Guest Free Lunch Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:31:52 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3006071531530001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >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..." But the paper still didn't really support 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. I don't care what you believe. Your belief system requires you to reject reality. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 In article <0hmd839epsqcv0od7h7iai666aj6ce68il@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > 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. Two men that live in a remote jungle in Africa find a battery powered television that was left behind by tourists. One of the men claims that the television was made by an intelligent designer. The other man claimed that the television formed naturally. The advocates of creation look at mankind and claim that mankind was made by an intelligent designer. The advocates of evolution look at mankind and claim that mankind formed naturally. > > >> >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 Free Lunch Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:45:19 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3006071545190001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <0hmd839epsqcv0od7h7iai666aj6ce68il@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> 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>: .... >> >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. > >Two men that live in a remote jungle in Africa find a battery powered >television that was left behind by tourists. One of the men claims that >the television was made by an intelligent designer. The other man claimed >that the television formed naturally. > >The advocates of creation look at mankind and claim that mankind was made >by an intelligent designer. The advocates of evolution look at mankind and >claim that mankind formed naturally. Your analogy is perfectly defective. Scientists do research. Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 Jason wrote: > OKAY--I get it. The advocates of Evolution CLAIM that life formed 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. That evidence would convince the advocates > of creation science and ID that it happened that way. Otherwise, encourage > your fellow advocates of evolution to stop trying to convince us that you > have evidence that it happened that way. Likewise, until creationists cannot demonstrate their hypothetical creator creating new life, they should stop trying to convince others that it happened that way. Quote
Guest Bob T. Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Jun 30, 11:47 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f65k0k$9o...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <f63of0$e3...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > <prabb...@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. There is plenty of scientific backing for abiogenesis. Haven't you read a single word that people have written? Now I understand why people call you a liar, but I think it's some sort of mental block. Jeez, Jason, there is a scientific journal devoted to the topic - somebody posted the name of it yesterday. > Intelligent Design should > be taught since it has fossil evidence and rock strata evidence. No, it doesn't. The people who have told you that are lying. > 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. Your professor was mistaken. > > Dr. Austin is of the opinion that rock strata data and fossil evidence > supports creation science and Intelligent Design. The result is ongoing > and as far as I know--Dr. Austin has not written a book related to his > research findings. Dr. Austin is mistaken. - Bob T. > > Jason- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Quote
Guest David V. Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 Bob T. wrote: > > There is plenty of scientific backing for abiogenesis. > Haven't you read a single word that people have written? Now > I understand why people call you a liar, but I think it's some > sort of mental block. I'm beginning to see him as a troll. No one can really be that dense, can they? -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest Dan Drake Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 01:49:57 UTC, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > 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? Lots. There's good evidence that there was some kind of actual conspiracy among his philosophical enemies in the early day (20 years before the Inquisition came after him) to get him in trouble, including trouble with the Church. This business is often exaggerated, I believe, to serve the ends of some interest group; but that there was some meeting of the minds to get at him seems clear. And he had a nasty long-running dispute with Chrisoph Scheiner, a Jesuit astrnomer who wound up writing a book attacking Galileo so violently that the Jesuit order didn't allow it to be published till after both men were dead. There are people who insist that all these fights were Galileo's fault. This conclusion should not be accepted without examining the actual documents. But he definitely had supporters and opponents; and current debates have nothing over those of the 1600s in nastiness or dishonesty. -- Dan Drake dd@dandrake.com http://www.dandrake.com/ porlockjr.blogspot.com Quote
