >Therefore, the advocates of creation science present their articles on >their websites such as the Discovery Institute website and the ICR >website. They also publish books. That is about our only options. Because they need to keep telling their lies. You just cannot comprehend how dishonest the ID/Creationists are. -- "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 Free Lunch Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:52:00 -0400, in alt.atheism "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in <tnzhi.1320$3a.1002@bignews9.bellsouth.net>: > >"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >news:Jason-3006071341440001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >>> >> > Yes, two books have been written related to fossil evidence and rock >>> >> > strata evidence that supports Intelligent Design. There is an >>> >> > ongoing >>> >> > project at the Grand Canyon and Mount St. Helens related to >>> >> > conducting >>> >> > research related to the sedimentary processes that form rock strata >>> >> > and >>> >> > fossils. Dr. Steve Austin is in charge of that project. >> >>> >> Non-answer. >> >>>> Not true--you may not have liked my answer but I DID provide an answer. >> >>> Books are not science. You have not pointed to any science that backs it >>> up. Scientific papers are written for peer-reviewed journals so the >>> results of the research can be tested. Books are not. >> >> One of the problems is that the editors and members of the peer-reviewed >> journals are advocates of evolution. They have a bias related to >> scientific papers written by advocates of creation science and Intelligent >> design. As a result, the scientific papers written by advocates of >> creation science and ID are usually not published in peer-reviewed >> journals. >> >> Therefore, the advocates of creation science present their articles on >> their websites such as the Discovery Institute website and the ICR >> website. They also publish books. That is about our only options. > >See Judge Overmeyer's statement on this. I thought I told you this many >weeks ago, you dishonest ass. > Jason likes to repeat his favorite defamatory statements. In some ways, he appears to be quite polite, but in others he is one of the rudest posters who has ever soiled Usenet. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:44:08 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3006071344090001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article ><DipthotDipthot-E7D07F.12595930062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, >655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > >> In article >> <Jason-2906071048220001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > Various posters have told me that >> > there is evidence of life evolving from non-life. >> >> There is such evidence. My understanding is that it's not complete >> and comprehensive, but it's enough to generate scientific theories on. >> >> ID on the other hand, has nothing on which to base any scientific >> theories. >> >> You, of course take the unscientific position that not only are the ID >> guesses correct, but that the Bible is an accurate representation of >> what happened. >> >> The DI won't even say that. The DI won't even talk about Jesus, and he >> was supposedly around not all that long ago in the grand scheme of >> things. > >As far as I know, the DI uses the same date that the advocate of evoltuion uses. > >The staff members at ICR believe the world was formed about 6,000 to >10,000 years ago. It doesn't really matter. ID/Creationists are telling you lies and getting paid to do so. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 14:51:05 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3006071451050001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <p9jd83drden0usjn67mvj8drjdonucpuc9@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:06:44 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-3006071306440001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <fhcd83hslea85mb43dpgduube8vrn7fv3e@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:47:48 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-3006071147490001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >In article <f65k0k$9o8$4@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> >> ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> >> > In article <f63of0$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. Now answer the question: Do you believe something >should >> >> >> be taught in schools that has no scientific backing? >> >> >> >> >> >> It's a simple "yes/no" question. No essays required. >> >> >> >> >> >> There have been two books written related to fossil >> >> >> > evidence that supports creation science and intelligent design. >> >> >> >> >> >> And there have been thousands of books related to fossil evidence that >> >> >> supports evolution. >> >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> And this supports creationism how? >> >> > >> >> >Mike, >> >> >Should something be taught in a science class that has no scientific >> >> >backing? The answer is no. That is the reason that I don't believe that >> >> >abiogenesis should be taught in biology classes. >> >> >> >> What exactly is taught and what evidence do you have to show that it is >> >> wrong? >> > >> >Perhaps abiogenesis--perhaps people that have graduated from college in >> >the past 5 years could tell us what is being taught. I mentioned what I >> >was taught below. >> > >> Once again, you have a habit of repeating the same old false claims. I >> have no respect for you or the people who taught you those lies. > >Are you stating that in 1971, my professor of biology did not teach the >primordial soup theory? It was discussed in our biology text book. If you >google, "primordial soup" or "primordial pond", you will find proof that >some people continue to believe that theory. One poster told me that it >was not mentioned when he took a college biology class. Even if that was a >true statement, it does not mean that it was not taught to me in 1971 in >my biology class. My professor believed the theory. It was not a theory. There was not enough evidence to say one way or the other exactly how life began on earth. If you had paid attention in your biology class, you would have learned that. I am stating that there is scientific evidence to support the fact that life arose from nonliving chemicals, almost certainly on earth. This is not enough, yet, to show us how, but we do know that there are many ways in which it could have happened and that no problems with chemistry would make it impossible for life to have arisen through natural processes. .... Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 In article <k7jd83pjasl4caddrmgsgpp5gieuan2t0e@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:27:54 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-3006071327550001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <r7dd83pu91viqknl2lvli9u36dsgmof6p3@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 12:54:46 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-3006071254460001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <1acd83l3f227fhmdrqg1r10icbodmeuegc@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 12:21:33 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> <Jason-3006071221330001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> >In article <46pc839kemlnao5pa57bjblm06c1um6luf@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:10:12 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> >> <Jason-2906072210120001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> >> >In article > ><1183178579.174328.269690@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >> >> >> >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> On Jun 30, 12:05 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >> >> >> > In article <1183169797.701414.298...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > >> >> >Martin > >> >> >> >> > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > > On Jun 30, 4:42 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >> >> >> > > > In article <f63pn1$fk...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >> >> >> >> > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > > > > 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--Visit the Discovery Institute website for > >details. > >> >> >> >They have > >> >> >> >> > > > > > already published a textbook entitled, "Of Pandas and > >People". > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > > > Why that one instead of one of the other hundred or so? > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > > Because it's the best one. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > Shouldn't that be for teachers and students to decide? > >They could > >> >> >> >> > > have an entire course about the various creation myths from > >> >around the > >> >> >> >> > > world. It would be very enlightening. I would recommend > >it be part > >> >> >> >> > > of the elementary school program. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Would you be in favor of such a course? I posted an article about a > >> >> >public > >> >> >> >> > school where Muslim children have a special recess so the Muslim > >> >students > >> >> >> >> > can have a group prayer session. That same public school has > >a special > >> >> >> >> > class that only has Muslim girls. No boys are allowed to enter > >> >that class > >> >> >> >> > room. What is your opinion about that public school? > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> I tolerate religious practices up to the point where people tell me > >> >> >> >> that I have to believe what they believe. I am very consistent in > >> >> >> >> this regard. It is you who are inconsistent because you would insist > >> >> >> >> that secular schools have prayer sessions which all students are > >> >> >> >> required to participate in regardless of their religious background. > >> >> >> >> Obviously Christians can and do pray in private in school and > >you have > >> >> >> >> no problem with that but you apparently have a problem with Moslems > >> >> >> >> wanting to do the same thing. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> As for wanting young children to learn about mythology in elementary > >> >> >> >> school, I did learn about Greek and Norse mythology in elementary > >> >> >> >> school. Look how I turned out. Of course I want other children to > >> >> >> >> get the same exposure so that they can more easily separate fact and > >> >> >> >> fiction when they become adults. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Martin > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >The question was about PUBLIC Schools. Should Public schools > >grant Muslim > >> >> >> >students preferential treatment (eg girls only classes and group prayer > >> >> >> >sessions? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Why do you consider it preferential treatment? Schools in the United > >> >> >> States don't hold classes on Sundays. Is that preferential treatment for > >> >> >> Christians? They don't hold classes on Christmas or Easter. Is that > >> >> >> preferential treatment. Accommodating religious peculiarities is not > >> >> >> preferential treatment. Your act as if you have no respect for other > >> >> >> religions even though your religion has no more evidence to back it up > >> >> >> than any other religion. You are being arrogant and are condescending to > >> >> >> those who don't share your religion, despite the fact that you cannot > >> >> >> prove that your religion isn't false. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >If you was the principal of a high school, would you permit a Christian > >> >> >> >student at that high school to enter a biology class and pass out > >a free > >> >> >> >32 page booklet to each student entitled, "The Bible, Science and > >> >> >> >Creation"? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> There's a difference between allowing religious lies to be taught in a > >> >> >> class and an accommodation of religious activities. You apparently don't > >> >> >> want to acknowledge that. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> You aren't at all honest in your discussions here. > >> >> > > >> >> >Good points: > >> >> >In relation to Accomodating religious peculiarities--Would you be in favor > >> >> >of allowing Christian students to have a special class where they are > >> >> >taught Intelligent Design? > >> >> > >> >> You are still being dishonest. Accommodating schedules is not the same > >> >> thing as teaching religious doctrines in class. No one is teaching any > >> >> Moslem doctrines in public schools. No one is going to teach so-called > >> >> Christian doctrine either, particularly since it relies so heavily on > >> >> lies being taught by religious sects. > >> >> > >> >> As we have been over many times, ID has nothing to do with science and > >> >> everything to do with religion. If anyone ever develops scientific > >> >> evidence to support ID then it might be considered. Until then, it is > >> >> just a religious doctrine and forbidden in public schools. > >> > > >> >Thanks for your post. The Muslims were allowed a special recess so they > >> >could have a group prayer session. Would you be in favor of a special > >> >recess for Christians so that they could have a group prayer meeting? > >> >Jason > >> > > >> It's not very difficult to adjust the schedule to accommodate such > >> prayers. Why would there be a reason to object? Do you object just > >> because they are Moslems. > >> > >> Didn't you pay attention to the fact that school schedules already > >> accommodate Christians? > > > >Yes--that is true. Some schools have changed the titles of the holidays so > >that atheists will not file lawsuits. > > > >To answer your question: Yes, I object to preferential treatment given to > >Moslems. If schools do grant preferential treatment to Moslems, > > Do they? > > >I would > >request the same rights for students that are members of other religions. > >If Moslems are released for a special recess for Muslim group prayers, > >also let the Christians be released for a special recess for their > >Christian group prayers. If Muslim girls are allowed to have a special " > >Moslem girls only" class, Christians should be allowed to have a special > >"Christians only" class. > >Is the word: reciprocity? > > It appears that you are confused about what is happening. Is this > because you got your 'news' from unreliable sources? No--there was a large group of Moslem students and the principal and members of the school board were trying to accommodate the wishes of the Moslem parents. Upon request, I'll try to find the article on the web and repost it. A substitute teacher that was probably a Christian told the news media about the strange things she saw in that public school. I understand why the principle and members of the school board were showing preferential treatment to the Moslems but it was still the wrong thing to do since it's against the law to do the things they done. Jason Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 14:59:27 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3006071459270001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <cbjd83htc6gl9g45vdtjqom31p73kkdn1r@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:17:28 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-3006071317280001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <f66c6r$2td$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> > In article <f65k0k$9o8$4@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> >> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> >>> In article <f63of0$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. Now answer the question: Do you believe something >should >> >> >> be taught in schools that has no scientific backing? >> >> >> >> >> >> It's a simple "yes/no" question. No essays required. >> >> >> >> >> >> There have been two books written related to fossil >> >> >>> evidence that supports creation science and intelligent design. >> >> >> And there have been thousands of books related to fossil evidence that >> >> >> supports evolution. >> >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> And this supports creationism how? >> >> > >> >> > Mike, >> >> > Should something be taught in a science class that has no scientific >> >> > backing? The answer is no. >> >> >> >> Well, that part didn't answer my question. >> >> >> >> That is the reason that I don't believe that >> >> > abiogenesis should be taught in biology classes. Intelligent Design >should >> >> > be taught since it has fossil evidence and rock strata evidence. >> >> >> >> Well, that part didn't answer my question. >> >> >> >> When I >> >> > was taking a college biology class in 1971, the biology professor taught >> >> > our class about the primordial soup theory. In response to a >question by a >> >> > student, the professor told our class that there was NO evidence to >> >> > indicate that life evolved from non-life in the primordial soup. >> >> >> >> Well, that part didn't answer my question. >> >> >> >> > Dr. Austin is of the opinion that rock strata data and fossil evidence >> >> > supports creation science and Intelligent Design. >> >> >> >> Yes, you already claimed that. Now explain HOW it supports it. >> >> >> >> The result is ongoing >> >> > and as far as I know--Dr. Austin has not written a book related to his >> >> > research findings. >> >> >> >> So you just mysteriously know what his findings are? >> > >> >He has not yet written a book but has written some articles in the ICR >> >newsletter