Guest John Popelish Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <DtidnbMBPbT77hXbnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." > <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> Question for group: Martin told me that single animal cells >>> evolved into animal cell colonies. If that is true, how do you >>> explain this: >>> >>> Single-celled Transformers: Marine Phytoplankton Changes Form >>> To Protect Itself >> It's called evolution, something you refuse to understand. > > or reverse evolution What is your working definition of "reverse evolution"? Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 17:44:11 -0700, johac <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: - Refer: <jhachmann-B4B43D.17441101072007@news.giganews.com> >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. Room 101, sir. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 17:51:12 -0700, johac <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: - Refer: <jhachmann-C65536.17511201072007@news.giganews.com> >In article <2bqe839of0oeet6j5bn5ahckfapuln9dnm@4ax.com>, > Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 23:23:27 -0700, johac >> <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> - Refer: <jhachmann-9C667C.23232730062007@news.giganews.com> >> >In article <q3dc83183vrussfbg4n0uk217oqfrss1uu@4ax.com>, >> > Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 23:29:32 -0700, johac >> >> <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> - Refer: <jhachmann-D5E3F6.23293229062007@news.giganews.com> >> >> >In article <5ekj7bF398uh2U1@mid.individual.net>, >> >> > "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> "johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> >> >> news:jhachmann-5CD649.15412328062007@news.giganews.com... >> >> >> > In article <5ehujiF385pl0U1@mid.individual.net>, >> >> >> > "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> "johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> >> >> >> news: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. :-) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> LOL! Diety Death Match? Who knows how to do claymation? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > LOL! I wish I knew how! I'd love to put something like that on >> >> >> > YouTube. >> >> >> > :-) >> >> >> >> >> >> That would be hilarious >> >> > >> >> >Heh! Heh! Tag team. Yaweh and Baal vs. Zeus and The FSM. :-) >> >> >> >> With Xena & Hera for spice! >> > >> >And Aphrodite (in her nightie) and Astarte! >> >> Let's Party! >> >> ding ding >> >> "Round Won" > >Can I get in on round two, or better round threesome? Just how round do you prefer your Godesses? -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 17:45:02 -0700, johac <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: - Refer: <jhachmann-C13518.17450201072007@news.giganews.com> >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. Watson! There's no time to lose. The Game is afoot! -- Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 In article <rPGdnUEMCJsZ5BXbnZ2dnUVZ_h_inZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <DtidnbMBPbT77hXbnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." > > <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> Question for group: Martin told me that single animal cells > >>> evolved into animal cell colonies. If that is true, how do you > >>> explain this: > >>> > >>> Single-celled Transformers: Marine Phytoplankton Changes Form > >>> To Protect Itself > >> It's called evolution, something you refuse to understand. > > > > or reverse evolution > > What is your working definition of "reverse evolution"? an example: cell colony reverse evolving into single cells This is the list that Martin posted--please notice that (as per evolution) a single cell evolving into a cell colony. The article that I posted provided evidence of a cell colony reverse evolving into single cells. > > > > STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) > > > > STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual > > > > reproduction) > > > > STEP 3 Animal cell colony (with cells depending upon each other for > > > > survival) > > > > STEP 4 Multicelled animal (with cells differentiated according to > > > > function) > > > > STEP 5 Vertibrates (example: fish) > > > > STEP 6 Amphibians (example: frog) > > > > STEP 7 Reptiles (example: lizard) > > > > STEP 8 Mammals (example: mouse) > > > > STEP 9 Primates (example: chimpanzee) > > > > STEP 10 Man (examples: me and you) Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 17:43:25 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0107071743250001@66-52-22-4.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >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. IT IS NOT COMPETITION. YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT. YOU CONTINUE TO LIE ABOUT IT. ID is religion. Get that through your dishonest head. >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. More hogwash. >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. Wherever you are, there is no intelligence. Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 Jason wrote: > John Popelish > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: >> Jason wrote: .... >>> or reverse evolution >> What is your working definition of "reverse evolution"? > > an example: > cell colony reverse evolving into single cells You are using the term reverse evolution to describe the example of reverse evolution. That is pretty circular. Can you summarize a definition without giving an example labeled as reverse evolution. I see nothing but ordinary forward time evolution in your example, regardless of you adding the label "reverse evolution" to it. > This is the list that Martin posted--please notice that (as per evolution) > a single cell evolving into a cell colony. The article that I posted > provided evidence of a cell colony reverse evolving into single cells. Any change caused by mutation in the genome of a reproducing population, that spreads through that population by natural selection, is evolution. The nature of the change has no bearing on that simple statement. In other words, evolution has no goal or direction of complexity or any other aspect. It is the process that changes life forms as time passes. >>>>> STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) >>>>> STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual >>>>> reproduction) >>>>> STEP 3 Animal cell colony (with cells depending upon each other for >>>>> survival) >>>>> STEP 4 Multicelled animal (with cells differentiated according to >>>>> function) >>>>> STEP 5 Vertibrates (example: fish) >>>>> STEP 6 Amphibians (example: frog) >>>>> STEP 7 Reptiles (example: lizard) >>>>> STEP 8 Mammals (example: mouse) >>>>> STEP 9 Primates (example: chimpanzee) >>>>> STEP 10 Man (examples: me and you) Those are some of the major changes that took place in the family line ending with you and me. Other changes took place in other lines. Lines that lead to present day parasitic forms often have lots of simplification and loss of function, because their host provides such a special and consistent environment that abilities that were useful to their non parasitic forbears have little use for them. But losing something you don't need is not reverse evolution, but the continuation of evolution, just as much as gaining something new that is useful that your forbears didn't need because they had a different environment, is continuing evolution. Evolution is the process that changes living forms during the passage of time and circumstance. Sometimes and somewheres, larger and more complicated is better for survival, and sometimes and somewheres, smaller and simpler is better for survival. And sometimes and somewheres, doing either is better and a species gives rise to both a larger and more complicated variant, and a smaller and simpler variant, that each take advantage of different niches. I understand why this is difficult for you. When you start out with the preconceived notion that all things are preplanned and carefully designed, and everything is intentional and purposeful, it is very strange to let go of the notions of planning, intention, design and purpose and really try to imagine things happening for no other reason than because they can happen. Quote
Guest David V. Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <DtidnbMBPbT77hXbnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@sti.net>, "David > V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> Jason wrote: >> >>> Question for group: Martin told me that single animal >>> cells evolved into animal cell colonies. If that is true, >>> how do you explain this: >>> >>> Single-celled Transformers: Marine Phytoplankton Changes >>> Form To Protect Itself >> >> It's called evolution, something you refuse to understand. > > > or reverse evolution If you dropped your refusal to understand the fact of evolution you would know that there is no such thing as "reverse evolution"...... except maybe christians. -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest David V. Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 Jason wrote: > > I did not notice in the above steps any mention of cell > colonies evolving into non-colonies. According to the steps > mentioned above, it seems to me that the cell colonies should > evolve into a multicelled life form. In this case, the cell > colonies became single cells. Would this be called > de-evolution or reverse evolution? No, it would be called; "purposeful ignorance." It is not something you should be proud of. -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest johac Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 In article <f8kg83l3f4q3elcsp12ts8fk3tsn3qa0vb@4ax.com>, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 09:34:56 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> > wrote: > - Refer: <f68ai0$fd8$2@news04.infoave.net> > >Michael Gray wrote: > >> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 23:20:45 -0700, johac > >> <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>> Aha! So you are in league with the Devil! > >> > >> Little League. > >> Satan's on first. > > > >WHO's on first. Did the great saints Abbott and Costello teach you ANYTHING? > > > > sheesh > > Jason's on third. > (Well, its the same as "I don't know") > And "I don't care". -- 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 <Jason-0107071917380001@66-52-22-111.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Should Only Naturalistic Explanations > Be Allowed in Our Science Classrooms? > Only if they are backed by evidence. Since there is no evidence for the supernatural, it definitely does not belong in a science class. -- 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 cactus Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 Mike wrote: > 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. OK Quote