Guest The Chief Instigator Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) writes: >In article <f65jlb$9o8$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: [...] >> Why? What science backs it up? We're still waiting for an answer. >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. Really? The Six Million Dollar Man? (Some of us are old enough to remember that waste of time.) -- Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273 LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15) NEXT GAME: October 2007, date/place/opponent TBA Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message news:m7kd835ucrfgeata61isqvltren1eklpi1@4ax.com... > 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 Ralph Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-3006071531530001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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..." There aren't. One paper in a questionable journal doesn't negate the statement that there are no scientific papers on creationism or ID in the science journals. Don't give me your usual crap about bias, etc. Judge Overmeyer asked for examples of this bias and the creationists couldn't furnish the first example. >> >> >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. Then they are stupid. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news: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. 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. > > Jason Then you never searched for information on Bullfrog Gish, did you? You are dishonest to your creationist core! Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news: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. 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. I imagine it is because you are as dumb as he is and as dishonest as he is. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news: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. The 'primordial soup' is not a theory. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news: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>: >> >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. It appears that you are too stupid to see it any other way! Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news: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 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). That is what they say but hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world would take exception to that statement. You see Jason, while evolution might have its detractors, the case for an old earth has few. Only in the US is there even any question about the age of the earth. The rest of the world accepts an old age. Looks like "God's Word", isn't too good. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 "David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:FqWdnUxQCLsjahvbnZ2dnUVZ_vLinZ2d@sti.net... > Bob T. wrote: >> >> There is plenty of scientific backing for abiogenesis. >> Haven't you read a single word that people have written? Now >> I understand why people call you a liar, but I think it's some >> sort of mental block. > > I'm beginning to see him as a troll. No one can really be that > dense, can they? > -- > Dave I thought that also but in my search of his internet postings he has been using the same arguments for almost three years. I really think he is that dense :-(. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news: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. 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. That evidence would convince the advocates > of creation science and ID that it happened that way. Otherwise, encourage > your fellow advocates of evolution to stop trying to convince us that you > have evidence that it happened that way. Regardless of how life started it is obvious to anyone with a modicum of intellect that life did form from non-life. If you think otherwise please tell us why. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news: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. No it isn't!!! Damn, just how stupid are you?? Please don't answer it was a rhetorical question. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-3006071545190001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <0hmd839epsqcv0od7h7iai666aj6ce68il@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> 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. > > Two men that live in a remote jungle in Africa find a battery powered > television that was left behind by tourists. One of the men claims that > the television was made by an intelligent designer. The other man claimed > that the television formed naturally. > > The advocates of creation look at mankind and claim that mankind was made > by an intelligent designer. The advocates of evolution look at mankind and > claim that mankind formed naturally. God supposedly made man from the dust of the earth. If dirt isn't non-life you will have to tell us why it isn't. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news: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. Intelligent Design should > be taught since it has fossil evidence and rock strata evidence. 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. > > Dr. Austin is of the opinion that rock strata data and fossil evidence > supports creation science and Intelligent Design. The result is ongoing > and as far as I know--Dr. Austin has not written a book related to his > research findings. The rest of science disagrees with Dr. Austin. Quote
Guest Bob T. Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Jun 30, 2:28 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f66dce$45...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <f65k7k$9o...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > <prabb...@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. 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. That evidence would convince the advocates > of creation science and ID that it happened that way. Otherwise, encourage > your fellow advocates of evolution to stop trying to convince us that you > have evidence that it happened that way. The advocates of Creationism CLAIM that God created the Earth. If they want to convince the rest of us that is what happened, they should have God create another planet as a demonstration. That evidence would convince the advocates of science and rationality that it happened that way. Otherwise, encourage your fellow advocates of Creationism to stop trying to convince us that you have evidence that it happened that way. Just because we believe that life formed from non-life does not mean that we are able to accomplish the same thing. Astronomers understand a lot about how stars are formed. Do you insist that they be required to make their own star in order to convince you they know what they're talking about? - Bob T. Quote