to keep us updated on the progress. He did write one book >> >related to the research that has been done at Mount St. Helens. >> > >> >The title and authors: >> >"Footprints in the Ash" by Dr. John Morris and Dr. Steven A. Austin >> > >> >The book is related to the volcanic eruption at Mount St. Helens. They >> >have taken many research teams to Mount St. Helens. >> > >> Yes, but none of the evidence they have gathered actually supports >> creationism. None of it. > >Dr. John Morris and Dr. Steven A. Austin would disagree with you. I don't care. They are not scientists, though Austin once did science to get his degree. Morris is an engineer by training, not a scientist, so don't bother to try to tell me that I should respect their Ph.D.s. >I copied >this sentence from the above mentioned book: >"This evidence [that is mentioned in the above mentioned book]..support >God's Word when it claims that God created all things in the >not-to-distant past..." >page 125). They are lying to you. Flat out lying. Remember, that lying to Christians by selling Creationism is the Morris family business. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:07:44 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3006071507440001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <k7jd83pjasl4caddrmgsgpp5gieuan2t0e@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: .... >> It appears that you are confused about what is happening. Is this >> because you got your 'news' from unreliable sources? > >No--there was a large group of Moslem students and the principal and >members of the school board were trying to accommodate the wishes of the >Moslem parents. Upon request, I'll try to find the article on the web and >repost it. A substitute teacher that was probably a Christian told the >news media about the strange things she saw in that public school. I >understand why the principle and members of the school board were showing >preferential treatment to the Moslems but it was still the wrong thing to >do since it's against the law to do the things they done. >Jason > Which newspaper reported this? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 In article <mpkd839l6sa4vbj67vcvqqiokojpog2bkg@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 14:51:05 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-3006071451050001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <p9jd83drden0usjn67mvj8drjdonucpuc9@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:06:44 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-3006071306440001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <fhcd83hslea85mb43dpgduube8vrn7fv3e@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:47:48 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> <Jason-3006071147490001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> >In article <f65k0k$9o8$4@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >> >> ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> Jason wrote: > >> >> >> > In article <f63of0$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. Now answer the question: Do you believe something > >should > >> >> >> be taught in schools that has no scientific backing? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> It's a simple "yes/no" question. No essays required. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> There have been two books written related to fossil > >> >> >> > evidence that supports creation science and intelligent design. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> And there have been thousands of books related to fossil evidence that > >> >> >> supports evolution. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> 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. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> And this supports creationism how? > >> >> > > >> >> >Mike, > >> >> >Should something be taught in a science class that has no scientific > >> >> >backing? The answer is no. That is the reason that I don't believe that > >> >> >abiogenesis should be taught in biology classes. > >> >> > >> >> What exactly is taught and what evidence do you have to show that it is > >> >> wrong? > >> > > >> >Perhaps abiogenesis--perhaps people that have graduated from college in > >> >the past 5 years could tell us what is being taught. I mentioned what I > >> >was taught below. > >> > > >> Once again, you have a habit of repeating the same old false claims. I > >> have no respect for you or the people who taught you those lies. > > > >Are you stating that in 1971, my professor of biology did not teach the > >primordial soup theory? It was discussed in our biology text book. If you > >google, "primordial soup" or "primordial pond", you will find proof that > >some people continue to believe that theory. One poster told me that it > >was not mentioned when he took a college biology class. Even if that was a > >true statement, it does not mean that it was not taught to me in 1971 in > >my biology class. My professor believed the theory. > > It was not a theory. There was not enough evidence to say one way or the > other exactly how life began on earth. If you had paid attention in your > biology class, you would have learned that. I am stating that there is > scientific evidence to support the fact that life arose from nonliving > chemicals, almost certainly on earth. This is not enough, yet, to show > us how, but we do know that there are many ways in which it could have > happened and that no problems with chemistry would make it impossible > for life to have arisen through natural processes. > > ... It appears that you have FAITH that it happened that way. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 In article <dhkd835musc4bifgpss7uetde2bud130dr@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:41:44 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-3006071341440001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > >> >> > Yes, two books have been written related to fossil evidence and rock > >> >> > strata evidence that supports Intelligent Design. There is an ongoing > >> >> > project at the Grand Canyon and Mount St. Helens related to conducting > >> >> > research related to the sedimentary processes that form rock strata and > >> >> > fossils. Dr. Steve Austin is in charge of that project. > > > >> >> Non-answer. > > > >>> Not true--you may not have liked my answer but I DID provide an answer. > > > >> Books are not science. You have not pointed to any science that backs it > >> up. Scientific papers are written for peer-reviewed journals so the > >> results of the research can be tested. Books are not. > > > >One of the problems is that the editors and members of the peer-reviewed > >journals are advocates of evolution. > > Not really. They are advocates of knowledge, of science, of honesty, > something that ID/Creationists refuse to use. > > >They have a bias related to > >scientific papers written by advocates of creation science and Intelligent > >design. As a result, the scientific papers written by advocates of > >creation science and ID are usually not published in peer-reviewed > >journals. > > There are no scientific papers written by advocates of creation science > and ID. That is why they are not published. Don't defame editors of > science journals for the failures of the ICR, DI and other creationist > liars. Put the blame where it belongs. I recently posted an article that was published in a peer-reviewed jounal. The editor and the members the peer-review committee received lots of criticism for publishing the article. Upon request, I'll post the article again. > >Therefore, the advocates of creation science present their articles on > >their websites such as the Discovery Institute website and the ICR > >website. They also publish books. That is about our only options. > > Because they need to keep telling their lies. > > You just cannot comprehend how dishonest the ID/Creationists are. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:16:20 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3006071516200001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <dhkd835musc4bifgpss7uetde2bud130dr@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:41:44 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-3006071341440001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> > >> >> >> > Yes, two books have been written related to fossil evidence and rock >> >> >> > strata evidence that supports Intelligent Design. There is an ongoing >> >> >> > project at the Grand Canyon and Mount St. Helens related to conducting >> >> >> > research related to the sedimentary processes that form rock >strata and >> >> >> > fossils. Dr. Steve Austin is in charge of that project. >> > >> >> >> Non-answer. >> > >> >>> Not true--you may not have liked my answer but I DID provide an answer. >> > >> >> Books are not science. You have not pointed to any science that backs it >> >> up. Scientific papers are written for peer-reviewed journals so the >> >> results of the research can be tested. Books are not. >> > >> >One of the problems is that the editors and members of the peer-reviewed >> >journals are advocates of evolution. >> >> Not really. They are advocates of knowledge, of science, of honesty, >> something that ID/Creationists refuse to use. >> >> >They have a bias related to >> >scientific papers written by advocates of creation science and Intelligent >> >design. As a result, the scientific papers written by advocates of >> >creation science and ID are usually not published in peer-reviewed >> >journals. >> >> There are no scientific papers written by advocates of creation science >> and ID. That is why they are not published. Don't defame editors of >> science journals for the failures of the ICR, DI and other creationist >> liars. Put the blame where it belongs. > >I recently posted an article that was published in a peer-reviewed jounal. >The editor and the members the peer-review committee received lots of >criticism for publishing the article. Upon request, I'll post the article >again. It was a poorly written article that hadn't been peer-reviewed properly. Reposting the reference will not improve the article. >> >Therefore, the advocates of creation science present their articles on >> >their websites such as the Discovery Institute website and the ICR >> >website. They also publish books. That is about our only options. >> >> Because they need to keep telling their lies. >> >> You just cannot comprehend how dishonest the ID/Creationists are. > Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:12:29 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3006071512300001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <mpkd839l6sa4vbj67vcvqqiokojpog2bkg@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 14:51:05 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-3006071451050001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: .... >> >Are you stating that in 1971, my professor of biology did not teach the >> >primordial soup theory? It was discussed in our biology text book. If you >> >google, "primordial soup" or "primordial pond", you will find proof that >> >some people continue to believe that theory. One poster told me that it >> >was not mentioned when he took a college biology class. Even if that was a >> >true statement, it does not mean that it was not taught to me in 1971 in >> >my biology class. My professor believed the theory. >> >> It was not a theory. There was not enough evidence to say one way or the >> other exactly how life began on earth. If you had paid attention in your >> biology class, you would have learned that. I am stating that there is >> scientific evidence to support the fact that life arose from nonliving >> chemicals, almost certainly on earth. This is not enough, yet, to show >> us how, but we do know that there are many ways in which it could have >> happened and that no problems with chemistry would make it impossible >> for life to have arisen through natural processes. >> >> ... > >It appears that you have FAITH that it happened that way. No. I have evidence that a number of possible chemical pathways allow it to happen. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 In article <DJydnUMrYs25TBvbnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <Yu6dnT6MQcrGIBvbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@sti.net>, "David > > V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Jason wrote: > >> > >>> I respect Dr. Gish. > >> > >> Why would you respect a liar? Does he tell lies you want to > >> hear? > > > > > > I don't believe that Dr. Gish tells lies. > > Those that are knowledgeable on the subject say he does. > > > He may have stated things that turned out to be false but that > > is very different than intentional lies. > > No, he has stated things that he knows to be false. If you've > been to his lectures or debates, you'd know that. I have, and I > have some knowledge of the subject. He lies. That you refuse to > acknowledge that these anti-evolutionists lie tells us more about > you than about them. > > > Most peole have done this same thing. > > So? Does that make him right? I'll never forget the debate that I attended. Dr. Gish remained calm and professional. The science professor from the local state college lost his temper and as a result made a fool of himself. Dr. Gish ignored him and made his next point when it was his turn. I have always respected him as a direct result of that debate. Since you have attended at least one of his debates, you should know why I respect him. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 In article <r9kd83h1fr830t6tot5iab126od6sdtv4u@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 14:28:46 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-3006071428460001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <f66dce$458$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >> > In article <f65k7k$9o8$7@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Jason wrote: > >> >>> 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 ever claimed that life DID evolve from non-life? Jason, why do you > >> >> keep repeating this same tired lie? > >> > > >> > One poster indicated that the main evidence that proves that life evolved > >> > from non-life is that we now have life on this planet. He indicated that > >> > PROVED that life evolved from non-life since that was the ONLY way that it > >> > could have happened. > >> > >> No, he didn't, Jason. Please don't lie. Life FORMED from non-life. It > >> didn't EVOLVE from non-life. > >> > >> Repeat after me: "formed" is not the same as "evolved." Keep repeating > >> till it sinks into what you laughingly call a brain. > >> > >> Also, if there was EVER a time when there was no life (and there's > >> definitely a time now when there is) then there's no possible question > >> that life formed from non-life. The ONLY question possible is "what > >> caused it to do so?" > >> > >> When I mentioned that God created mankind; some > >> > plants and some animals > >> > >> Was there life before this creation? If not, then life formed from > >> non-life. Plain and simple. > >> > >> and that Natural Selection kicked in after the > >> > creation process was finished--The poster claimed that he did not believe > >> > in God. I mentioned Erik von Danikan's (spelling??) theory related to > >> > ancient astronauts visiting the earth millions of years ago and leaving > >> > behind dozens of people, many seeds and some animals. He did not believe > >> > that happened. > >> > >> Even if it DID happen, where did those "ancient astronauts" come from? > >> > >> > Several other posters implied or actully stated that the reason life forms > >> > are on this planet is because life evolved from non-life millions of years > >> > ago. When I have mentioned Intelligent Design--various posters have > >> > became angry with me. > >> > >> They have become frustrated with you because you can't/won't support > >> your claim that goddidit. > >> > >> They are convinced that life came to be on this > >> > planet because of abiogenesis. > >> > >> So are you. > > > >OKAY--I get it. The advocates of Evolution CLAIM that life formed from > >non-life. > > So do creationists. It's very different. God created life from non-life. That is VERY different than life forming naturally from non-life. > > >If the advocates of evolution want to convince the advocates of > >creation science and ID that it happened, scientists should conduct a lab > >experiment to make it happen. > > At some time in the future they will provide such an example. It is > unlikely that we will ever know exactly what happened since life has > polluted the earth so greatly. > > >That evidence would convince the advocates > >of creation science and ID that it happened that way. > > No, it won't. They'll find another bogus objection. > > >Otherwise, encourage > >your fellow advocates of evolution to stop trying to convince us that you > >have evidence that it happened that way. > > Absolutely no evidence supports ID/Creationism. Evidence does show that > your personal claims about it are false. Your opinion is not based on > evidence, not based on reality. Quote