Guest cactus Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 Free Lunch wrote: > 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. Toasters might get smarter, but it will never be part of their design specs to write "War and Peace." Quote
Guest cactus Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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 it's because we don't want our children taught lies and religious dogma as science. They were taught from an early age the difference between religious teachings and scientific ones. It's too bad you never learned the difference. Quote
Guest cactus Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. > > There is no reason for you not to produce it - it would bolster your case. But the reason you don't is that your alleged "evidence" isn't. It's an amalgam of outright lies, distorted science and religious dogma. If it were valid science, it would get published, somewhere. But they can't even get published in the "Journal of Irreproducible Results." That's because their writings don't even rise to the level of scientific parody. Quote
Guest cactus Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. But those who don't face discrimination, repeated exposure to your religious dogma and occasionally social ostracism. Coercion is coercion. Don't think you are any better than Muslims. If you had your way you would be no different. > > 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. Why not? Isn't that what you guys want to do? > > You have much more to fear from Muslims than you have to fear from > Christians. Except that Christians are local, and Muslims are far away. The ones that are nearby are generally accepting of others because they know what it is like to be a minority faith. 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. They just don't have the power yet. If they did, they would hang lots of people they didn't like. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 In article <hoydnZvzxbkYHBXbnZ2dnUVZ_rGinZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > John Popelish > > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: > ... > >>> or reverse evolution > >> What is your working definition of "reverse evolution"? > > > > an example: > > cell colony reverse evolving into single cells > > You are using the term reverse evolution to describe the > example of reverse evolution. That is pretty circular. > > Can you summarize a definition without giving an example > labeled as reverse evolution. I see nothing but ordinary > forward time evolution in your example, regardless of you > adding the label "reverse evolution" to it. > > > This is the list that Martin posted--please notice that (as per evolution) > > a single cell evolving into a cell colony. The article that I posted > > provided evidence of a cell colony reverse evolving into single cells. > > Any change caused by mutation in the genome of a reproducing > population, that spreads through that population by natural > selection, is evolution. The nature of the change has no > bearing on that simple statement. In other words, evolution > has no goal or direction of complexity or any other aspect. > It is the process that changes life forms as time passes. > > >>>>> STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) > >>>>> STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual > >>>>> reproduction) > >>>>> STEP 3 Animal cell colony (with cells depending upon each other for > >>>>> survival) > >>>>> STEP 4 Multicelled animal (with cells differentiated according to > >>>>> function) > >>>>> STEP 5 Vertibrates (example: fish) > >>>>> STEP 6 Amphibians (example: frog) > >>>>> STEP 7 Reptiles (example: lizard) > >>>>> STEP 8 Mammals (example: mouse) > >>>>> STEP 9 Primates (example: chimpanzee) > >>>>> STEP 10 Man (examples: me and you) > > Those are some of the major changes that took place in the > family line ending with you and me. Other changes took > place in other lines. Lines that lead to present day > parasitic forms often have lots of simplification and loss > of function, because their host provides such a special and > consistent environment that abilities that were useful to > their non parasitic forbears have little use for them. But > losing something you don't need is not reverse evolution, > but the continuation of evolution, just as much as gaining > something new that is useful that your forbears didn't need > because they had a different environment, is continuing > evolution. > > Evolution is the process that changes living forms during > the passage of time and circumstance. Sometimes and > somewheres, larger and more complicated is better for > survival, and sometimes and somewheres, smaller and simpler > is better for survival. And sometimes and somewheres, doing > either is better and a species gives rise to both a larger > and more complicated variant, and a smaller and simpler > variant, that each take advantage of different niches. > > I understand why this is difficult for you. When you start > out with the preconceived notion that all things are > preplanned and carefully designed, and everything is > intentional and purposeful, it is very strange to let go of > the notions of planning, intention, design and purpose and > really try to imagine things happening for no other reason > than because they can happen. Thanks for your post. Quote