Guest David V. Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 Ralph wrote: > "David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:FqWdnUxQCLsjahvbnZ2dnUVZ_vLinZ2d@sti.net... > >> Bob T. wrote: >> >>> There is plenty of scientific backing for abiogenesis. >>> Haven't you read a single word that people have written? >>> Now I understand why people call you a liar, but I think >>> it's some sort of mental block. >> >> I'm beginning to see him as a troll. No one can really be >> that dense, can they? > > I thought that also but in my search of his internet postings > he has been using the same arguments for almost three years. I > really think he is that dense :-(. Isn't that also the sign of a troll? Using the same arguments over and over again just to manipulate people. -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 In article <A9Dhi.1489$3a.1340@bignews9.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-3006071545190001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <0hmd839epsqcv0od7h7iai666aj6ce68il@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> 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. > > > > Two men that live in a remote jungle in Africa find a battery powered > > television that was left behind by tourists. One of the men claims that > > the television was made by an intelligent designer. The other man claimed > > that the television formed naturally. > > > > The advocates of creation look at mankind and claim that mankind was made > > by an intelligent designer. The advocates of evolution look at mankind and > > claim that mankind formed naturally. > > God supposedly made man from the dust of the earth. If dirt isn't non-life > you will have to tell us why it isn't. The difference is that in one case there was an intelligent designer and in the other case live formed naturally. That is a BIG difference. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 In article <vhIsdqY67dTD-pn2-RN3d7qicO7Id@M>, dd@dandrake.com wrote: > On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 01:49:57 UTC, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > 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? > > Lots. There's good evidence that there was some kind of actual conspiracy > among his philosophical enemies in the early day (20 years before the > Inquisition came after him) to get him in trouble, including trouble with > the Church. This business is often exaggerated, I believe, to serve the > ends of some interest group; but that there was some meeting of the minds > to get at him seems clear. > > And he had a nasty long-running dispute with Chrisoph Scheiner, a Jesuit > astrnomer who wound up writing a book attacking Galileo so violently that > the Jesuit order didn't allow it to be published till after both men were > dead. There are people who insist that all these fights were Galileo's > fault. This conclusion should not be accepted without examining the actual > documents. > > But he definitely had supporters and opponents; and current debates have > nothing over those of the 1600s in nastiness or dishonesty. Don, Thanks for your post Jason Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Jul 1, 12:57 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:42:21 -0000, in alt.atheism > Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote in > <1183218141.147247.245...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>: > >On Jun 30, 10:26 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 09:54:18 -0000, in alt.talk.creationism > >> Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote in > >> <1183197258.119270.49...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>: > >> >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. > > >> Wasn't Ba'al generally the consort of Astarte? > > >That's a new one to me. There was more than one god named Baal. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astarte > Thanks. I have no clue where I heard this, but I recall the context. The > writer was claiming that the 'bad' god was really Astarte and that the > use of Ba'al was also a way to demean Astarte. Astarte/Ishtar/Isis/Venus was a female god and probably dates back to a time when Sumer and Egypt were matriarchies: the kings of Sumer and pharoahs of Egypt were said to have descended from Ishtar and Isis, respectively. Does that mean that they were a real person, probably the same person? It's possible but it's not completely beyond the ability of worshippers to simply make up their gods altogether: nobody today believes that Hecules was ever real, for example (although he could have been loosely based on Gilgamesh). The ancient Sumerians and ancient Egyptians were not semetic people: semetic people were nomadic people when these empires were built; semetic people inherited these civilizations from their original founders. Whereas the ancient Sumerians and Egyptians were prone to goddess worship, the semetic people who followed were less inclined. Perhaps they saw a contradiction between patriarchy and goddess worship: legend has it that Ishtar was the Sumerian queen and that she used prostitution to raise taxes. Presumably this practice carried on intoancient Greece: it is mentioned in the Bible. 17 "None of the daughters of Israel shall be a temple prostitute, nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a temple prostitute. 18 "You shall not bring the wages of a prostitute or the money of a dog into the house of the LORD your God because of any vow, for even both are an abomination to the LORD your God. - Deuteronomy 23:17-18 The practice of temple prostitution was obviously hated by the Hebrews and so they hated the Sumerians (who by that time were known as Babylonians) and, by extention, the Greeks and Romans. The introduction of the Ten Commandments, specifically the commandment that no gods other than Yahweh were to be worshipped, would have been a reaction to this. So, yeah, the 'bad' god was really Astarte/Ishtar/ Isis/Venus and all the Baals would have been 'victims' of this decree. 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.