Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Jul 1, 2:47 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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. Oh, really. None of this should be taught to students then? Why not? Why the cover up? Is it because it proves you wrong? In 1953, the Miller-Uley experiment showed that amino acids could form spontaneously from elements present in the "primorial soup". (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment ) Other experiments showed that bilipid membranes can form spontaneously. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_bilayer ) Sidney Fox's research showed that amino acids can spontaneously form protein chains. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_W._Fox ) Protein chains can then guide the formation of RNA chains just as RNA chains are known to guide the formation of protein chains. (See \http:// http://www.hhmi.org/news/lindquist2.html ). German scientists have already produced molecules in the laboratory that are capable of reproducing themselves and are therefore alive. (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/217054.stm ). Primative cells would have formed as a way to prevent the contents of the cell from drying out. (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stm ). The simplest cells would have been prokaryote cells (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote ) which would have been the ancestors of modern bacteria and archaea while more advanced eukaryotic cells (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryotic ) would have been the ancestors of modern animal, plant and fungis cells. Eukaryotic cells could have formed through a process known as viral eukaryogenesis (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_eukaryogenesis ) in which a virus forms an endosymbiosic relationship with a host prokaryote cell. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory ) Mitochondria and plastids are also believed to have arisen as a result of endosymbiosis, the evidence being that mitochondria and plastids share characteristics with bacteria cells, the only difference being that they cannot survive independent of the rest of the cell, but that's fine because human cells cannot survive independent of the rest of the body either. In both cases, the parts have evolved to depend on the whole. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Major_Transitions_in_Evolution which has links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_multicellularity > Intelligent Design should > be taught since it has fossil evidence and rock strata evidence. No, it doesn't. You still haven't shown me a fossil of your god. You are a pathetic liar. > 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. He was wrong. > 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. How about papers? He hasn't published a single research paper on this topic? What does that tell you? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Jul 1, 3:21 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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? No paid teacher should be involved in such an activity on school property. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Jul 1, 3:44 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <kYudnS9H6t6ZMBvbnZ2dnUVZ_gadn...@sti.net>, "David V." > > <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > > That is not true. I read "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" > > > by Dr. D.T. Gish. > > > Gish is a known liar. His arguments anti-evolution tirades are > > based on out of date science, ignorance, and outright fraud. He > > has published in many biochemistry journals, but all have been on > > that subject. He has not published on paper in any journal that > > would cause anyone to question the fact of evolution. He has > > published books, but anyone can publish a book and say whatever > > they want. Being published doesn't make it true. > > I respect Dr. Gish. Then you respect a known liar. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 > >> >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 principal 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. This is the actual article that I posted a couple of days ago: Traditional Values Coalition Double Standard For Christians and Jews Versus Muslim Students? June 21, 2007 Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Jul 1, 3:54 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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? It's different for muslims because they are expected to pray five times a day. There is no law against Christians praying on school campus. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Jul 1, 3:57 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f66bru$25...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <f65jlb$9o...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > > >>> In article <f63pn1$fk...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > >>> <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > >>>> Why that one instead of one of the other hundred or so? > > >>> Because it's the best one. > > >> 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. > > > Non-answer. > > Not true--you may not have liked my answer but I DID provide an answer. I still don't see a fossil of your god, Jason. Put up or shut up. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 In article <1183254291.187206.297130@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 1, 2:47 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > 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. > > Oh, really. None of this should be taught to students then? Why > not? Why the cover up? Is it because it proves you wrong? > > In 1953, the Miller-Uley experiment showed that amino acids could form > spontaneously from elements present in the "primorial soup". (See > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment ) Other > experiments showed that bilipid membranes can form spontaneously. > (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_bilayer ) Sidney Fox's > research showed that amino acids can spontaneously form protein > chains. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_W._Fox ) Protein > chains can then guide the formation of RNA chains just as RNA chains > are known to guide the formation of protein chains. (See \http:// > http://www.hhmi.org/news/lindquist2.html ). German scientists have already > produced molecules in the laboratory that are capable of reproducing > themselves and are therefore alive. (See > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/217054.stm ). > > Primative cells would have formed as a way to prevent the contents of > the cell from drying out. (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stm > ). The simplest cells would have been prokaryote cells (See > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote ) which would have been the > ancestors of modern bacteria and archaea while more advanced > eukaryotic cells (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryotic ) would > have been the ancestors of modern animal, plant and fungis cells. > Eukaryotic cells could have formed through a process known as viral > eukaryogenesis (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_eukaryogenesis > ) in which a virus forms an endosymbiosic relationship with a host > prokaryote cell. