Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On Jul 2, 2:42 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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. You mean, after somebody got murdered in your town, you arrested him, trued him and put him in jail. Jason, that's just mean. You're supposed to do an autopsy on him to determine cause of death and then track down and try his killer. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On Jul 2, 2:45 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <Uo0ii.23673$C96.4...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, > b...@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. Then the advocates of creationism are all idiots. Period. Don't forget, Jason, we were all one-celled creatures at one time. Or did you never learn about conception? Martin Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On 1 Jul., 00:31, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <opld83djfjdkls8797fvco404t9brb4...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:16:20 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-3006071516200...@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >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. > > > It was a poorly written article that hadn't been peer-reviewed properly. > > Reposting the reference will not improve the article. > > However, you clearly stated (see above) that "there are no scientific > papers written by advocates of creation science and ID..." > > > > > >> >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. > > > >> Because they need to keep telling their lies. > > > >> You just cannot comprehend how dishonest the ID/Creationists are. > > I don't believe they tell lies or are dishonest. They have a different > point of view.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On 1 Jul., 02:42, "Dan Drake" <d...@dandrake.com> wrote: > On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 01:49:57 UTC, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > Don, > > Thanks for your interesting post. I don't recall learning about Castelli, > > Torricelli or Kepler. Did any of the "scientists" of that day not take > > Galileo side? > > Lots. There's good evidence that there was some kind of actual conspiracy > among his philosophical enemies in the early day (20 years before the > Inquisition came after him) to get him in trouble, including trouble with > the Church. This business is often exaggerated, I believe, to serve the > ends of some interest group; but that there was some meeting of the minds > to get at him seems clear. > > And he had a nasty long-running dispute with Chrisoph Scheiner, a Jesuit > astrnomer who wound up writing a book attacking Galileo so violently that > the Jesuit order didn't allow it to be published till after both men were > dead. There are people who insist that all these fights were Galileo's > fault. This conclusion should not be accepted without examining the actual > documents. > > But he definitely had supporters and opponents; and current debates have > nothing over those of the 1600s in nastiness or dishonesty. > > -- > Dan Drake > d...@dandrake.comhttp://www.dandrake.com/ > porlockjr.blogspot.com The point that is often overlooked is that even if he had been absolutley in error the Church's reasons for attacking him were invalid, i.e. objective evidence should not be judged on the basis of whether or not it contradicts something a book says. Furthermore the Church has still not admitted that it does not have the right to judge such cases only that errors were made in that particular case. Quote
Guest John Baker Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 22:43:48 -0700, cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote: >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? <PIGGYBACKING> >> >> We can produce the evidence. Who's "we", Skippy? Got a mouse in your pocket? No cretinist would ever pass up the chance to put those "Godless evolutionists" in their place. If the IDiots had even the slightest shred of real, testable objective evidence, they'd have produced it long ago - and then spent the next ten years gloating over it. They can no more produce evidence for their claims than I can fly to the moon without a rocket. >> However, the journal editors know that they >> would be criticized by fellow evolutionists if they published our articles >> in their journals. Would you like some cheese to go with that whine? When the hell are you people going to drop this idiotic "scientific conspiracy" crap? Articles on ID don't get published in scientific journals for a very simple, very good reason. ID ISN"T SCIENCE!!! How many times do we have to tell you this before it sinks into that useless mass of inert ganglia you call a brain? >> >> >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 Michael Gray Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 03:53:01 -0700, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: - Refer: <1183373581.914529.222960@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> >On 1 Jul., 00:31, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> In article <opld83djfjdkls8797fvco404t9brb4...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:16:20 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> > <Jason-3006071516200...