Guest Ralph Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news: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 Which has evidently been superseded by his allegiance to the "Lord". Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news: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. Can't produce the scientific evidence, Jason old man? Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 In article <UXThi.1891$3a.1750@bignews9.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-3006072220240001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <I5Ghi.663$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. The end goal of the evolutionists is to keep Intelligent Design from being taught. The reason is because they believe that the children would realize that Intelligent Design makes more sense than evolution. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 In article <b2Uhi.1897$3a.1744@bignews9.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-3006072226260001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <dXFhi.5208$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. > > Can't produce the scientific evidence, Jason old man? We can produce the evidence. However, the journal editors know that they would be criticized by fellow evolutionists if they published our articles in their journals. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 15:06:18 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0107071506180001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <UXThi.1891$3a.1750@bignews9.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-3006072220240001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <I5Ghi.663$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. > >The end goal of the evolutionists is to keep Intelligent Design from being >taught. The reason is because they believe that the children would realize >that Intelligent Design makes more sense than evolution. > No, Jason, you are far too self-centered. The end goal of scientists (what you erroneously call 'evolutionists') is to learn about the universe and how things came to be as they are. They really wouldn't care at all about lies like Intelligent Design if your lies were not an actual threat to science in America. They know that ID/Creationism is completely bogus and that no one who espouses it does any science. What they also know is that the lies of so-called Christians who are selling this interferes in real science. There is no science of Intelligent Design. ID is a religiously-motivated lie. That is the only fact there is about ID. Deal with it. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 15:10:24 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0107071510240001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <b2Uhi.1897$3a.1744@bignews9.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-3006072226260001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <dXFhi.5208$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. >> >> Can't produce the scientific evidence, Jason old man? > >We can produce the evidence. You have been repeatedly corrected on that lie. >However, the journal editors know that they >would be criticized by fellow evolutionists if they published our articles >in their journals. Defaming others doesn't make you look like much of a Christian. It makes you look petty, vindictive and altogether unworthy of emulation. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 In article <4687FFEC.D670BAD6@osu.edu>, Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote: > 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 We have no desire to force people to become Christians. When the Muslims take over a country, they give people a choice: Become a Muslim or get your head chopped off. Christians don't do it that way. We present the message and if people such as yourself decide to not become Christians, we would not harm you or even threaten your life. The answer to your question is that we will never make fundamentialist Christianity the state religion. I would be against any effort to make it the state religion. Even when I lived in the Bible Belt and over 90% of the people were Christians--we did not try to make fundamentalist Christianity the Virginia State Religion. We did not even try to make it the official County Religion. You have much more to fear from Muslims than you have to fear from Christians. On your next vacation, I advise you to visit one of the Muslim Countries to learn the dangers of a religion controlling the government. I heard the testimony of a man that had a job in a Muslim country. He once visited the area of the city where public punishments were done. He was shocked when he saw thieves getting at least one hand chopped off. He even saw them chop off the head of a man that had been found guilty of murder. The crowd was clapping after each of those punishments or murders were performed. You will never see that sort of thing done by Christians. Jason Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 In article <IUThi.1889$3a.1781@bignews9.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-3006072324220001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <YPGhi.668$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. One of those people mentioned something about God or creation science in the conclusion. They required him to remove that information. After he removed that information, they published the article. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 In article <DipthotDipthot-759FEF.10192201072007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, 655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > 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. I agree. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 In article <f5ag831b4s3rkgq5dn0oed7jc0249tke85@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 15:06:18 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-0107071506180001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <UXThi.1891$3a.1750@bignews9.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> news:Jason-3006072220240001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> > In article <I5Ghi.663$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. > > > >The end goal of the evolutionists is to keep Intelligent Design from being > >taught. The reason is because they believe that the children would realize > >that Intelligent Design makes more sense than evolution. > > > No, Jason, you are far too self-centered. The end goal of scientists > (what you erroneously call 'evolutionists') is to learn about the > universe and how things came to be as they are. They really wouldn't > care at all about lies like Intelligent Design if your lies were not an > actual threat to science in America. They know that ID/Creationism is > completely bogus and that no one who espouses it does any science. What > they also know is that the lies of so-called Christians who are selling > this interferes in real science. > > There is no science of Intelligent Design. ID is a religiously-motivated > lie. That is the only fact there is about ID. Deal with it. I do believe the evolutionists do not want any competition in much the same way that the Christians did not want any competition in 1925--the date of the Scopes Monkey Trial. