Guest Martin Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Jul 1, 1:09 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <Y8Ghi.5211$vi5.2...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, > b...@nonespam.com wrote: > > Jason, you have no compassion for non-Christians, no consideration for > > the needs of others, and no comprehension of what is special treatment > > for Christians. You just take it for granted that your holidays are > > school holidays, that your sabbath is the only one, and that your > > religious beliefs should be the only one to get any attention in > > schools. You regard any accommodation of other religious practices as > > "special treatment." Develop some perspective, and you will grow > > spiritually and maybe even learn to walk a genuinely Christian path. > > I understand your points. You obviously didn't. > You are correct. However, the rules and policies > have changed. All students are now suppose to be treated the same > regardless of their religions. Jason, here in Taiwan, I've had to teach on Christmas Day. I've also had classes on Sundays. That's what it means to have all religions treated the same way. > Do you believe that Muslim students should > receive preferential treatment? Muslims do NOT get special treatment. Christians have been getting special treatment in the US from the very beginning. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Jul 1, 1:20 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <I5Ghi.663$eY....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>, b...@nonespam.com > wrote: > > 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. They have a bias related to > > > scientific papers written by advocates of creation science and Intelligent > > > design. As a result, the scientific papers written by advocates of > > > creation science and ID are usually not published in peer-reviewed > > > journals. > > > > Therefore, the advocates of creation science present their articles on > > > their websites such as the Discovery Institute website and the ICR > > > website. They also publish books. That is about our only options. > > > Come up with something better, Jason. Get your gurus to come up with a > > valid theory, and they will get published. But the fact that they can't > > get published speaks volumes for the validity of their "science." IOW > > it isn't science, it's theology and wishful thinking, and the editors > > are right not to publish any of it. Cheer up, they don't publish > > anything on Lysenkoism, miasma theory, and Spider Woman. > > There is very little that I can do. It appears that the evolutionists are > winning the Battle. They have control of the journals and school > curriculums. They are willing to spend millions to keep that control. It's not about "control", Jason. It's about doing actual science and educating young people about it. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Jul 1, 1:32 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <MXFhi.5209$vi5.1...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, > b...@nonespam.com wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <vhIsdqY67dTD-pn2-wbYyEuD7IdP7@M>, d...@dandrake.com wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:48:32 UTC, cactus <b...@nonespam.com> wrote: > > > >>> Meeting religious dietary restrictions (kosher or halal, for example) > > >>> would probably get the schools entangled in issues of what food is > > >>> appropriate. It would also require everyone to participate. Perhaps > > >>> there could be some special dishes. Vegetarian dishes would work, for > > >>> example, although some Orthodox Jews will eat only food prepared in > > >>> kosher kitchens. Best to keep food out of it. > > >> See what a bunch of young guys are in this group. Three words: > > >> Fish on Fridays. > > > >> Plenty of places -- tax-supported institutions including schools -- > > >> wouldn't serve meat at meals on Friday back in the 50s when that was > > >> problematic for Catholics -- I do hope we agree here that Catholics are > > >> Christians? -- and it would be too expensive to provide a choice. (Though, > > >> in all fairness I think that a choice was usually provided; your mileage > > >> may vary.) > > > >>> Accommodating Jewish students is relatively simple - allow head > > >>> coverings in school and don't penalize students for missing school in > > >>> the High Holy Days. > > >> The norm, of course, in my public high school back in the 50s, days of > > >> true Christian religious freedom, meaning domination, that Jason would > > >> admire. (Come to think of it, very few head coverings because very few > > >> Orthodox in that West Coast suburb back then.) > > > >> Point: Accommodating minority religious groups is traditional in the > > >> civilized parts of the USA. I can't speak for the South, and don't want > > >> to. > > > > Don, > > > I posted an article indicating that one American public school that had a > > > large number of Muslim students actully placed all Muslim girls in their > > > own class. There were NO boys allowed in that class. This was because it > > > was part of the Muslim religion. > > > Not only is that a reasonable accommodation, there is growing evidence > > that separating the sexes around middle school age provides academic > > benefits to both. > > > All of the Muslim students were granted a > > > special recess so that they could have a group prayer session. > > > Again, reasonable accommodation. > > > Do you > > > think that school principal (or perhaps it was the school board) should > > > have done those things? If