Guest Free Lunch Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 23:24:22 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3006072324220001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <YPGhi.668$eY.24@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > 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. >> >> It's really simple - all of them. > >Except for at least one article. On the other hand, dozens or perhaps >hundreds of articles have been published in journals by advocates of >creation science. Those articles were not related to creation science or >I.D. It's unlikely the editors and members of the review boards even >knew they were advocates of creation science. >Jason > Those are not science articles. They are religious doctrine. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 22:20:23 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3006072220240001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <I5Ghi.663$eY.419@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@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. >jason > Why don't you ask the ICR why they aren't doing science? You should start to act like Houdini. He was a huge believer in spiritualism, so he went to every spiritualist possible to learn about the dead members of his family. He exposed very many spiritualists as frauds, but never gave up on the idea that spiritualism might be true. Why don't you go out and expose the frauds in ID/Creationism? There are enough of them. Gish, Austin, DI, ICR would be good starts since many others have done the field work to show that these people are frauds. Doesn't it bother you that everyone here knows that you are being conned by a bunch of fake Christians? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 22:26:25 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3006072226260001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <dXFhi.5208$vi5.754@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, >bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <f63of0$e38$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> >>> I understand your point: This is how I would ask the questions: >> >>> >> >>> Do you believe humans evolved from other life-forms without any >> >>> involvement of god? yes or no >> >>> >> >>> Do you believe that both evolution and intelligent design should be taught >> >>> in the public schools or just evolution? >> >> Do you believe something should be taught in schools that has no >> >> scientific backing? >> > >> > If you are referring to Intelligent Design, it does have fossil evidence >> > as scientific backing. There have been two books written related to fossil >> > evidence that supports creation science and intelligent design. Dr. Steven >> > Austin has a degree in geology from Penn State. He has led 15 research >> > expeditions to the Grand Canyon. His specialty is the sedimentary >> > processes that form rock strata and fossils. >> > Jason >> > >> > >> They can write 10,000 books, they can destroy entire forests to >> perpetrate their views, but they are simply wasting resources >> until they can produce scientifically valid evidence in support of their >> beliefs. > >Since evolutionists have control of the journals, the research papers that >are produced will never be published in journals. The most that we can do >is to publish books. > You are defaming scientists and journal editors again. The fact is that creationists refuse to do science, not that their scientific research is being kept out of science journals. I've read some of their books. Those books are not scientific. Quote
Guest Bob T. Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Jun 30, 10:20 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <I5Ghi.663$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. > jason "Spend millons"? Where did you get that? Most of the "evolutionist" side at the Dover trial took time off work and donated their time. Face it - the reason why evolution should be taught in school is that it is true. It is the only rational explanation for the evidence. - Bob T. Quote
Guest 655321 Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 In article <Jason-3006071525500001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > It's very different. God created life from non-life. That is VERY > different than life forming naturally from non-life. It is VERY different. The existence of a god that created life is just one more thing to prove. The ID-er has that much more to experiment for and to prove. -- 655321 "We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi Quote
Guest 655321 Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 In article <Jason-3006071531530001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > I don't believe they tell lies or are dishonest. They have a different > point of view. 1+1=finger isn't bad arithmetic; it's just a different point of view, right, Jason? -- 655321 "We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news: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. > Jason We know that they couldn't produce the first one for the Judge. Quote
Guest 655321 Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 In article <Jason-3006071923090001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) copies and pastes from Wingnut daily: > > "The theory of evolution requires unfathomable lengths of time - eons ... > > billions and billions of years. They're so incredulous about evolution, yet they continue to swallow whole a larger nut... an intelligent god with the power and desire to create the world and its inhabitants to suit its vanity. Yup... they're crazy alright. -- 655321 "We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi Quote
Guest 655321 Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 In article <Jason-3006072259070001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > I see your points. Jason-ese for "Huh? Oh, never mind. No reason to pay attention." -- 655321 "We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi Quote