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 In article <vaag83tlglrqvu13h2a8ajds7jhk56rrp1@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 15:10:24 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-0107071510240001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <b2Uhi.1897$3a.1744@bignews9.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> news:Jason-3006072226260001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> > In article <dXFhi.5208$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. > >> > >> Can't produce the scientific evidence, Jason old man? > > > >We can produce the evidence. > > You have been repeatedly corrected on that lie. > > >However, the journal editors know that they > >would be criticized by fellow evolutionists if they published our articles > >in their journals. > > Defaming others doesn't make you look like much of a Christian. It makes > you look petty, vindictive and altogether unworthy of emulation. What I stated is true. One editor and the members of the peer review committee published a pro-creation science article in the journal. He was criticized by evolutionists. It's my guess that all of the other editors learned a valuable lesson which was not to ever publish a pro-creation science article--otherwise--they would be criticized by fellow evolutionists. Jason Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 15:37:17 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0107071537170001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <4687FFEC.D670BAD6@osu.edu>, Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote: .... >> 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 > >We have no desire to force people to become Christians. When the Muslims >take over a country, they give people a choice: Become a Muslim or get >your head chopped off. Christians have done that in the past. Now they control so many countries that they don't have to do it that way. >Christians don't do it that way. We present the message and if people such >as yourself decide to not become Christians, we would not harm you or even >threaten your life. So you wish. >The answer to your question is that we will never make fundamentialist >Christianity the state religion. Then why are you trying? >I would be against any effort to make it >the state religion. Even when I lived in the Bible Belt and over 90% of >the people were Christians--we did not try to make fundamentalist >Christianity the Virginia State Religion. We did not even try to make it >the official County Religion. The Constitution forbid it, but you do want people to teach lies in science class that endorse your particular kind of Christianity. Isn't that a first step? >You have much more to fear from Muslims than you have to fear from >Christians. Not in the US. >On your next vacation, I advise you to visit one of the Muslim >Countries to learn the dangers of a religion controlling the government. I >heard the testimony of a man that had a job in a Muslim country. He once >visited the area of the city where public punishments were done. He was >shocked when he saw thieves getting at least one hand chopped off. He even >saw them chop off the head of a man that had been found guilty of murder. >The crowd was clapping after each of those punishments or murders were >performed. > >You will never see that sort of thing done by Christians. Christians have done that for centuries. It took civil, secular government, destroying the power of Christianity to stop such abuse. Your ignorance of history is appalling. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 15:51:11 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0107071551110001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <f5ag831b4s3rkgq5dn0oed7jc0249tke85@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 15:06:18 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0107071506180001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <UXThi.1891$3a.1750@bignews9.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:Jason-3006072220240001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> > In article <I5Ghi.663$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. >> > >> >The end goal of the evolutionists is to keep Intelligent Design from being >> >taught. The reason is because they believe that the children would realize >> >that Intelligent Design makes more sense than evolution. >> > >> No, Jason, you are far too self-centered. The end goal of scientists >> (what you erroneously call 'evolutionists') is to learn about the >> universe and how things came to be as they are. They really wouldn't >> care at all about lies like Intelligent Design if your lies were not an >> actual threat to science in America. They know that ID/Creationism is >> completely bogus and that no one who espouses it does any science. What >> they also know is that the lies of so-called Christians who are selling >> this interferes in real science. >> >> There is no science of Intelligent Design. ID is a religiously-motivated >> lie. That is the only fact there is about ID. Deal with it. > >I do believe the evolutionists do not want any competition in much the >same way that the Christians did not want any competition in 1925--the >date of the Scopes Monkey Trial. It has repeatedly been pointed out that you are wrong on this. The ID/Creationists have lost. They have absolutely no science to offer. Your opinion is based on false claims. It is wrong. You need to change it. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 15:55:52 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0107071555520001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <vaag83tlglrqvu13h2a8ajds7jhk56rrp1@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: .... >> Defaming others doesn't make you look like much of a Christian. It makes >> you look petty, vindictive and altogether unworthy of emulation. > >What I stated is true. One editor and the members of the peer review >committee published a pro-creation science article in the journal. He was >criticized by evolutionists. It's my guess that all of the other editors >learned a valuable lesson which was not to ever publish a pro-creation >science article--otherwise--they would be criticized by fellow >evolutionists. One article of dubious science was allowed into a journal. The creationists are trying to claim a great victory. It wasn't. Your guesses are ignorant errors, informed only by your intentional refusal to learn anything about science. You should always ignore your opinion. It leads you astray. Quote