your answer is "yes", should Christian students > > > be allowed to pass out a free booklet entitled "The Bible, Science and > > > Creation" (the cost is 75 cents per booklet) to all of their fellow > > > biology students? > > > No, because that is proselytizing. The Muslim students are being given > > the resources to practice their faith. Passing out tracts is not a part > > of Christian worship; in fact, it intrudes on the religious rights of > > others. > > > It's a pity that you refuse to understand the difference. I think that > > you are capable of that understanding, but I could be wrong. You tell me. > Should Christian students be allowed to pass out Christian tracts at > recess or in the school cafeteria? Only if Muslim students are allowed to pass out Moslem tracts and Jewish students are allowed to pass out Jewish tracts. Atheists should also be able to pass out pamphlets telling students about how the gospels contradict each other and how the old testament promotes murder. One group can only if everybody can. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Jul 1, 2:12 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > I feel sorry for the principals and members of school boards that work in > schools that have lots of students that are members of various religions. I agree. It would be much easier if we didn't have religion. Perhaps you are finally starting to understand. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Jul 1, 2:32 pm, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: > In article <1183197258.119270.49...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 30, 2:29 pm, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > In article <5ekj7bF398uh...@mid.individual.net>, > > > "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > > > > "johac" <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > > > >news:jhachmann-5CD649.15412328062007@news.giganews.com... > > > > > In article <5ehujiF385pl...@mid.individual.net>, > > > > > "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > > > > > >> LOL! Diety Death Match? Who knows how to do claymation? > > > > > > LOL! I wish I knew how! I'd love to put something like that on YouTube. > > > > > :-) > > > > > That would be hilarious > > > > Heh! Heh! Tag team. Yaweh and Baal vs. Zeus and The FSM. :-) > > > "Baal" is a hebrew word meaning "lord" that was used to refer to any > > god other than Yahweh so as far as we know the Baal that teh > > Canaanites were worshipping _was_ Zeus. > > Could be, but according to this: > > http://www.pantheon.org/articles/b/baal.html > > it sounds like the Baal of the early OT was a different god. Possibly > related to Yaweh, but not the same. He might have been the son of El who > is sometimes identified with Yaweh. I don't think that Zeus got there > until the Greeks arrived, particularly after Alexander's conquest. Yes, but the Jewish storm god Hadad was called Baal ("Lord") so the old testament could be refering to him. (See http://www.pantheon.org/articles/h/hadad.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadad ) And yet, according to the link you provided, "Baal, literal meaning is "lord," in the Canaanite pantheon was the local title of fertility gods. Baal never emerged as a rain god until later times when he assumed the special functions of each." So we could both be right: it could be that the Jews confused two gods by calling them both Baal, one who was also known to the Greeks as Zeus and the other being the ancient Sumerian fertility god, who would have been the husband of Ishtar the Sumerian fertility goddess. What a mess! Martin Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 09:48:15 -0000, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: - Refer: <1183283295.081990.319760@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com> >On Jul 1, 2:32 pm, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> In article <1183197258.119270.49...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, >> Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > On Jun 30, 2:29 pm, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> > > In article <5ekj7bF398uh...@mid.individual.net>, >> > > "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: >> > > > "johac" <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> > > >news:jhachmann-5CD649.15412328062007@news.giganews.com... >> > > > > In article <5ehujiF385pl...@mid.individual.net>, >> > > > > "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: >> >> > > > >> LOL! Diety Death Match? Who knows how to do claymation? >> >> > > > > LOL! I wish I knew how! I'd love to put something like that on YouTube. >> > > > > :-) >> >> > > > That would be hilarious >> >> > > Heh! Heh! Tag team. Yaweh and Baal vs. Zeus and The FSM. :-) >> >> > "Baal" is a hebrew word meaning "lord" that was used to refer to any >> > god other than Yahweh so as far as we know the Baal that teh >> > Canaanites were worshipping _was_ Zeus. >> >> Could be, but according to this: >> >> http://www.pantheon.org/articles/b/baal.html >> >> it sounds like the Baal of the early OT was a different god. Possibly >> related to Yaweh, but not the same. He might have been the son of El who >> is sometimes identified with Yaweh. I don't think that Zeus got there >> until the Greeks arrived, particularly after Alexander's conquest. > >Yes, but the Jewish storm god Hadad was called Baal ("Lord") so the >old testament could be refering to him. > >(See http://www.pantheon.org/articles/h/hadad.html and >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadad ) > >And yet, according to the link you provided, > >"Baal, literal meaning is "lord," in the Canaanite pantheon was the >local title of fertility gods. Baal never emerged as a rain god until >later times when he assumed the special functions of each." > >So we could both be right: it could be that the Jews confused two gods >by calling them both Baal, one who was also known to the Greeks as >Zeus and the other being the ancient Sumerian fertility god, who would >have been the husband of Ishtar the Sumerian fertility goddess. What >a mess! > >Martin "Ba'al" was not the Canaanites' full name for their god. It was much longer than that, but I would have to "look it up", as it were. -- Quote