Guest cactus Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 Jason wrote: > Question for group: > Martin told me that single animal cells evolved into animal cell colonies. > If that is true, how do you explain this: > > Single-celled Transformers: Marine Phytoplankton Changes Form To Protect Itself It's really simple, Jason. Not all unicellular organisms evolved that way. > > source: Science Daily > > A tiny single-celled organism that plays a key role in the carbon cycle of > cold-water oceans may be a lot smarter than scientists had suspected. > > Researchers report the first evidence that a common species of saltwater > algae -- also known as phytoplankton -- can change form to protect itself > against attack by predators that have very different feeding habits. > > Suppressing colony formation is a useful strategy against copepods because > they prefer to eat colonies of phytoplankton. (Credit: Jeremy Long) > > To boost its survival chances, Phaeocystis globosa will enhance or > suppress the formation of colonies based on whether nearby grazers prefer > eating large or small particles. "Based on chemical signals from attacked > neighbors, Phaeocystis globosa enhances colony formation if that's the > best > thing to do for survival, or it suppresses the formation of colonies in > favor of growing as small solitary cells if that's the best thing to do," > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070615133823.htm > > Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 In article <lj0ii.23672$C96.6027@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > Jason wrote: > > 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. > > But those who don't face discrimination, repeated exposure to your > religious dogma and occasionally social ostracism. > > Coercion is coercion. Don't think you are any better than Muslims. If > you had your way you would be no different. > > > > > 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. > > Why not? Isn't that what you guys want to do? > > > > > You have much more to fear from Muslims than you have to fear from > > Christians. > > Except that Christians are local, and Muslims are far away. The ones > that are nearby are generally accepting of others because they know what > it is like to be a minority faith. > > 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. > > They just don't have the power yet. If they did, they would hang lots > of people they didn't like. We had the power in the small county that I once lived in. As far as I know, there were only Christians living in that small Virginia County located in the Blue Ridge Mountains. One person was murdered in that town. We did not hang him or harm him in any way. The police arrested him. The court room was full. I wanted to attend but my parents would not take me. After the trial, he was placed in prison. I have seen Western movies where they surrounded the court house and hanged the murderer. We did not do that. Quote
Guest johac Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 In article <g4qe83hk4731n9v4e377aaf58k8mfjh8uf@4ax.com>, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > 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: > >> > >> > > >> LOL! Diety Death Match? Who knows how to do claymation? > >> > > >> > > > LOL! I wish I knew how! I'd love to put something like that on > >> > > > YouTube. > >> > > > :-) > >> > > >> > > That would be hilarious > >> > > >> > Heh! Heh! Tag team. Yaweh and Baal vs. Zeus and The FSM. :-) > >> > >> "Baal" is a hebrew word meaning "lord" that was used to refer to any > >> god other than Yahweh so as far as we know the Baal that teh > >> Canaanites were worshipping _was_ Zeus. > > > >Could be, but according to this: > > > >http://www.pantheon.org/articles/b/baal.html > > > > it sounds like the Baal of the early OT was a different god. Possibly > >related to Yaweh, but not the same. He might have been the son of El who > >is sometimes identified with Yaweh. I don't think that Zeus got there > >until the Greeks arrived, particularly after Alexander's conquest. > > It is my opinion that the early tribes of Israel stole the Ba'al > concept and fashioned their own god from it. That's what I thought. The Hebrews were Canaanites too and at one point probably shred the same god. And some point that god became Yaweh for the Hebrews while the other Canaanites kept the god referred to as Baal. > > ("walksalone" disagrees, so I am in the throes of preparing a > referenced justification for my position.) Keep your eye on the Baal! > > -- -- 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 Jason Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 In article <Uo0ii.23673$C96.4487@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > Jason wrote: > > Question for group: > > Martin told me that single animal cells evolved into animal cell colonies. > > If that is true, how do you explain this: > > > > Single-celled Transformers: Marine