@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> > >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. >> >> > It was a poorly written article that hadn't been peer-reviewed properly. >> > Reposting the reference will not improve the article. >> >> However, you clearly stated (see above) that "there are no scientific >> papers written by advocates of creation science and ID..." >> >> >> >> > >> >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. >> >> > >> Because they need to keep telling their lies. >> >> > >> You just cannot comprehend how dishonest the ID/Creationists are. >> >> I don't believe they tell lies or are dishonest. They have a different >> point of view.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 07:06:36 -0400, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: - Refer: <b8mh8395uo099fklmcgasrri16o3g5j18d@4ax.com> >On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 22:43:48 -0700, cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote: > >>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? > ><PIGGYBACKING> > >>> >>> We can produce the evidence. > >Who's "we", Skippy? Got a mouse in your pocket? > >No cretinist would ever pass up the chance to put those "Godless >evolutionists" in their place. If the IDiots had even the slightest >shred of real, testable objective evidence, they'd have produced it >long ago - and then spent the next ten years gloating over it. They >can no more produce evidence for their claims than I can fly to the >moon without a rocket. > >>> However, the journal editors know that they >>> would be criticized by fellow evolutionists if they published our articles >>> in their journals. > >Would you like some cheese to go with that whine? > >When the hell are you people going to drop this idiotic "scientific >conspiracy" crap? Articles on ID don't get published in scientific >journals for a very simple, very good reason. ID ISN"T SCIENCE!!! How >many times do we have to tell you this before it sinks into that >useless mass of inert ganglia you call a brain? Infinty times, plus one. -- Quote
Guest walksalone@dastardly.dirty.deeds.d Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 In <jhachmann-E23B84.23444001072007@news.giganews.com>, on 07/01/07 at 11:44 PM, johac <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> said: >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: snip >> 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. <SEAG> Not quite, though you are close. >> ("walksalone" disagrees, so I am in the throes of preparing a >> referenced justification for my position.) >Keep your eye on the Baal! Which one, you do realise that for the ancients, every gity god was a local version of the original [if there was one]. With Baal, we know he was at Ur & throughout the Levant & even was known in Egypt. The boy got around. Now, go play with your Baals. <I've wsanted to say that to someone for years, thank you.> ba'al Ref: M. J. Dahood, Ancient Semitic Deities in Syria and Palestine, Le antiche divinita semitiche (ed. S. Moscati; Rome 1958) 65-94 M. Dietrich & O. Loretz, Baal Rpu in KTU 1.108; 1.113 und nach 1.17 VI 25-33, UF 12 (1980) 171-182 Dietriech & LoRETZ,Vom Baal-Epitheton adn zu Adonis and Adonaj, UF 12 (1980) 287-292 Dietriech & Loretz, Die Ba'al-Titel b'l ars und ally qrdm, UF 12 (1980) 391-393 Dietriech & Loretz, Ugaritische Rituale und Beschworungen. Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, TUAT 2 (1986-89) 328-357 O. Eissfeldt, Baal Zaphon, Zeus Kasios und der Durchzug der Israeliten durchs Meer (Halle 1932) G. Fohrer, Elia (Zurich 19682); H. Gese, RAAM, 119-134; R. Hillmann, Wasser und Berg. Kosmische Verbindungslinien zwischen dem kanaand-ischen Wettergott und Jahwe (Halle/Saale 1965); A. S. Kapelrud, Baal in the Ras Shamra Texts (Oslo 1952) J. Ktjhlewein, bU3, THAT 1 (1971) 327-333; J. C. de Moor & M. J. Mulder, bV3, TWAT 1 (1973) 706-727 M. J. Mulder, Ba'al in het Oude Testament (Kampen 1962); Mulder, Kanaanitische Goden in het Oude Testament (Kampen 1965) 25-36 G Pettinato, Pre-Ugaritic Documentation of Ba'al. The Bible World. Essays in Honor of Cyrus H. Gordon (ed. G. Rendsburg et al; New York 1980) 203-209 M. H. Pope & W. Rollig, Syrien. Die Mythologie der Ugariter und Phonizier, WbMyth 1/1 217-312 W. H. Schmidt, Konigtum Gottes in Ugarit und Israel (BZAW 80; Berlin 19662) P. Xella, Aspekte religioser Vorstellungen in Syrien nach den Ebla- und Ugarit-Texten, UF 15 (1983) 279-290 (esp. 284-286) P. J. van Zijl, Baal. A Study of Texts in Connection with Baal in the Ugaritic Epics (Neu-kirchen-Vluyn 1972). W. Herrmann BAAL-BERITH Baal-gad BAAL-HAMON BAAL-HAZOR Baal-hermon Baal-judah Baal-meon Baal-perazim Baal-shalisha Baal-tamar Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-3006071206460001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <f65k7k$9o8$7@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > The same time that you realize that there is no evidence to indicate >> > that >> > life ever natually evolved from non-life. It's based on speculation and >> > not evidence. >> >> Who ever claimed that life DID evolve from non-life? Jason, why do you >> keep repeating this same tired lie? > > One poster indicated that the main evidence that proves that life evolved > from non-life is that we now have life on this planet. He indicated that > PROVED that life evolved from non-life since that was the ONLY way that it > could have happened. Who said this? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote snip > 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. Really? Got a cite to back up that assertion? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> snip > Good points: > In relation to Accomodating religious peculiarities--Would you be in favor > of allowing Christian students to have a special class where they are > taught Intelligent Design? Of course not - They can go learn that nonsense at their church. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-3006071438190001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <clzhi.1318$3a.1312@bignews9.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: snip >> >> No. I want all Christians to FOAD! > > What does FOAD mean? I hate to offend your tender sensibilities, but it stands for "fuck off and die". -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 In alt.atheism On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 20:54:09 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >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 There's no such thing. The idea of evolution as "progress ever upward" is only held by layment who don't know what evolution is. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 In article <1183374385.768726.77610@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > On 1 Jul., 02:42, "Dan Drake" <d...@dandrake.com> wrote: > > On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 01:49:57 UTC, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > Don, > > > Thanks for your interesting post. I don't recall learning about Castelli, > > > Torricelli or Kepler. Did any of the "scientists" of that day not take > > > Galileo side? > > > > Lots. There's good evidence that there was some kind of actual conspiracy > > among his philosophical enemies in the early day (20 years before the > > Inquisition came after him) to get him in trouble, including trouble with > > the Church. This business is often exaggerated, I believe, to serve the > > ends of some interest group; but that there was some meeting of the minds > > to get at him seems clear. > > > > And he had a nasty long-running dispute with Chrisoph Scheiner, a Jesuit > > astrnomer who wound up writing a book attacking Galileo so violently that > > the Jesuit order didn't allow it to be published till after both men were > > dead. There are people who insist that all these fights were Galileo's > > fault. This conclusion should not be accepted without examining the actual > > documents. > > > > But he definitely had supporters and opponents; and current debates have > > nothing over those of the 1600s in nastiness or dishonesty. > > > > -- > > Dan Drake > > d...@dandrake.comhttp://www.dandrake.com/ > > porlockjr.blogspot.com > > The point that is often overlooked is that even if he had been > absolutley in error the Church's reasons for attacking him were > invalid, i.e. objective evidence should not be judged on the basis of > whether or not it contradicts something a book says. Furthermore the > Church has still not admitted that it does not have the right to judge > such cases only that errors were made in that particular case. Would you agree or disagee that the main reason they attacked Galileo was because they did not want any competition? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0207071041180001@66-52-22-22.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1183374385.768726.77610@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> On 1 Jul., 02:42, "Dan Drake" <d...@dandrake.com> wrote: >> > On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 01:49:57 UTC, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > >> > > Don, >> > > Thanks for your interesting post. I don't recall learning about >> > > Castelli, >> > > Torricelli or Kepler. Did any of the "scientists" of that day not >> > > take >> > > Galileo side? >> > >> > Lots. There's good evidence that there was some kind of actual >> > conspiracy >> > among his philosophical enemies in the early day (20 years before the >> > Inquisition came after him) to get him in trouble, including trouble >> > with >> > the Church. This business is often exaggerated, I believe, to serve the >> > ends of some interest group; but that there was some meeting of the >> > minds >> > to get at him seems clear. >> > >> > And he had a nasty long-running dispute with Chrisoph Scheiner, a >> > Jesuit >> > astrnomer who wound up writing a book attacking Galileo so violently >> > that >> > the Jesuit order didn't allow it to be published till after both men >> > were >> > dead. There are people who insist that all these fights were Galileo's >> > fault. This conclusion should not be accepted without examining the >> > actual >> > documents. >> > >> > But he definitely had supporters and opponents; and current debates >> > have >> > nothing over those of the 1600s in nastiness or dishonesty. >> > >> > -- >> > Dan Drake >> > d...@dandrake.comhttp://www.dandrake.com/ >> > porlockjr.blogspot.com >> >> The point that is often overlooked is that even if he had been >> absolutley in error the Church's reasons for attacking him were >> invalid, i.e. objective evidence should not be judged on the basis of >> whether or not it contradicts something a book says. Furthermore the >> Church has still not admitted that it does not have the right to judge >> such cases only that errors were made in that particular case. > > Would you agree or disagee that the main reason they attacked Galileo was > because they did not want any competition? Disagree. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 In article <1183367570.892102.301110@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 In order for evolution to happen the way that you stated it happened, a cell colony would have to remain a cell colony before the next step of evolution would take place--true or false? Jason Quote