Guest walksalone@dastardly.dirty.deeds.d Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 In <g4qe83hk4731n9v4e377aaf58k8mfjh8uf@4ax.com>, on 07/01/07 at 06:12 PM, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> said: >On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 23:32:39 -0700, johac ><jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: > - Refer: <jhachmann-8217FB.23323930062007@news.giganews.com> >In >article <1183197258.119270.49160@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> On Jun 30, 2:29 pm, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> > In article <5ekj7bF398uh...@mid.individual.net>, >>> > "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: >>> > > "johac" <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>> > >news:jhachmann-5CD649.15412328062007@news.giganews.com... >>> > > > In article <5ehujiF385pl...@mid.individual.net>, >>> > > > "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: Snipped good reference to a good mythology site. >> it sounds like the Baal of the early OT was a different god. Possibly >>related to Yaweh, but not the same. He might have been the son of El who >>is sometimes identified with Yaweh. I don't think that Zeus got there >>until the Greeks arrived, particularly after Alexander's conquest. >It is my opinion that the early tribes of Israel stole the Ba'al concept >and fashioned their own god from it. I suspect that you may be in error, & that yahweh was in fact, indigenous to the Sinai/Negev desert regions. If I can come on board, I will share my info via PDF files, at least four of them, & let you see my hand so to speak. >("walksalone" disagrees, so I am in the throes of preparing a referenced >justification for my position.) Not so much disagree, the attributes of ba'al were slowly subsumed into the yahweh myth, see Hosea for a final indicator that this was done deliberately. Now, if you e-mail me, I might have something of interest to you, something that may incite the desire to add to your library. If nothing else, you will know some of my sources, which for a person with no formal education, is not so bad. Got to add to it though. walksalone at spamstopper com will get here. "Morality is simply the attitude we adopt towards people whom we do not like." Oscar Wild Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-3006072158160001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <867e83pj07lmglj8dtmmdbdiu1eb6td2dt@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> 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. > > Since you know about news reporting, do you believe the newspapers in the > cities nearest those two schools covered the stories mentioned in the > article? Do you believe everything you read in the newspapers? Quote
Guest bramble Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On 30 jun, 23:45, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <0hmd839epsqcv0od7h7iai666aj6ce6...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:25:50 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-3006071525500...@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >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>: > > >> >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. > > > >> 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. > You only can dupe a stupid with this argument, Jason. If the indigenous had not any idea about how to switch on the TV they would not discover what this case is for. They see something very weird with nomeaning at all. This cubic thing has not any analogy with the things and animal they can find in Nature. So, even comming back to the wellknown clock watch, there is not any way a primitive human being could have the feintest idea that this thing was made my a human maker. So, this parable is as fake a wooden dollar. The case is that there are many thing in our planet, and we can watch stars in the night, and the moon, and the sun during the day. It is only, when people has invented the idea of a powerful spirit that rule sometimes events such as a hunt, or the need of rains, or the need of fertility, a good harvest, or calm weather for fishers, that priests can develope the idea of a creator god that made everything. So, this idea comes out when people is able to do outstanding things, like palaces, bridges, towers, war carriage, spears, swords, etc. when people is able to till the land and grow crops, have herds of goats, sheep, etc. that is easy to invent the idea of a creator god. But comming back to the argument, you cannot go from the argument of the known artificial things made by living beings, to the case of the natural ones. Natural things and living beings, and organisms, are found like they are in nature. We never had experience of observing a creator god producing new animals, or new stars, or moons, or whatever. So, we cannot extrapolate this way. It is illogical. Bramble Quote