Phytoplankton Changes Form To Protect Itself > > It's really simple, Jason. Not all unicellular organisms evolved that way. I understand. As you know, the advocates of creation science believe that mankind did not evolve from a one celled life form. > > > > > source: Science Daily > > > > A tiny single-celled organism that plays a key role in the carbon cycle of > > cold-water oceans may be a lot smarter than scientists had suspected. > > > > Researchers report the first evidence that a common species of saltwater > > algae -- also known as phytoplankton -- can change form to protect itself > > against attack by predators that have very different feeding habits. > > > > Suppressing colony formation is a useful strategy against copepods because > > they prefer to eat colonies of phytoplankton. (Credit: Jeremy Long) > > > > To boost its survival chances, Phaeocystis globosa will enhance or > > suppress the formation of colonies based on whether nearby grazers prefer > > eating large or small particles. "Based on chemical signals from attacked > > neighbors, Phaeocystis globosa enhances colony formation if that's the > > best > > thing to do for survival, or it suppresses the formation of colonies in > > favor of growing as small solitary cells if that's the best thing to do," > > > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070615133823.htm > > > > Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On Jul 2, 12:04 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1183347076.966093.157...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jul 2, 10:35 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > Question for group: > > > Martin told me that single animal cells evolved into animal cell colonies. > > > If that is true > > > There's no IF about it. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_multicellularity > > > "The third, final and most convincing explanation of > > multicellularisation is the Colonial Theory which was proposed by > > Haeckel in 1874. The theory claims that the symbiosis of many > > organisms of the same species (unlike the symbiotic theory, which > > suggests the symbiosis of different species) led to a multicellular > > organism. At least some, presumably land-evolved, multicellularity > > occurs by cells separating and then rejoining (i.e., cellular slime > > molds) whereas for the majority of multicellular types (those which > > evolved within aquatic environments), multicellularity occurs as a > > consequence of cells failing to separate following division[2]. The > > mechanism of this latter colony formation can be as simple as > > incomplete cytokinesis, though multicelluarity is also typically > > consided to involve cellular differentiation[3] > > > "The advantage of the Colonial Theory hypothesis is that it has been > > seen to occur independently numerous times (in 16 different > > protoctistan phyla). For instance, Dictyostelium is an amoeba which > > groups together during times of food shortage, forming a colony that > > moves as one to a new location. Some of these amoeba then become > > slightly differentiated from each other. Other examples of colonial > > organisation in protozoa are Eudorina and Volvox (the latter of which > > consist around 10,000 cells, only about 25-35 which reproduce - 8 > > asexually and around 15-25 sexually). It can often be hard to tell, > > however, what is a colonial protist and what is a multicellular > > organism in its own right. > > > "Most scientists accept that is by the Colonial theory that > > Multicellular organisms evolved." > > > Martin > > Martin, > These are the steps that you posted: > > > > > > STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) > > > > > STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual > > > > > reproduction) > > > > > STEP 3 Animal cell colony (with cells depending upon each other for > > > > > survival) > > > > > STEP 4 Multicelled animal (with cells differentiated according to > > > > > function) > > > > > STEP 5 Vertibrates (example: fish) > > > > > STEP 6 Amphibians (example: frog) > > > > > STEP 7 Reptiles (example: lizard) > > > > > STEP 8 Mammals (example: mouse) > > > > > STEP 9 Primates (example: chimpanzee) > > > > > STEP 10 Man (examples: me and you) > > I did not notice in the above steps any mention of cell colonies evolving > into non-colonies. According to the steps mentioned above, it seems to me > that the cell colonies should evolve into a multicelled life form. In this > case, the cell colonies became single cells. Would this be called > de-evolution or reverse evolution? The answer is that you have no idea what you are talking about. Ameobas are single celled creatures: the fact that they can work in tandem supports the cell colony theory. Please read the articles that you snip and post from. There's no such thing as "de-evolution". A whale is a mammal, not a fish, the fact that it swims in water not withstanding. Quite honestly, Jason, your ignorance makes me want to cry. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On Jul 2, 12:17 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <rPGdnUEMCJsZ5BXbnZ2dnUVZ_h_in...@comcast.com>, John Popelish > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <DtidnbMBPbT77hXbnZ2dnUVZ_t3in...