Guest David V. Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 Jason wrote: > > In order for evolution to happen the way that you stated it > happened, a cell colony would have to remain a cell colony > before the next step of evolution would take place--true or > false? Of course that is false..... but then you know that. Why do you insist on making up things and them actually believing them? -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest David V. Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 Jason wrote: > \ Would you agree or disagee that the main reason they > attacked Galileo was because they did not want any > competition? Is that the reason you attack evolution? -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 In article <b1bi839a5v5k9fbibdphar5f05dorvp966@4ax.com>, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > In alt.atheism On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 20:54:09 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > (Jason) let us all know that: > > >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 > > There's no such thing. The idea of evolution as "progress ever > upward" is only held by layment who don't know what evolution is. > > Don > --- > aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde > Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. > > "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" > Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" One of main criticisms of evolution theory is that we have not seen cases of a genus evolving into another genus today. Yes, I have seen evidence of a new species of fruit fly evolving from another species of fruit fly. I have seen evidence of a new type of bacteria forming from other types of bacteria. However, I have not seen evidence of a horse evolving into a creature that was not a horse. The advocates of creation science believe the evidence that it is possible for animals and plants to adapt or evolve--examples include the fruit fly evolution and bacteria evolution mentioned above. However, the advocates of creation sciece do NOT believe it is possible for one genus to evolve into another genus. The "Single-Celled Transformers: Marine Phytoplakton Changes to Form to Protect Itself" supports creation science and is NOT evidence for a cell colony evolving into a multicelled life form. In fact, it this case the cell colony did not evolve into a multicelled life form. The Cell Colony changed to single cells that were no longer part of the cell colony. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 In article <1183367816.929104.115300@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 You already know that we believe that God created mankind; some plants and some animals. After the creation process was finished--natural selection kicked in. The cell colony that changed back into single cells that were no longer a part of the cell colony is evidence for creation science and is NOT evidence that supports evolution. If the cell colony had evolved into a multicelled life form--that would have supported evolution theory. I doubt that you or anyone else will understand my point because you have on your "evolution tinted glasses" that makes it impossible for you to see the evidence from another point of view. In other words, steps 4 thru 10 did NOT take place. In fact, the cell colony changed back into single cells that were not part of a colony. > > > > 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) Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 In article <1183368314.787206.264420@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 2, 2:42 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > 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. > > You mean, after somebody got murdered in your town, you arrested him, > trued him and put him in jail. Jason, that's just mean. You're > supposed to do an autopsy on him to determine cause of death and then > track down and try his killer. > > Martin The police arrested the person that murdered the man. In this case "him" referred to the murderer. I should have explained it more fully so that you would not have been confused. Quote
Guest Bob T. Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On Jul 2, 11:06 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <b1bi839a5v5k9fbibdphar5f05dorvp...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > > > > > > <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > In alt.atheism On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 20:54:09 -0700, J...@nospam.com > > (Jason) let us all know that: > > > >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 > > > There's no such thing. The idea of evolution as "progress ever > > upward" is only held by layment who don't know what evolution is. > > > Don > > --- > > aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde > > Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. > > > "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" > > Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" > > One of main criticisms of evolution theory is that we have not seen cases > of a genus evolving into another genus today. Yes, I have seen evidence of > a new species of fruit fly evolving from another species of fruit fly. I > have seen evidence of a new type of bacteria forming from other types of > bacteria. However, I have not seen evidence of a horse evolving into a > creature that was not a horse. You are looking at that backwards because the horse is a present day animal. You should instead ask whether there is evidence that a creature that was not a horse evolved into a horse. The answer is: yes, there is plenty of evidence that a small fox-like mammal evolved into the modern horse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse > The advocates of creation science believe > the evidence that it is possible for animals and plants to adapt or > evolve--examples include the fruit fly evolution and bacteria evolution > mentioned above. However, the advocates of creation sciece do NOT believe > it is possible for one genus to evolve into another genus. 