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory > ) Mitochondria and plastids are also believed to have arisen as a > result of endosymbiosis, the evidence being that mitochondria and > plastids share characteristics with bacteria cells, the only > difference being that they cannot survive independent of the rest of > the cell, but that's fine because human cells cannot survive > independent of the rest of the body either. In both cases, the parts > have evolved to depend on the whole. > > See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Major_Transitions_in_Evolution > which has links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex and > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_multicellularity > > > Intelligent Design should > > be taught since it has fossil evidence and rock strata evidence. > > No, it doesn't. You still haven't shown me a fossil of your god. You > are a pathetic liar. > > > 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. > > He was wrong. > > > 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. > > How about papers? He hasn't published a single research paper on this > topic? What does that tell you? > > Martin Martin, It states in his book that Dr. Stephen Austin has "written numerous research papers." It does not provide a website. I would not know how to locate the research papers on the internet or even know whether or not they are posted on the internet. Jason Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Jul 1, 4:06 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <fhcd83hslea85mb43dpgduube8vrn7f...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:47:48 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-3006071147490...@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >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. > > > 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. Are you blind or just illiterate? In 1953, the Miller-Uley experiment showed that amino acids could form spontaneously from elements present in the "primorial soup". (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment ) Other experiments showed that bilipid membranes can form spontaneously. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_bilayer ) Sidney Fox's research showed that amino acids can spontaneously form protein chains. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_W._Fox ) Protein chains can then guide the formation of RNA chains just as RNA chains are known to guide the formation of protein chains. (See \http:// http://www.hhmi.org/news/lindquist2.html ). German scientists have already produced molecules in the laboratory that are capable of reproducing themselves and are therefore alive. (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/217054.stm ). Primative cells would have formed as a way to prevent the contents of the cell from drying out. (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stm ). The simplest cells would have been prokaryote cells (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote ) which would have been the ancestors of modern bacteria and archaea while more advanced eukaryotic cells (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryotic ) would have been the ancestors of modern animal, plant and fungis cells. Eukaryotic cells could have formed through a process known as viral eukaryogenesis (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_eukaryogenesis ) in which a virus forms an endosymbiosic relationship with a host prokaryote cell. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory ) Mitochondria and plastids are also believed to have arisen as a result of endosymbiosis, the evidence being that mitochondria and plastids share characteristics with bacteria cells, the only difference being that they cannot survive independent of the rest of the cell, but that's fine because human cells cannot survive independent of the rest of the body either. In both cases, the parts have evolved to depend on the whole. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Major_Transitions_in_Evolution which has links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_multicellularity Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 In article <1183254646.899096.222030@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 1, 3:21 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > 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? > > No paid teacher should be involved in such an activity on school > property. > > Martin Martin, This excerpt is from an article that I posted earlier today: Source: http://www.tradionalvalues.org The second case involves Carver Elementary School in San Diego, California. At Carver, Somali Muslim students are being catered to in unusual ways. The school district has absorbed these students from a defunct charter school and spent $450,000 on altering the cafeteria menu and creating new class schedules so Muslims can engage in Arabic instruction and prayers. An extra afternoon recess period permits Muslims time for prayers. A substitute teacher who was called in to teach at Carver was shocked when she saw the lesson plans, which included a special Muslim recess for prayer. She was also troubled when asked to teach a segregated class of Muslim girls. The question I must ask is this: Why aren Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 In article <1183255228.763158.30150@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 1, 3:54 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > 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? > > It's different for muslims because they are expected to pray five > times a day. There is no law against Christians praying on school > campus. > > Martin That is true but they don't grant students a special recess for prayer purposes. They do that in at least one public school for Muslims. What is your opinion of this article? I already know that it does not support creation science or ID. Speed of light slowing down? > Chris Bennett - WorldNetDaily.com > > "The theory of evolution requires unfathomable lengths of time - eons ... > billions and billions of > years. Even with all that time, it's still hard to imagine how complex > biochemicals such as > hemoglobin or chlorophyll self assembled in the primordial goo. But to > those of us who question the > process, the