Guest Bob T. Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On Jul 1, 3:06 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <UXThi.1891$3a.1...@bignews9.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-3006072220240001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <I5Ghi.663$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 > > > 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. > > The end goal of the evolutionists is to keep Intelligent Design from being > taught. The reason is because they believe that the children would realize > that Intelligent Design makes more sense than evolution. OK, I take back my previous comment. Jason, you _are_ a liar, and you should be ashamed of yourself for repeating this lie after you have been corrected many times. What you say above is obviously not true _even if scientists are wrong about evolution_, which they are not. It is the equivalent of saying "Christians want to teach Intelligent Design because they prefer stupid children." - Bob T. > > - Show quoted text - Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0107071542270001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <IUThi.1889$3a.1781@bignews9.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-3006072324220001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <YPGhi.668$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. > > One of those people mentioned something about God or creation science in > the conclusion. They required him to remove that information. After he > removed that information, they published the article. Science has no need for a god hypothesis. That notwithstanding, however, I've found you to have the integrity of a drunken sailor so I must ask for a cite for this WA story. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0107071506180001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <UXThi.1891$3a.1750@bignews9.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-3006072220240001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <I5Ghi.663$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. > > The end goal of the evolutionists is to keep Intelligent Design from being > taught. That's true. I hope they continue to succeed. >The reason is because they believe that the children would realize > that Intelligent Design makes more sense than evolution. That's a joke. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0107071551110001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <f5ag831b4s3rkgq5dn0oed7jc0249tke85@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 15:06:18 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0107071506180001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <UXThi.1891$3a.1750@bignews9.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:Jason-3006072220240001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> > In article <I5Ghi.663$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. >> > >> >The end goal of the evolutionists is to keep Intelligent Design from >> >being >> >taught. The reason is because they believe that the children would >> >realize >> >that Intelligent Design makes more sense than evolution. >> > >> No, Jason, you are far too self-centered. The end goal of scientists >> (what you erroneously call 'evolutionists') is to learn about the >> universe and how things came to be as they are. They really wouldn't >> care at all about lies like Intelligent Design if your lies were not an >> actual threat to science in America. They know that ID/Creationism is >> completely bogus and that no one who espouses it does any science. What >> they also know is that the lies of so-called Christians who are selling >> this interferes in real science. >> >> There is no science of Intelligent Design. ID is a religiously-motivated >> lie. That is the only fact there is about ID. Deal with it. > > I do believe the evolutionists do not want any competition in much the > same way that the Christians did not want any competition in 1925--the > date of the Scopes Monkey Trial. The 'evolutionists', whoever the hell they are, want scientific competition not religious competition. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0107071510240001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <b2Uhi.1897$3a.1744@bignews9.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-3006072226260001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <dXFhi.5208$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. >> >> Can't produce the scientific evidence, Jason old man? > > We can produce the evidence. However, the journal editors know that they > would be criticized by fellow evolutionists if they published our articles > in their journals. The best way that I can phrase this so even someone as dense as you can understand it is to say, you're a god damn liar! Quote
Guest Martin Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On Jul 2, 3:26 am, Jim Burns <burns...@osu.edu> wrote: > 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). True but they're not so much competing theories so much as competing hypotheses. If you are going to talk about MACHOs then you are going to have to teach students about black holes, which themselves are predicted by general relativity. If you are going to talk about WIMPs then you might want to talk about supersymmetry, the theory that such massive particles exist in the first place and are analogous to the regular particles that make up the universe we can actually see. Now that you mention it, supersymmetry and string theory are competing theories but they would hardly deserve a mention in high schools. > 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. They assume that everybody secretly believes in their god and is involved in a massive coverup to hide "the truth". Martin Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0107071555520001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <vaag83tlglrqvu13h2a8ajds7jhk56rrp1@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 15:10:24 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0107071510240001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <b2Uhi.1897$3a.1744@bignews9.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:Jason-3006072226260001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> > In article <dXFhi.5208$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. >> >> >> >> Can't produce the scientific evidence, Jason old man? >> > >> >We can produce the evidence. >> >> You have been repeatedly corrected on that lie. >> >> >However, the journal editors know that they >> >would be criticized by fellow evolutionists if they published our >> >articles >> >in their journals. >> >> Defaming others doesn't make you look like much of a Christian. It makes >> you look petty, vindictive and altogether unworthy of emulation. > > What I stated is true. One editor and the members of the peer review > committee published a pro-creation science article in the journal. He was > criticized by evolutionists. It's my guess that all of the other editors > learned a valuable lesson which was not to ever publish a pro-creation > science article--otherwise--they would be criticized by fellow > evolutionists. > Jason You've presented this one instance many times Jason, once isn't always. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0107071543400001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article > <DipthotDipthot-759FEF.10192201072007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > 655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > >> 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. > > I agree. How would you know, you scientific illiterate?? Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 In article <uqdg83dmrrdkf9tkbqepbbq2avtaf05h2m@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 15:37:17 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-0107071537170001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <4687FFEC.D670BAD6@osu.edu>, Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote: > > ... > > >> 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 > > > >We have no desire to force people to become Christians. When the Muslims > >take over a country, they give people a choice: Become a Muslim or get > >your head chopped off. > > Christians have done that in the past. Now they control so many > countries that they don't have to do it that way. > > >Christians don't do it that way. We present the message and if people such > >as yourself decide to not become Christians, we would not harm you or even > >threaten your life. > > So you wish. > > >The answer to your question is that we will never make fundamentialist > >Christianity the state religion. > > Then why are you trying? > > >I would be against any effort to make it > >the state religion. Even when I lived in the Bible Belt and over 90% of > >the people were Christians--we did not try to make fundamentalist > >Christianity the Virginia State Religion. We did not even try to make it > >the official County Religion. > > The Constitution forbid it, but you do want people to teach lies in > science class that endorse your particular kind of Christianity. Isn't > that a first step? > > >You have much more to fear from Muslims than you have to fear from > >Christians. > > Not in the US. > > >On your next vacation, I advise you to visit one of the Muslim > >Countries to learn the dangers of a religion controlling the government. I > >heard the testimony of a man that had a job in a Muslim country. He once > >visited the area of the city where public punishments were done. He was > >shocked when he saw thieves getting at least one hand chopped off. He even > >saw them chop off the head of a man that had been found guilty of murder. > >The crowd was clapping after each of those punishments or murders were > >performed. > > > >You will never see that sort of thing done by Christians. > > Christians have done that for centuries. It took civil, secular > government, destroying the power of Christianity to stop such abuse. > > Your ignorance of history is appalling. We learned from our mistakes. Have you seen any evidence of the things that you mentioned during your life time? I see it different. I see evolutionists that that rush to court to stop any school systems from teaching Intelligent Design. They do not want any competition. I see liberals rushing to court to force cities and counties to remove crosses on government property. Many of those crosses have been in place for over 100 years. However, those liberals will be able to find a liberal judge that bases his decisions on personal policy preferences instead of established laws. I see the Supreme Court making a decision indicating that unborn children do not have the Right To Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Beam me up Scotty, there is no intelligent life down here. Quote
Guest johac Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 In article <41qe83tfoice8le29tkr2q15a5k7ndjdb7@4ax.com>, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > 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. > Aha! I thought they just took them to a room in the basement. -- John #1782 "We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides." - Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order. Quote
Guest johac Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 In article <ntpe83ljtsmv09du88vc9gaigibtvlrmpj@4ax.com>, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 23:20:45 -0700, johac > <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: > - Refer: <jhachmann-F07E32.23204530062007@news.giganews.com> > >In article <0ucc83d0219bc6bhjmbc312nef9u5eorfb@4ax.com>, > > Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 23:30:55 -0700, johac > >> <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> - Refer: <jhachmann-C27601.23305529062007@news.giganews.com> > >> >In article <l9i98398eq27mk50i9r50s7rob28epstj7@4ax.com>, > >> > Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:39:20 -0700, johac > >> >> <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >> - Refer: <jhachmann-10F8C1.15392028062007@news.giganews.com> > >> >> >In article <h1078311ckh892ma7qpjl56v0h105p40qu@4ax.com>, > >> >> > Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:19:06 -0700, johac > >> >> >> <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >> >> - Refer: <jhachmann-E4FD13.16190627062007@news.giganews.com> > >> >> >> >In article <dc648397hljrpucad3mdd3d8ub31lmd1gq@4ax.com>, > >> >> >> > Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:15:52 -0700, johac > >> >> >> >> <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >> >> >> - Refer: <jhachmann-DB11DE.22155226062007@news.giganews.com> > >> >> >> >> >In article <1vj3835t86vajghq9n05jc1n7qdhe7ntud@4ax.com>, > >> >> >> >> > Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> 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! > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >With one thunderbolt tied behind his back. So could Odin. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Odin is feeling a little thor at the moment... > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >Thor's kid? He should be careful. He could get hammered. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> His dad could drink an ocean, apparently, just on a bet. > >> >> >> I imagine that the tyke will inherit his old man's capacity... > >> >> > > >> >> >I wouldn't want to get into a drinking contest with him. > >> >> > >> >> Heaven forbid! > >> > > >> >But Satan says: "What the hell. Why not?" > >> > >> S'Hades of Gray. > > > >Aha! So you are in league with the Devil! > > Little League. > Satan's on first. > What's on second. -- John #1782 "We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides." - Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order. 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.