Guest David V. Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 Jason wrote: > > I'll never forget the debate that I attended. Dr. Gish > remained calm and professional. He is good at lying. It's what he does. > The science professor from the local state college lost his > temper and as a result made a fool of himself. That's easy to do when trying to discuss something intelligent with idiots. > Dr. Gish ignored him and made his next point when it was his > turn. I have always respected him as a direct result of that > debate. Since you have attended at least one of his debates, > you should know why I respect him. Yes, he tells lies you want to hear. That's the ONLY reason you respect him. -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 In article <opld83djfjdkls8797fvco404t9brb4de0@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:16:20 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-3006071516200001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <dhkd835musc4bifgpss7uetde2bud130dr@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:41:44 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-3006071341440001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> > > >> >> >> > Yes, two books have been written related to fossil evidence and rock > >> >> >> > strata evidence that supports Intelligent Design. There is an ongoing > >> >> >> > project at the Grand Canyon and Mount St. Helens related to conducting > >> >> >> > research related to the sedimentary processes that form rock > >strata and > >> >> >> > fossils. Dr. Steve Austin is in charge of that project. > >> > > >> >> >> Non-answer. > >> > > >> >>> Not true--you may not have liked my answer but I DID provide an answer. > >> > > >> >> Books are not science. You have not pointed to any science that backs it > >> >> up. Scientific papers are written for peer-reviewed journals so the > >> >> results of the research can be tested. Books are not. > >> > > >> >One of the problems is that the editors and members of the peer-reviewed > >> >journals are advocates of evolution. > >> > >> Not really. They are advocates of knowledge, of science, of honesty, > >> something that ID/Creationists refuse to use. > >> > >> >They have a bias related to > >> >scientific papers written by advocates of creation science and Intelligent > >> >design. As a result, the scientific papers written by advocates of > >> >creation science and ID are usually not published in peer-reviewed > >> >journals. > >> > >> There are no scientific papers written by advocates of creation science > >> and ID. That is why they are not published. Don't defame editors of > >> science journals for the failures of the ICR, DI and other creationist > >> liars. Put the blame where it belongs. > > > >I recently posted an article that was published in a peer-reviewed jounal. > >The editor and the members the peer-review committee received lots of > >criticism for publishing the article. Upon request, I'll post the article > >again. > > It was a poorly written article that hadn't been peer-reviewed properly. > Reposting the reference will not improve the article. However, you clearly stated (see above) that "there are no scientific papers written by advocates of creation science and ID..." > > >> >Therefore, the advocates of creation science present their articles on > >> >their websites such as the Discovery Institute website and the ICR > >> >website. They also publish books. That is about our only options. > >> > >> Because they need to keep telling their lies. > >> > >> You just cannot comprehend how dishonest the ID/Creationists are. > > I don't believe they tell lies or are dishonest. They have a different point of view. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:22:11 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3006071522120001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <DJydnUMrYs25TBvbnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." ><spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <Yu6dnT6MQcrGIBvbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@sti.net>, "David >> > V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> >> >>> I respect Dr. Gish. >> >> >> >> Why would you respect a liar? Does he tell lies you want to >> >> hear? >> > >> > >> > I don't believe that Dr. Gish tells lies. >> >> Those that are knowledgeable on the subject say he does. >> >> > He may have stated things that turned out to be false but that >> > is very different than intentional lies. >> >> No, he has stated things that he knows to be false. If you've >> been to his lectures or debates, you'd know that. I have, and I >> have some knowledge of the subject. He lies. That you refuse to >> acknowledge that these anti-evolutionists lie tells us more about >> you than about them. >> >> > Most peole have done this same thing. >> >> So? Does that make him right? > >I'll never forget the debate that I attended. Dr. Gish remained calm and >professional. He was never professional. He had the veneer of a professional, but he was, at heart, a liar. That is not professional at all. > The science professor from the local state college lost his >temper Yes, people have the right to lose their temper at liars. > and as a result made a fool of himself. No, he did not. >Dr. Gish ignored him and >made his next point when it was his turn. I have always respected him as a >direct result of that debate. Since you have attended at least one of his >debates, you should know why I respect him. > Gish is a liar. You respect liars. I don't respect you. You don't deserve respect because you refuse to accept facts. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:25:50 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3006071525500001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <r9kd83h1fr830t6tot5iab126od6sdtv4u@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 14:28:46 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-3006071428460001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <f66dce$458$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> > In article <f65k7k$9o8$7@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> >> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> >>> 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 ever claimed that life DID evolve from non-life? Jason, why do you >> >> >> keep repeating this same tired lie? >> >> > >> >> > One poster indicated that the main evidence that proves that life evolved >> >> > from non-life is that we now have life on this planet. He indicated that >> >> > PROVED that life evolved from non-life since that was the ONLY way >that it >> >> > could have happened. >> >> >> >> No, he didn't, Jason. Please don't lie. Life FORMED from non-life. It >> >> didn't EVOLVE from non-life. >> >> >> >> Repeat after me: "formed" is not the same as "evolved." Keep repeating >> >> till it sinks into what you laughingly call a brain. >> >> >> >> Also, if there was EVER a time when there was no life (and there's >> >> definitely a time now when there is) then there's no possible question >> >> that life formed from non-life. The ONLY question possible is "what >> >> caused it to do so?" >> >> >> >> When I mentioned that God created mankind; some >> >> > plants and some animals >> >> >> >> Was there life before this creation? If not, then life formed from >> >> non-life. Plain and simple. >> >> >> >> and that Natural Selection kicked in after the >> >> > creation process was finished--The poster claimed that he did not believe >> >> > in God. I mentioned Erik von Danikan's (spelling??) theory related to >> >> > ancient astronauts visiting the earth millions of years ago and leaving >> >> > behind dozens of people, many seeds and some animals. He did not believe >> >> > that happened. >> >> >> >> Even if it DID happen, where did those "ancient astronauts" come from? >> >> >> >> > Several other posters implied or actully stated that the reason >life forms >> >> > are on this planet is because life evolved from non-life millions >of years >> >> > ago. When I have mentioned Intelligent Design--various posters have >> >> > became angry with me. >> >> >> >> They have become frustrated with you because you can't/won't support >> >> your claim that goddidit. >> >> >> >> They are convinced that life came to be on this >> >> > planet because of abiogenesis. >> >> >> >> So are you. >> > >> >OKAY--I get it. The advocates of Evolution CLAIM that life formed from >> >non-life. >> >> So do creationists. > >It's very different. God created life from non-life. That is VERY >different than life forming naturally from non-life. Show me the difference. >> >If the advocates of evolution want to convince the advocates of >> >creation science and ID that it happened, scientists should conduct a lab >> >experiment to make it happen. >> >> At some time in the future they will provide such an example. It is >> unlikely that we will ever know exactly what happened since life has >> polluted the earth so greatly. >> >> >That evidence would convince the advocates >> >of creation science and ID that it happened that way. >> >> No, it won't. They'll find another bogus objection. >> >> >Otherwise, encourage >> >your fellow advocates of evolution to stop trying to convince us that you >> >have evidence that it happened that way. >> >> Absolutely no evidence supports ID/Creationism. Evidence does show that >> your personal claims about it are false. Your opinion is not based on >> evidence, not based on reality. > Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 In article <n6ld831m9n1r6g130no6t4t4uo9iotf3le@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:07:44 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-3006071507440001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <k7jd83pjasl4caddrmgsgpp5gieuan2t0e@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > ... > > >> It appears that you are confused about what is happening. Is this > >> because you got your 'news' from unreliable sources? > > > >No--there was a large group of Moslem students and the principal and > >members of the school board were trying to accommodate the wishes of the > >Moslem parents. Upon request, I'll try to find the article on the web and > >repost it. A substitute teacher that was probably a Christian told the > >news media about the strange things she saw in that public school. I > >understand why the principle and members of the school board were showing > >preferential treatment to the Moslems but it was still the wrong thing to > >do since it's against the law to do the things they done. > >Jason > > > Which newspaper reported this? I found it on the web. It was probably published in the newspaper of the city nearest the public school. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:33:47 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3006071533470001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <n6ld831m9n1r6g130no6t4t4uo9iotf3le@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:07:44 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-3006071507440001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <k7jd83pjasl4caddrmgsgpp5gieuan2t0e@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> ... >> >> >> It appears that you are confused about what is happening. Is this >> >> because you got your 'news' from unreliable sources? >> > >> >No--there was a large group of Moslem students and the principal and >> >members of the school board were trying to accommodate the wishes of the >> >Moslem parents. Upon request, I'll try to find the article on the web and >> >repost it. A substitute teacher that was probably a Christian told the >> >news media about the strange things she saw in that public school. I >> >understand why the principle and members of the school board were showing >> >preferential treatment to the Moslems but it was still the wrong thing to >> >do since it's against the law to do the things they done. >> >Jason >> > >> Which newspaper reported this? > >I found it on the web. It was probably published in the newspaper of the >city nearest the public school. > I cannot trust you. You have demonstrated that your word cannot be trusted. You have repeatedly said that you support lies and liars. Provide a proper citation. 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.