@sti.net>, "David V." > > > <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > > >>> Question for group: Martin told me that single animal cells > > >>> evolved into animal cell colonies. If that is true, how do you > > >>> explain this: > > > >>> Single-celled Transformers: Marine Phytoplankton Changes Form > > >>> To Protect Itself > > >> It's called evolution, something you refuse to understand. > > > > or reverse evolution > > > What is your working definition of "reverse evolution"? > > an example: > cell colony reverse evolving into single cells > > This is the list that Martin posted--please notice that (as per evolution) > a single cell evolving into a cell colony. The article that I posted > provided evidence of a cell colony reverse evolving into single cells. Not at all, Jason. That's like saying that a frog de-evolves back into a fish every time it goes for a swim. Martin Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 22:09:13 -0700, johac <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: - Refer: <jhachmann-80F691.22091301072007@news.giganews.com> >In article <f8kg83l3f4q3elcsp12ts8fk3tsn3qa0vb@4ax.com>, > Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 09:34:56 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> >> wrote: >> - Refer: <f68ai0$fd8$2@news04.infoave.net> >> >Michael Gray wrote: >> >> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 23:20:45 -0700, johac >> >> <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>> Aha! So you are in league with the Devil! >> >> >> >> Little League. >> >> Satan's on first. >> > >> >WHO's on first. Did the great saints Abbott and Costello teach you ANYTHING? >> > >> > sheesh >> >> Jason's on third. >> (Well, its the same as "I don't know") >> >And "I don't care". Join the club. -- Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On Jul 2, 12:41 pm, John Popelish <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > John Popelish > > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: > ... > >>> or reverse evolution > >> What is your working definition of "reverse evolution"? > > > an example: > > cell colony reverse evolving into single cells > > You are using the term reverse evolution to describe the > example of reverse evolution. That is pretty circular. > > Can you summarize a definition without giving an example > labeled as reverse evolution. I see nothing but ordinary > forward time evolution in your example, regardless of you > adding the label "reverse evolution" to it. > > > This is the list that Martin posted--please notice that (as per evolution) > > a single cell evolving into a cell colony. The article that I posted > > provided evidence of a cell colony reverse evolving into single cells. > > Any change caused by mutation in the genome of a reproducing > population, that spreads through that population by natural > selection, is evolution. The nature of the change has no > bearing on that simple statement. In other words, evolution > has no goal or direction of complexity or any other aspect. > It is the process that changes life forms as time passes. > > >>>>> STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) > >>>>> STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual > >>>>> reproduction) > >>>>> STEP 3 Animal cell colony (with cells depending upon each other for > >>>>> survival) > >>>>> STEP 4 Multicelled animal (with cells differentiated according to > >>>>> function) > >>>>> STEP 5 Vertibrates (example: fish) > >>>>> STEP 6 Amphibians (example: frog) > >>>>> STEP 7 Reptiles (example: lizard) > >>>>> STEP 8 Mammals (example: mouse) > >>>>> STEP 9 Primates (example: chimpanzee) > >>>>> STEP 10 Man (examples: me and you) > > Those are some of the major changes that took place in the > family line ending with you and me. Other changes took > place in other lines. Lines that lead to present day > parasitic forms often have lots of simplification and loss > of function, because their host provides such a special and > consistent environment that abilities that were useful to > their non parasitic forbears have little use for them. But > losing something you don't need is not reverse evolution, > but the continuation of evolution, just as much as gaining > something new that is useful that your forbears didn't need > because they had a different environment, is continuing > evolution. > > Evolution is the process that changes living forms during > the passage of time and circumstance. Sometimes and > somewheres, larger and more complicated is better for > survival, and sometimes and somewheres, smaller and simpler > is better for survival. And sometimes and somewheres, doing > either is better and a species gives rise to both a larger > and more complicated variant, and a smaller and simpler > variant, that each take advantage of different niches. > > I understand why this is difficult for you. When you start > out with the preconceived notion that all things are > preplanned and carefully designed, and everything is > intentional and purposeful, it is very strange to let go of > the notions of planning, intention, design and purpose and > really try to imagine things happening for no other reason > than because they can happen. Exactly! How does "de-evolution" fit in with "intelligent design"? Does his god make mistakes and have to go back? XD Martin Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.