1) The is no such thing as "creation science", because Creationism is a religious belief. 2) The "creation religious believers" are mistaken, there is overwhelming evidence that life on Earth has evolved over time from one genus to another. > The "Single-Celled Transformers: Marine Phytoplakton Changes to Form to > Protect Itself" supports creation science and is NOT evidence for a cell > colony evolving into a multicelled life form. In fact, it this case the > cell colony did not evolve into a multicelled life form. The Cell Colony > changed to single cells that were no longer part of the cell colony. This is not an example of evolution, it is an example of behavior. No creature or group of creatures ever "evolves" within its own lifetime. Evolution is a process that requires multiple generations. - Bob T. > Jason Quote
Guest Dan Drake Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 11:06:25 UTC, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: >... > > The point that is often overlooked is that even if [Galileo] had been > absolutley in error the Church's reasons for attacking him were > invalid, i.e. objective evidence should not be judged on the basis of > whether or not it contradicts something a book says. Furthermore the > Church has still not admitted that it does not have the right to judge > such cases only that errors were made in that particular case. The latter, is I think, pretty much the same point, stated more baldly, that the Jesuit George Coyne made in criticism of the official apology in the 90s. But then, Jesuits gave up defending the Galileo action long before the 90s. This all gets one into some deep and dirty waters; fortunately, they're off topic for this thread, but a Google on "error has no rights", with the quote marks, shows a problem of long standing. At least, the idea and its proper application (if any) are now _controversial_ within the Church. -- Dan Drake dd@dandrake.com http://www.dandrake.com/ porlockjr.blogspot.com Quote
Guest Bob T. Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On Jul 2, 11:16 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1183367816.929104.115...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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 > > You already know that we believe that God created mankind; some plants and > some animals. After the creation process was finished--natural selection > kicked in. > > The cell colony that changed back into single cells that were no longer a > part of the cell colony is evidence for creation science and is NOT > evidence that supports evolution. If the cell colony had evolved into a > multicelled life form--that would have supported evolution theory. I > doubt that you or anyone else will understand my point because you have on > your "evolution tinted glasses" that makes it impossible for you to see > the evidence from another point of view. > > In other words, steps 4 thru 10 did NOT take place. In fact, the cell > colony changed back into single cells that were not part of a colony. Once again, you have demonstrated that you don't really understand how evolution works at all. The list you quote below shows that path that evolution took in human history. Most species of living things never took step two - there are many more species of bacteria than anything else. All humans have fish among our distant ancestors, but yet trout and perch are still fish. Every species has its own evolutionary path, leading back to a common ancestor several billions of years ago. Some of these paths are quite similar, others are quite different. Your point about cell colonies is no point at all. We all know that some living things did not evolve to become mammals. Heck, most living things did not evolved to become mammals. Heck, by counting numbers mammals aren't nearly as successful as insects - there are more species of beetles than any other kind of animal on Earth. - Bob T. > > > > > > 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) > > Jason- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Quote
Guest Dan Drake Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 17:41:17 UTC, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > Would you agree or disagee that the main reason they attacked Galileo was > because they did not want any competition? Disagree: They were quite happy to compete with each other in skill at interpreting Aristotle and the Bible. And Galileo was a duly educated, gainfully employed academic, not some interloper who might open the floodgates to hordes of Mexi^H^H^H^H mere artisans without enough Latin. (OK, he was criticized for stepping outside of this field, but after all, a Grand Duke had appointed him a "philosopher", and how more Establishment can you get?) In short, "competition" and "being a narrow-minded bigot" are distinct categories. [Necessary to explain, in newsgroups: I am referring to the guys in the 17th century that we're talking about, and not sneakily calling anybody else names.] -- Dan Drake dd@dandrake.com http://www.dandrake.com/ porlockjr.blogspot.com 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.