Guest bramble Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On 1 jul, 01:42, "Dan Drake" <d...@dandrake.com> wrote: > On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 01:49:57 UTC, J...@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 > d...@dandrake.comhttp://www.dandrake.com/ > porlockjr.blogspot.com I would add that most academic people would not dare to risk their tenure, by deffending a theory that could put them at odds with the catholic church. The RCC had a great power. The lings and men of power used to take care as not to confront the church. So jealousy was also a point for many academics to denounce Galileo's ideas to the catholic authorities. Bramble Quote
Guest bramble Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On 1 jul, 02:26, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Ralph wrote: > > "David V." <s...@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. he is following the idea of Goebels, 20 thousand repetitions made for a truth Bramble Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 18:29:58 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3006071829580001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >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. > Yes, the total lack of evidence for an intelligent designer. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 18:10:31 +0930, in alt.atheism Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in <41qe83tfoice8le29tkr2q15a5k7ndjdb7@4ax.com>: >On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 23:39:57 -0700, johac ><jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: > - Refer: <jhachmann-9D2451.23395730062007@news.giganews.com> >>In article <o1dc831153t79bca8qe0addiio9hpratem@4ax.com>, >> Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 23:18:12 -0700, johac >>> <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> - Refer: <jhachmann-51A355.23181229062007@news.giganews.com> >>> >In article <nai983h7frhfr6kddnhkm21qhoe9a1700g@4ax.com>, >>> > Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:44:09 -0700, johac >>> >> <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >> - Refer: <jhachmann-476633.15440928062007@news.giganews.com> >>> >> >In article <740783hjnp1rl69hncffbem3j5p90ls05v@4ax.com>, >>> >> > Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> >> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:17:50 -0700, johac >>> >> >> <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >> >> - Refer: <jhachmann-5CB182.16175027062007@news.giganews.com> >>> >> >> >In article <5efchvF36n37vU1@mid.individual.net>, >>> >> >> > "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> "Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message >>> >> >> >> news:1vj3835t86vajghq9n05jc1n7qdhe7ntud@4ax.com... >>> >> >> >> > On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 15:58:27 -0700, johac >>> >> >> >> > <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >> >> >> > - Refer: <jhachmann-2EB388.15582726062007@news.giganews.com> >>> >> >> >> >>In article >>> >> >> >> >><Jason-2506071038350001@66-52-22-83.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, >>> >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> In article <5ea5jrF383thsU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >>> >> >> >> >>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote >>> >> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >> >>> > snip >>> >> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >> >>> > > If they read their Bibles, they will know all about the true >>> >> >> >> >>> > > God. >>> >> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >> >>> > What makes your god the "true" one? >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> Books have been written on that subject. >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>I read books on Greek mythology. Does that mean that Zeus is the >>> >> >> >> >>true >>> >> >> >> >>god? >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > Of course. >>> >> >> >> > The non-existent Zeus can kick the non-existent YHWH's butt any >>> >> >> >> > time! >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> True, but as a long-time fan of Norse mythology, I think Odin could >>> >> >> >> give >>> >> >> >> Zeus a run for his money >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >I don't know. Maybe we could get all the gods in an arena and let them >>> >> >> >fight it out to see who's the toughest non-existent being. Sort of a >>> >> >> >divine bum fight. :-) >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Is that "bum" as in "vagrant", or "bum" as in "derriere"? >>> >> > >>> >> >Vagrants. A few years back some idiots in this country were paying >>> >> >homeless people to fight each other while being taped. The would sell >>> >> >the tapes to bigger idiots who got off watching such violence. >>> >> >>> >> The Police will watch anything... >>> > >>> >Yep. They may have been the ones doing the taping. >>> >>> Gaffer tape... >> >>Gaffer tape? > >A traditional police method of silencing torture victims, sorry: >voluntary interviewees, without leaving gag marks. How did we go from the Police to the police? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 21:16:31 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3006072116310001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1183256826.668483.63480@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> 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 > >Martin, >I don't know. It's my guess that he has said things that he found out >later were not true. You are guessing wrong, again. Gish made statements that he knew were wrong. He was lying, intentionally so. He had been corrected on his false statements, just as you have and he ignored those corrections, just as you have. >I would not call those statements lies but I would >call them mis-statements. You tell the same lies he does. Of course you won't admit that you are a liar or that you are knowingly repeating the lies that Gish knowingly told. >I doubt that Dr. Gish has ever told an intentional lie. You are wrong. He knows that he is lying about the evidence when it comes to Young Earth Creationism. >However, I am only guessing. You are doing worse. You are making excuses for his lies so you can excuse yours. >I know that Dr. Gish has a >different point of view than you have related to issues related to >evolution vs. creation. We aren't talking about points-of-view. We are talking about intentional, fraudulent claims that he knows are such. >For that reason, you would call certain statements >that he makes "lies". For example, Dr. Gish may say, "God created the >World". You may call that statement a lie. However, Dr. Gish and millions >of Christians would not call that statement a lie. No, I would not call such a statement a lie. I would consider it silly and unsupported by evidence, but not a lie. Gish lies when he claims that he has evidence to support his religious doctrine about God creating the world. He has no evidence. None. He knows it. You know it. -- "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 21:58:15 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3006072158160001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <867e83pj07lmglj8dtmmdbdiu1eb6td2dt@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> 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. > >Since you know about news reporting, do you believe the newspapers in the >cities nearest those two schools covered the stories mentioned in the >article? > You didn't provide a reference to those newspapers. You posts a biased report from religious zealots. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 22:09:10 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3006072209100001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <Y8Ghi.5211$vi5.2290@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, >bm1@nonespam.com wrote: .... >> I object to preferential treatment for Christians. The public schools >> I attended had a daily prayer, which often mentioned Jesus of Nazareth. >> There were Christmas parties, but no recognition of any religious >> celebrations. They celebrated Easter in school but not Pesach. >> Christians get out of school for their holidays, but I had to get >> special permission, and miss class to attend High Holy Day services. >> >> And your sabbath is respected, not mine. Sporting events are on Friday >> nights or Saturdays, which precludes Orthodox Jews from participating in >> sports. >> >> Then there was the abrasive "Funny, you don't look Jewish" (I have >> Central American ancestors), the routine slurs about Jews. >> >> Jason, you have no compassion for non-Christians, no consideration for >> the needs of others, and no comprehension of what is special treatment >> for Christians. You just take it for granted that your holidays are >> school holidays, that your sabbath is the only one, and that your >> religious beliefs should be the only one to get any attention in >> schools. You regard any accommodation of other religious practices as >> "special treatment." Develop some perspective, and you will grow >> spiritually and maybe even learn to walk a genuinely Christian path. > >I understand your points. You are correct. However, the rules and policies >have changed. All students are now suppose to be treated the same >regardless of their religions. Do you believe that Muslim students should >receive preferential treatment? > No, you missed his point completely. Secondly, allowing time for prayers is not preferential treatment. Quote
Guest Mike Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 cactus wrote: > Mike wrote: >> cactus wrote: >>> You don't get it. Jason ignores questions he doesn't like, or can't >>> face and does the same for answers that he doesn't like. Except in >>> the latter case he gives an innocuous, meaningless reply before >>> ignoring it. He's sort of a chatterbot who can dodge anything except >>> comments which confront him to the point of being offensive. >> >> Oh, I get it; I just like to smear it back in his face. I don't really >> expect an honest answer. >> > As long as your eyes are open. Oh, yeah, I've realized that about him LONG ago. Quote
Guest Mike Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 Michael Gray wrote: > On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 23:20:45 -0700, johac > <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> Aha! So you are in league with the Devil! > > Little League. > Satan's on first. WHO's on first. Did the great saints Abbott and Costello teach you ANYTHING? sheesh Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 22:14:15 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3006072214150001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <sdGhi.5213$vi5.4763@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, >bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <1acd83l3f227fhmdrqg1r10icbodmeuegc@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 12:21:33 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-3006071221330001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >>> In article <46pc839kemlnao5pa57bjblm06c1um6luf@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:10:12 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >>>> <Jason-2906072210120001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >>>>> In article ><1183178579.174328.269690@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> >>>>> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> On Jun 30, 12:05 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >>>>>>> In article <1183169797.701414.298...