Guest Mike Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 Martin wrote: > On Jul 1, 12:02 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> A church that has 5000 members in Podum County, Alabama has special rules >> for all members. The Christian girls from that church can not have classes >> with any boys. All the Christian students from that church must have a >> group prayer sessions twice a day. The Christian children from that church >> must eat only vegetables and fruit for lunch. >> >> Do you think the principal of the Podum County Elementary School and the >> school board should establish new rules and policies for those Christian >> children in much the same way that the principal and the school board at >> Carver Elementary School changed the rules and policies for the Muslim >> students? > > Jason, > > Your religion is already accomodated for by the schools. Stop > pretending it isn't. He also doesn't seem to understand the difference between accommodation and requirement. I'd have a HUGE problem with requiring all students to pray 5 times a day but not as much problem with allowing the students to pray IF they want to and if it's not disruptive to the functioning of the school. Quote
Guest Mike Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f66bru$25j$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f65jlb$9o8$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <f63pn1$fka$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>>>> <prabbit1@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. True. The question was "what SCIENCE backs it up?" Not "how many books have been written?" > >>>>>> No, they could cover it in 2 seconds: "Goddidit." >>>>> That's illegal to say in a public school classroom. The teachers would >>>>> have to say that an Intelligent Designer done it. >>>> And this intelligent designer is who? God. "A pile of male bovine >>>> excrement by any other name would still be bullshit." >>>> >>>> When the teachers >>>>> covered evolution, the teachers would have to say, "Life evolved from >>>>> non-life". >>>> No, they wouldn't, because it's not true. Life FORMED from non-life; it >>>> didn't evolve from it (and even you agreed that life formed from non-life.) >> No response? > > What was the question? There wasn't a question. There was a point made (namely that you keep coming up with the same crap over and over.) Quote
Guest Mike Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 cactus wrote: > 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. He is implicitly rude rather than explicitly rude. Quote
Guest walksalone Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in news:g4qe83hk4731n9v4e377aaf58k8mfjh8uf@4ax.com: > 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: snip >> 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. > > ("walksalone" disagrees, so I am in the throes of preparing a You called? > referenced justification for my position.) Would you like to save some time as well as effort, if so use the e-mail address to reply. However, please do post your referenced justifications, I don't believe I have ever seen such an animal on USENET before now. And yes, I do disagree on your opinion that the early tribes of Judea, not Israel, Judea, did in fact steal a lot of the attributes from Ba'al, and this becomes a rather obvious as the story commences & yahweh has officially became the god of Judea. There is circumstantial evidence to indicate that yahwe came from the tribe of the Kennites, and was indigenous to the deserts surrounding the Judean highlands. Strangely enough, it is in the same clan that gave us the story of Abraham. Or maybe it's not so strange and they became the high priesthood of Judea. The hard part to remember is that apparently, Israel never was part of Judea. We have found to the best of my knowledge, zero evidence to support a united monarchy or that any King David even existed as claimed by the Hebrew bible. The darn thing has been accepted as gospel for so long as next to impossible to dislodge the basic propaganda from the basic facts. No longer is archaeology a bible in one hand and a shovel in the other, unless of course, you're a biblical archaeologist. But even they are learning better. You want more fun, find out where David got the people for his armies of conquest and how he paid them. Locate the actual administrative centers where his government had control, not the cities, the centers. Locate if you can, iconographic evidence to support the claims. Signature seals were still in vogue at that time. And don't even try to find influence from Judean architecture in Israel. Bullae, let alone bulla, have yet to be found. And you think I don't know that the attributes of Baal or sub-summed into the claims for yahwe, I have read the Hebrew bible in the book Hosea you know, or at least you do now. The following is a bit ugly, but indicates that Hosea was written about -800 Gregorian. I would not count on this as being accurate for it was gotten from xian web site way back when. Book Writer Date Completed Time Covered Place Written Genesis Moses 1513 "In the Wilderness beginning" to 1657 B.C. Wilderness Exodus Moses 1512 1657-1512 Wilderness Leviticus Moses 1512 1 month [1512] Wilderness Job Moses c. 1473 Over 140 years between 1657 and 1473 Wilderness Numbers Moses 1473 1512-1473 Wilderness / Plains of Moab Deuteronomy Moses 1473 2 months [1473] Plains of Moab Joshua Joshua c. 1450 1473- c. 1450 Canaan Judges Samuel c. 1100 c. 1450- c. 1120 Israel Ruth Samuel c. 1090 11 years of Judges' rule Israel 1 Samuel Samuel; Gad; Nathan c. 1078 c. 1180-1078 Israel 2 Samuel Gad; Nathan c. 1040 1077-c. 1040 Israel Song of Solomon Solomon c. 1020 Jerusalem Ecclesiastes Solomon b. 1000 Jerusalem Jonah Jonah c. 844 Joel Joel c. 820 (?) Judah Amos Amos c. 804 Judah Hosea Hosea a. 745 b. 804- a. 745 Samaria (District) By the way, Baal was the god who was currently replacing Quote