answer is always the same. Time. More time than you can > grasp - timespans so vast that > anything is possible, even chance combinations of random chemicals to form > the stunning complexities > of reproducing life." > > "Modern physics is now considering a theory that could throw into > confusion virtually all of the > accepted temporal paradigms of 20th-century science, including the age of > the universe and the > billions of years necessary for evolution. Further, it raises the distinct > possibility that > scientific validation exists for a (gasp) literal interpretation of the > seminal passages of Genesis. > Goodbye Scopes trial." > > "The theory is deceptively simple: The speed of light is not constant, as > we've been taught since > the early 1930s, but has been steadily slowing since the first instance of > time." > > > "Within the last 24 months, Dr. Joao Magueijo, a physicist at Imperial > College in London, Dr. John > Barrow of Cambridge, Dr. Andy Albrecht of the University of California at > Davis and Dr. John Moffat > of the University of Toronto have all published work advocating their > belief that light speed was > much higher - as much as 10 to the 10th power faster - in the early stages > of the "Big Bang" than it > is today. (It's important to note that none of these researchers have > expressed any bias toward a > predetermined. answer, biblical or otherwise. If anything, they are > antagonistic toward a biblical > worldview.)" > Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Jul 1, 4:27 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > To answer your question: Yes, I object to preferential treatment given to > Moslems. If schools do grant preferential treatment to Moslems, 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? There is no preferential treatment for muslims. As has been already explained to you, all students get Christmas and Easter as holidays just to cater to Christians. Jewish students are therefore not penalized if they choose to be absent from school to celebrate Jewish holidays. By the same token, Muslim students are being given time to pray because their religion expects them to pray five times a day. Does yours? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Jul 1, 4:41 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> > 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. Think about why. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Jul 1, 5:28 am, 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. No, you don't get it. We all (including you) claim that life formed from non-life. You further claim that your god did it. We make no such claim. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Jul 1, 5:34 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <Yu6dnT6MQcrGIBvbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdn...@sti.net>, "David V." > > <s...@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. So? Does that make anything he said true? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Jul 1, 5:38 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:06:44 -0700, in alt.atheism > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-3006071306440...@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >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. What do you expect? He went to a Christian college. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Jul 1, 5:59 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <cbjd83htc6gl9g45vdtjqom31p73kkd...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:17:28 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-3006071317280...@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <f66c6r$2t...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > ><prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > > >> > 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). The fact that Morris and Austin CLAIM to have evidence does not mean that they do. Produce a fossil of your god or shut the f ck up. Martin Quote
Guest Christopher Morris 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 > It's very different. God created life from non-life. That is VERY > different than life forming naturally from non-life. Jason in the end all people and the rest life is a bunch of chemicals that come together and react with one another, thus all life is made from the chemical reaction of nonlife. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Jul 1, 6:12 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <mpkd839l6sa4vbj67vcvqqiokojpog2...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > 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. Unlike you, we actually have evidence. In 1953, the Miller-Uley experiment showed that amino acids could form spontaneously from elements present in the "primorial soup". (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment ) Other experiments showed that bilipid membranes can form spontaneously. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_bilayer ) Sidney Fox's research showed that amino acids can spontaneously form protein chains. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_W._Fox ) Protein chains can then guide the formation of RNA chains just as RNA chains are known to guide the formation of protein chains. (See \http://www.hhmi.org/news/ lindquist2.html ). German scientists have already produced molecules in the laboratory that are capable of reproducing themselves and are therefore alive. (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/217054.stm ). Primative cells would have formed as a way to prevent the contents of the cell from drying out. (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stm ). The simplest cells would have been prokaryote cells (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote ) which would have been the ancestors of modern bacteria and archaea while more advanced eukaryotic cells (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryotic ) would have been the ancestors of modern animal, plant and fungis cells. Eukaryotic cells could have formed through a process known as viral eukaryogenesis (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_eukaryogenesis ) in which a virus forms an endosymbiosic relationship with a host prokaryote cell. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory ) Mitochondria and plastids are also believed to have arisen as a result of endosymbiosis, the evidence being that mitochondria and plastids share characteristics with bacteria cells, the only difference being that they cannot survive independent of the rest of the cell, but that's fine because human cells cannot survive independent of the rest of the body either. In both cases, the parts have evolved to depend on the whole. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Major_Transitions_in_Evolution which has links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_multicellularity Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Jul 1, 6:16 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <dhkd835musc4bifgpss7uetde2bud13...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:41:44 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-3006071341440...@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. But the article lacked any evidence. The editor only published it for the sake of the controversy surrounding it. If you assume that every scientific paper gets published because the editor agrees with what it says then you know nothing about the scientific process. But we already knew that. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Jul 1, 6:22 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <DJydnUMrYs25TBvbnZ2dnUVZ_j2dn...@sti.net>, "David V." > <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <Yu6dnT6MQcrGIBvbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdn...@sti.net>, "David > > > V." <s...@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. You also remain calm but it isn't professional for him to lie and it isn't good when you lie either. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Jul 1, 6:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <r9kd83h1fr830t6tot5iab126od6sdt...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 14:28:46 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-3006071428460...@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >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. Indeed, your way requires us to believe in some supernatural pixie who created everything. Thanks for telling everybody why they shouldn't pay attention to lying creationists. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Jul 1, 6:45 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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. But what if there were lots of little TVs lying around and also radios and spare parts galore? The men in the remote jungle could not only figure out how to build a TV but figure out how the first TV was developed. > 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. Because that is what the available evidence tells them. There is no evidence for your god. Show me a fossil of your god or shut the f ck up. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Jul 1, 10:07 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1183254291.187206.297...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jul 1, 2:47 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > 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. > > > Oh, really. None of this should be taught to students then? Why > > not? Why the cover up? Is it because it proves you wrong? > > > In 1953, the Miller-Uley experiment showed that amino acids could form > > spontaneously from elements present in the "primorial soup". (See > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment) Other > > experiments showed that bilipid membranes can form spontaneously. > > (Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_bilayer) Sidney Fox's > > research showed that amino acids can spontaneously form protein > > chains. (Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_W._Fox) Protein > > chains can then guide the formation of RNA chains just as RNA chains > > are known to guide the formation of protein chains. (See \http:// > >http://www.hhmi.org/news/lindquist2.html). German scientists have already > > produced molecules in the laboratory that are capable of reproducing > > themselves and are therefore alive. (See > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/217054.stm). > > > Primative cells would have formed as a way to prevent the contents of > > the cell from drying out. (See > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stm > > ). The simplest cells would have been prokaryote cells (See > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote) which would have been the > > ancestors of modern bacteria and archaea while more advanced > > eukaryotic cells (Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryotic) would > > have been the ancestors of modern animal, plant and fungis cells. > > Eukaryotic cells could have formed through a process known as viral > > eukaryogenesis (Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_eukaryogenesis > > ) in which a virus forms an endosymbiosic relationship with a host > > prokaryote cell. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory > > ) Mitochondria and plastids are also believed to have arisen as a > > result of endosymbiosis, the evidence being that mitochondria and > > plastids share characteristics with bacteria cells, the only > > difference being that they cannot survive independent of the rest of > > the cell, but that's fine because human cells cannot survive > > independent of the rest of the body either. In both cases, the parts > > have evolved to depend on the whole. > > > See alsohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Major_Transitions_in_Evolution > > which has links tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexand > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_multicellularity You didn't answer the question. Thousands of paper have been published on abiogenesis. Why shouldn't it be taught in class? Why the cover up? > > > Intelligent Design should > > > be taught since it has fossil evidence and rock strata evidence. > > > No, it doesn't. You still haven't shown me a fossil of your god. You > > are a pathetic liar. > > > > 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. > > > He was wrong. > > > > 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. > > > How about papers? He hasn't published a single research paper on this > > topic? What does that tell you? > It states in his book that Dr. Stephen Austin has "written numerous > research papers." But has he actually published any in a reputable journal? That's the question. Martin Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 18:52:39 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3006071852400001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> >> >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 principal 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. > >This is the actual article that I posted a couple of days ago: > >Traditional Values Coalition [snip propaganda by supposed Christians] You don't know what news reporting is, either. Quote
Guest Martin Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Jul 1, 10:23 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > What is your opinion of this article? I already know that it does not > support creation science or ID. > > Speed of light slowing down? <snip> It's nothing new. It's unsupported speculation, desperately concocted to counter real science, just like everything else you have shown us. 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.