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >> >>> Martin >> >>>>>>> <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> On Jun 30, 4:42 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> In article <f63pn1$fk...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> >>>>>>>>> <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> Jason wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> In article >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> <DipthotDipthot-677E57.20063928062...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, >> >>>>>>>>>>> 655321 <DipthotDipt...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>> How many of the numerous creation [myths] do you want to >> >>> bring into >> >>>>>>>>>>>> the ID curriculum? One? A dozen? Two hundred? (Don't >> > worry, >> >>>>>>> there are >> >>>>>>>>>>>> that many -- scores more, in fact.) >> >>>>>>>>>>> Only one--Visit the Discovery Institute website for details. >> >>>>> They have >> >>>>>>>>>>> already published a textbook entitled, "Of Pandas and People". >> >>>>>>>>>> Why that one instead of one of the other hundred or so? >> >>>>>>>>> Because it's the best one. >> >>>>>>>> Shouldn't that be for teachers and students to decide? They could >> >>>>>>>> have an entire course about the various creation myths from >> > around the >> >>>>>>>> world. It would be very enlightening. I would recommend it be part >> >>>>>>>> of the elementary school program. >> >>>>>>> Would you be in favor of such a course? I posted an article about a >> >>> public >> >>>>>>> school where Muslim children have a special recess so the Muslim >> > students >> >>>>>>> can have a group prayer session. That same public school has a special >> >>>>>>> class that only has Muslim girls. No boys are allowed to enter >> > that class >> >>>>>>> room. What is your opinion about that public school? >> >>>>>> I tolerate religious practices up to the point where people tell me >> >>>>>> that I have to believe what they believe. I am very consistent in >> >>>>>> this regard. It is you who are inconsistent because you would insist >> >>>>>> that secular schools have prayer sessions which all students are >> >>>>>> required to participate in regardless of their religious background. >> >>>>>> Obviously Christians can and do pray in private in school and you have >> >>>>>> no problem with that but you apparently have a problem with Moslems >> >>>>>> wanting to do the same thing. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> As for wanting young children to learn about mythology in elementary >> >>>>>> school, I did learn about Greek and Norse mythology in elementary >> >>>>>> school. Look how I turned out. Of course I want other children to >> >>>>>> get the same exposure so that they can more easily separate fact and >> >>>>>> fiction when they become adults. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Martin >> >>>>> The question was about PUBLIC Schools. Should Public schools grant >Muslim >> >>>>> students preferential treatment (eg girls only classes and group prayer >> >>>>> sessions? >> >>>> Why do you consider it preferential treatment? Schools in the United >> >>>> States don't hold classes on Sundays. Is that preferential treatment for >> >>>> Christians? They don't hold classes on Christmas or Easter. Is that >> >>>> preferential treatment. Accommodating religious peculiarities is not >> >>>> preferential treatment. Your act as if you have no respect for other >> >>>> religions even though your religion has no more evidence to back it up >> >>>> than any other religion. You are being arrogant and are condescending to >> >>>> those who don't share your religion, despite the fact that you cannot >> >>>> prove that your religion isn't false. >> >>>> >> >>>>> If you was the principal of a high school, would you permit a Christian >> >>>>> student at that high school to enter a biology class and pass out a free >> >>>>> 32 page booklet to each student entitled, "The Bible, Science and >> >>>>> Creation"? >> >>>> There's a difference between allowing religious lies to be taught in a >> >>>> class and an accommodation of religious activities. You apparently don't >> >>>> want to acknowledge that. >> >>>> >> >>>> You aren't at all honest in your discussions here. >> >>> Good points: >> >>> In relation to Accomodating religious peculiarities--Would you be in favor >> >>> of allowing Christian students to have a special class where they are >> >>> taught Intelligent Design? >> >> You are still being dishonest. Accommodating schedules is not the same >> >> thing as teaching religious doctrines in class. No one is teaching any >> >> Moslem doctrines in public schools. No one is going to teach so-called >> >> Christian doctrine either, particularly since it relies so heavily on >> >> lies being taught by religious sects. >> >> >> >> As we have been over many times, ID has nothing to do with science and >> >> everything to do with religion. If anyone ever develops scientific >> >> evidence to support ID then it might be considered. Until then, it is >> >> just