Guest John Baker Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:16:38 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >John Baker wrote: >> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:35:13 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Jason wrote: >>>> In article <f5rnk0$40j$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Bob T. wrote: >>>>>> On Jun 25, 11:04 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>> Good point--our troops will eventually leave Iraq and Afghanistan. If the >>>>>>> leaders of either of those countries asked Bush to remove our troops from >>>>>>> their countries--Bush would do it. >>>>>> <snicker> No, he wouldn't. >>>>> He didn't listen when they asked him not to invade (at least in Iraq's >>>>> case, he didn't. I'm not saying if the invasion was right or wrong; >>>>> simply pointing out that it was against the wishes of the then-current >>>>> leader(s) of the country.) so why would he listen when they ask him to >>>>> leave? >>>> In Iraq--the current leaders are different than the former leaders. If the >>>> current leaders asked Bush to remove the troops--I believe Bush would >>>> remove the troops. I seem to recall that the citzens voted on this issue >>>> about a year ago and they voted to keep our troops in their country. They >>>> had to have their finger prints tested and they proudly held up their >>>> inked fingers to the cameras to show they had freely voted. >>> Damned, Jason, you're going to have a heart attack from back-pedalling >>> so fast. >> >> >> I've done this before and been wrong, and I may be wrong this time, >> but I'm calling Loki on Jason. > >No, in this case, I think he's really this stupid. In that case, then, a curse upon the houses of Jobs and Gates for making computers so easy to use that even Jason can do it. <G> Quote
Guest Jim Burns Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 Martin Phipps wrote: > > On Jun 28, 1:45 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > Have you ever taking a class where two separate theories to > > explain the same thing was discussed. I can't think of any > > good examples. > > There are many examples in the social sciences. > > Psychology: Freud's psychoanalysis versus Jung's archetypes. > > Education: Behaviorism versus Affective Learning. > > Economics: Smith's competative theory versus Nash's cooperative > theory. > > But you wouldn't know anything about any of these fields. > > The social sciences are more anecdotal than the physical > sciences (eg we know socialism is a bad idea because communism > failed, not because millions of individual experiments have > been performed) so competing theories thrive. I think the hardest of sciences have competing theories, fought for quite fiercely by different groups of researchers. I would draw a distinction between science, the activity (ongoing research), and science, the repository of knowledge (what finally makes it into textbooks). One current controversy in physics is dark matter, which we know makes up the large majority of matter in galaxies because of their dynamics, but which we have very little other information about. Two of the competing theories are known as MACHOs (Massive Astrophysical Compact Halo Objects) and WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles). I think I would be in favor of "teaching the controversy", if by that we mean teaching younger students that there /are/ controversies. Asking physics student to "choose" between the cases presented for MACHOs and WIMPs when they're still trying to grasp balls rolling down ramps and pendulums is ridiculous. Similarly, talking about grade school and high school students "choosing" between evolution, including natural selection and common descent, and Intelligent Design is silly to the point of being dishonest -- the ID crowd couldn't possibly be serious. But even calling ID controversial is giving it much too much credit. Jason wants to present evolution vs ID as though it were another case of MACHOs vs WIMPs, but a better model is Newton's physics vs. Aristotle's physics. Newton thoroughly defeated Aristotle, and now it's time to move on to newer questions. Evolution defeated Creationism back in the nineteenth century. Jason and his crowd just keep asking the same questions over and over, hoping for different answers. (I'm reminded of Albert Einstein's definition of insanity.) Jason uses the fact that evolution is so well established in the biological sciences to argue that ID is getting frozen out. The truth is really the exact opposite. If I question cutting-edge science, such as MACHOs or WIMPs, no one much beyond a few specialists will be interested. But if I have a good /scientific/ objection to bedrock science such as the conservation of energy or evolution, then scientists will be jumping on the band wagon as fast as they can and seeing what fame and fortune they can get out of it. The conservation of energy is a good example from physics. There are at least two occasions when it was in trouble. One problem was solved by including heat as energy and, incidentally, inventing the science of thermodynamics -- which led to our industrial civilization. Another was the discovery of radioactivity -- which led to nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Every scientist knows that finding cracks in the foundation of a discipline leads to the really big payoffs, like fame that lasts for centuries. Evolution is firmly in the foundation of the biological sciences. That means that, if the ID crowd ever comes up with even a semi-reasonable objection to evolution, they would likely start to complain about all the Johnny-Come-Lately's rushing in to take the credit away from them. Their fantasy of having valid science that is being ignored like imagining chunks of gold laying around waiting to be picked up and likewise being ignored. Jim Burns Quote
Guest Jim Burns Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article > <1182999220.492790.130940@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > One group wants to lie to children whereas the > > "evolutionists" only want to teach the truth. > > > > Martin > > Guess which group will rush to court if they don't > get their way? You mean like the Scopes Monkey Trial, where the Creationists prosecuted a high school teacher for teaching evolution? The only reason today's Creationists don't "rush to court" is that they know it won't work -- today. All this blather about "the will of the people" and "activist liberal judges" (appointed by George W!) arose at the same time that you conservatives started losing cases in court. Given another nomination or two by your favorite president, George W., we will hear no more about "activist judges" from you and your kind. You will bring out a whole new brand of blather, probably something about the sanctity of court decisions. Jim Burns Quote
Guest Jim Burns Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > > In article <468286BD.8080301@osu.edu>, James Burns > <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote: [...] > > So, the ID folks want to establish a church in the US. > > It doesn't matter to me if you want to deny it; that's > > what it all comes down to when you peel the rhetoric off. > > There's been a lot of discussion in this thread about how > > ID is just wrong factually -- and it is -- but what I find > > much more disturbing is what the lessons of history show, > > over and over and over, when someone establishes or even > > tries to establish a church. > > > > You, Jason, may well be willing to accept the human cost > > involved; I don't know. (Tell me, Jason, how you would > > feel about those deaths in the USSR if, instead of > > Stalin, it had been led by Jerry Falwell, establishing > > a Christian Empire? Would they have been worth the > > outcome?) I strongly suspect, though, that the 68% > > poll in Ohio did not talk about all this, though. > > How much support does your ID crowd really have, > > for, you know, the big picture <wink, wink>? > I doubt that ID will ever be taught in the public schoools > so you have nothing to fear. Even if ID was taught, all of > the problems you discussed would probably not happen. I have > never done any research related to the many adults that are > graduates of Christian high schools. It's my guess that the > vast majority of them are not guilty of any of those things > that you mentioned in your post. The efforts to get Intelligent Design into science classes is only part of the fundamentalist Christan agenda: to install their version of Christianity as the state religion of the US. Another part is the "Christian Soldier" movement. When the chaplain at the United States Air Force Academy complained to her superiors that cadets were being pressured to become "saved", that is, fundamentalist Christian, she was transferred to Japan. She resigned shortly thereafter in protest. Google "Capt. Melinda Morton". I find it very troubling that one religious group is working to exclude other groups from the military. What are they going to do with that control? The most blatant example I can think of, though, is the fuss the Christian Right kicked up over the nomination of Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court. The Democrats were expected to complain, but the White House knew it could push it through over their objections. What stopped her nomination cold was Bush's own right wing saying she wasn't far enough right wing for them. This was the personal lawyer of possibly the most conservative President ever, but that wasn't enough for them. I am reminded of the French Revolution, where those who had originally sent to the guillotine whatever nobility they could catch were later sent themselves for not being revolutionary enough. The Christian Right are fools, though, (those who want to make their religion the state religion -- I doubt it's unanimous). The best way to kill a religion at its roots is to force it down people's throats using the power of the state. They are trading the long-term viability of their religion /as religion/ (instead of public ceremonies) for a very worldly display of political power. I think Jesus had a few ripe things to say about people like that. Tell me, Jason, where you stand on the Christian Right agenda to make fundamentalist Christianity the state religion of the United States. Are you for it or against it? I solemnly promise that a candid answer from you could not possibly make me think any less of you. Jim Burns Quote
Guest cactus Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 Free Lunch wrote: > 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. This behavior is effective for polemical debate, which is his paradigm. He is not here to learn, he is here to get his viewpoint out into aetherspace. The best we can hope for is to counteract his polemical drivel with ours. You can no more expect Jason to carry on a real conversation than you can expect a toaster to write "War and Peace." Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 19:30:35 GMT, in alt.atheism cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote in <vhThi.7733$Rw1.37@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>: >Free Lunch wrote: >> 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. > >This behavior is effective for polemical debate, which is his paradigm. > He is not here to learn, he is here to get his viewpoint out into >aetherspace. The best we can hope for is to counteract his polemical >drivel with ours. > >You can no more expect Jason to carry on a real conversation than you >can expect a toaster to write "War and Peace." Not today maybe, but as toasters get smarter, they have a chance. Jason? not so much. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2906072113020001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <abfb83pgo2i5676l16o4ldmbemvoajj8ei@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:00:01 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2906071900010001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <s4cb83dcef6ojpeq98o3o2c4ctu5fm6q87@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:42:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-2806071942490001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >In article <e0l883t608fc0d1nfsgeqg3ccqh8s5efpk@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> ... >> >> >> >> Yet your rejection of these entails rejecting evidence. Why do you >> >> >> reject evidence? >> >> > >> >> >I don't reject evidence. I have stated in other posts that I would >> >> >accept >> >> >abiogenesis if scientists could conduct a lab experiment that proved >> >> >that >> >> >life could evolve from non-life. Someone referred me to a site that >> >> >discussed an experiment that proved that some genetic material could >> >> >be >> >> >produced from non-genetic material. As you know, there is a vast >> >> >amount of >> >> >difference between genetic material and life. >> >> >Jason >> >> > >> >> You reject evidence. You are not a scientist. You don't get to tell >> >> scientists what evidence you accept and what you reject. You don't >> >> even >> >> know what evidence is. >> > >> >The point is that any experiment that was done would have to be >> >repeatable. >> >> Yes, but not necessarily in the way you insist. >> >> > That means that any of the science professors that teach at >> >the ICR graduate school >> >> They don't teach science. Stop lying about that. >> >> >or Oral Roberts University could repeat the >> >experiment and write a report in their newsletters or on their websites >> >about the results of that experiment. >> >> Your point? Oral Roberts is a member of North Central Association. That >> means they are a real college. I am confident that you would be able to >> find a qualified Biologist in their faculty. Don't lump them in with the >> liars of ICR and DI. >> >> >I could also read about it in >> >Discovery Magazine, National Geographic magazine or the Journal of >> >Molecular Evolution website. I may not be able to personally analyze the >> >results of such an experiment but there are lots of other people that >> >could do it. The above mentioned people and organizations know what >> >evidence is. >> >> ICR doesn't. You know they are liars. The rest have no problem with real >> science. > > Not a problem: I would visit the Oral Roberts University website and read > about the results of such an experiment. I would buy Discorvery Magazine > and National Geographic Magazine and read about the results of such an > experiment. And you still wouldn't understand it. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 "David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Q7-dnaBseYwmnxrbnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@sti.net... > Ralph wrote: >> "David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:FqWdnUxQCLsjahvbnZ2dnUVZ_vLinZ2d@sti.net... >> >>> Bob T. wrote: >>> >>>> There is plenty of scientific backing for abiogenesis. Haven't you read >>>> a single word that people have written? Now I understand why people >>>> call you a liar, but I think it's some sort of mental block. >>> >>> I'm beginning to see him as a troll. No one can really be that dense, >>> can they? >> >> I thought that also but in my search of his internet postings he has been >> using the same arguments for almost three years. I >> really think he is that dense :-(. > > Isn't that also the sign of a troll? Using the same arguments > over and over again just to manipulate people. > -- > Dave > > "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Yep, as a matter of fact it is. Jason's problem is that he can't manipulate anyone. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-3006072324220001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <YPGhi.668$eY.24@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com > wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > 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. >> >> It's really simple - all of them. > > Except for at least one article. On the other hand, dozens or perhaps > hundreds of articles have been published in journals by advocates of > creation science. Those articles were not related to creation science or > I.D. It's unlikely the editors and members of the review boards even > knew they were advocates of creation science. > Jason As long as the article covered science and not religion it had a chance of being published. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-3006072102390001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1183256653.290934.179400@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> 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 > > Because they can. You should never challenge a creationist to think :-). Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-3006072220240001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <I5Ghi.663$eY.419@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@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. > jason You mean the scientists do. As I told you previously and you continue to ignore, it isn't costly as most of the legal work is pro bono by the best legal firms in the nation, such as Skadden, Arps, etc. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news: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. I would not call those statements lies but I would > call them mis-statements. I doubt that Dr. Gish has ever told an > intentional lie. However, I am only guessing. I know that Dr. Gish has a > different point of view than you have related to issues related to > evolution vs. creation. 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. > Jason Gish is a liar. One example is the "bullfrog" protein as shown here: Gish has been caught on numerous occasions spouting lies, yet he never offers retractions and his own religion tells him that he should be honest. One example is Gish's "bullfrog proteins." In 1983, in a PBS show on creationism, Gish claimed that while humans and chimpanzees have many proteins which are identical or differ by only a few amino acids, there are also human proteins which are more similar to a bullfrog or a chicken than to chimpanzees. Gish was repeatedly pressed to produce his evidence. Two years later, Philip Kitcher challenged Gish to produce his evidence or retract his claim in a debate at the University of Minnesota. Gish refused to respond. Kevin Wirth of Students for Origins Research (a pro-creationist organization) begged Gish to respond in the pages of Origins Research regarding the claim. He refused. (See Robert Schadewald, "Scientific Creationism and Error," Creation/Evolution XVII (vol. 6, no. 1, 1986).) This is just one of many. Read about your hero. 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.