a religious doctrine and forbidden in public schools. >> > >> > Thanks for your post. The Muslims were allowed a special recess so they >> > could have a group prayer session. Would you be in favor of a special >> > recess for Christians so that they could have a group prayer meeting? >> > Jason >> > >> > >> If their religion required it, yes. But Christianity does not require >> prayer several times per day, as does Islam, and to some extent Judaism. >> Judaism just requires morning and evening prayer, which can take place >> before and after school hours. Christianity doesn't, Jason, but the >> usual day for church attendance is Sunday, so no school events happen >> that day. Sports events often take place Friday evening and Saturday >> day, which precludes Orthodox Jewish participation. Yet we manage. >> >> Wouldn't you resent Sunday football games? You would, wouldn't you, yet >> that is special treatment for Christians. >> >> Get used to it, Christians get special treatment all over the damn >> place, and you take it for granted so much that you can't see it at all. > >Yes, you are correct. Do you think that schools should have girls only >classes for Muslims? They did not make any special accommodations for you >related to your religion. >Jason > There have been a few school districts that have tried single sex schools or classrooms after they had fallen out of favor for half a century. If the school district tries it, of course, the classes won't be limited to Moslem children, so it's not clear to me that your question makes sense. Frankly, I think that certain conservative Moslem and conservative Christian groups tend to treat women very badly, somewhere between second-class citizens and slaves. I don't want to see such discriminatory behavior accommodated by school districts. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 23:19:51 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3006072319520001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <lVGhi.670$eY.67@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <hb7e839thprf75ls11t256h5iufqskil58@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 02:28:19 -0000, in alt.atheism >> >> Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in >> >> <1183256899.661910.216580@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>: >> >>> 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. >> >> I think you need quotation marks around 'college'. Real Christian >> >> colleges are members of the regional accreditation organizations. It >> >> appears that the one he went to was not accredited. >> > >> > The Christian college that I attended was Ferrum College. When I attended >> > the college, it was a 2 year Junior college. It is now a four year >> > college. They probably have a web site. It will probably state the name of >> > the accreditation organization. >> > >> >> From the Ferrum College catalog: >> >> Ferrum College is accredited by the Commission on Colleges of >> the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (1866 Southern >> Lane, Decatur, Georgia 30033-4097; Telephone number: (404)679-4501) >> to award bachelor's degrees. >> In addition, Ferrum College is accredited by the following: >> Council on Social Work Education >> (CSWE accredits the baccalaureate program in Social Work) >> National Recreation and Park Association Council on Accreditation >> State Council of Higher Education for Virginia >> University Senate of the United Methodist Church >> >> It appears to be accredited. > >That information did not surprise me. When I transferred to a state >college, all of my courses were credited to me. > Too bad you rejected the education they tried to give you. If you were at a Methodist college, why do you act like you went to a know-nothing Bible college? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 08:54:39 -0000, in alt.atheism Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in <1183280079.043813.295070@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>: >On Jul 1, 12:20 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> In article <hb7e839thprf75ls11t256h5iufqski...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 02:28:19 -0000, in alt.atheism >> > Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote in >> > <1183256899.661910.216...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>: >> > >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. >> >> > I think you need quotation marks around 'college'. Real Christian >> > colleges are members of the regional accreditation organizations. It >> > appears that the one he went to was not accredited. >> >> The Christian college that I attended was Ferrum College. When I attended >> the college, it was a 2 year Junior college. It is now a four year >> college. They probably have a web site. It will probably state the name of >> the accreditation organization. > >Don't you get it, Jason? If it was a two year college back then it's >because it was no yet accredited to offer four year degrees. The fact >that it is accredited now is completely besides the point. It would appear that Jason's bad education was self-imposed. Methodist colleges aren't noted for trying to teach lies and calling them the truth. Anti-science creationism is not Methodist doctrine. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 21:24:26 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3006072124260001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1183259378.971065.231840@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 > >I don't know. If so, it was probably journals related to Geology. Dr. >Steven Austin graduated from Penn State with a doctorate in geology. >Jason > So, why would you rely on religious claims about the history of life on earth from a geologist and an engineer? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 21:37:40 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3006072137400001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <468712d0$0$8044$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Christopher >Morris" <Draccus@roadrunner.com> wrote: > >> "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. > >You could enter a college lab and find all sorts of chemicals. However, >you know that it would take lots of work to create various types of cells >from those chemicals. It's easier for me to believe that an intelligent >designer done that work than to believe it all happened naturally. So what? Facts aren't remotely interested in what you believe. I'm sorry that you are trying to take the easy way out. It feels good to think that you are really special to a god, but there is no evidence that this is the case. It's time to grow up. >I believe it takes more faith to believe it happened naturally than to >believe that an intelligent designer done it. You are wrong, of course. It takes no faith at all to look at the evidence that shows how life has changed on earth. >When you look at a brand new >Mercedes-Benz, you know that it was made by an intelligent designer. It was a stupid analogy when it was a watch. It's stupid now. >Mankind is MUCH more complex than a Mercedes-Benz. Can you now understand >why it's easier for me to believe that God created mankind than to believe >that mankind came about naturally? No. I cannot understand why you want to remain ignorant. >Can you also now understand why more >people in America agree with me than agree with you related to this issue? They are ignorant. Ignorance is not strength. Made up stories about gods are not evidence. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 04:29:38 GMT, in alt.atheism cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote in <S4Ghi.660$eY.287@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>: >Free Lunch wrote: >> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:52:00 -0400, in alt.atheism >> "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in >> <tnzhi.1320$3a.1002@bignews9.bellsouth.net>: >>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >>> news:Jason-3006071341440001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>>>>>> Yes, two books have been written related to fossil evidence and rock >>>>>>>> strata evidence that supports Intelligent Design. There is an >>>>>>>> ongoing >>>>>>>> project at the Grand Canyon and Mount St. Helens related to >>>>>>>> conducting >>>>>>>> research related to the sedimentary processes that form rock strata >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> fossils. Dr. Steve Austin is in charge of that project. >>>>>>> Non-answer. >>>>>> Not true--you may not have liked my answer but I DID provide an answer. >>>>> Books are not science. You have not pointed to any science that backs it >>>>> up. Scientific papers are written for peer-reviewed journals so the >>>>> results of the research can be tested. Books are not. >>>> One of the problems is that the editors and members of the peer-reviewed >>>> journals are advocates of evolution. They have a bias related to >>>> scientific papers written by advocates of creation science and Intelligent >>>> design. As a result, the scientific papers written by advocates of >>>> creation science and ID are usually not published in peer-reviewed >>>> journals. >>>> >>>> Therefore, the advocates of creation science present their articles on >>>> their websites such as the Discovery Institute website and the ICR >>>> website. They also publish books. That is about our only options. >>> See Judge Overmeyer's statement on this. I thought I told you this many >>> weeks ago, you dishonest ass. >>> >> Jason likes to repeat his favorite defamatory statements. In some ways, >> he appears to be quite polite, but in others he is one of the rudest >> posters who has ever soiled Usenet. > >I dunno. There are several bigots who defame with every post. There are >some with limited abilities who resort to "shaddup" and the like. There >are the trolls who engage just so they can exercise their potty mouths. > >Jason is none of these. He is, for the most part polite, even though he >routinely ignores answers that he can't deal with. > >He has a number of problems, but rudeness is really the least of them IMHO. It's his subtle kind of rudeness that I find most annoying. He repeats lies after being corrected. He acknowledges facts and ignores them. He condescends to reality because his religious beliefs are just 'so much more true' than mere facts and reality. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 21:10:02 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3006072110030001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1183257666.501753.233250@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> 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 > >It's impossible for you or I to know how many articles written be the >advocates of creation science or ID have been rejected by the editors of >journals. No, it isn't. Once again, you falsely assume that the ID/Creationists that you worship are actually interested in doing science. They demonstrated long ago that they want to stay as far away from science as possible. 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.