Guest Cary Kittrell Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 In article <Jason-0207071332240001@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) writes: > In article <f6bkdv$ja5$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>, > cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote: > > > In article <1183367816.929104.115300@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com> Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> writes: > > > 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 > > > > > > Well, given that most paleontologists agree that, as a crude > > estimate, over 99% of all species have gone extinct, I'd > > say that the Intelligent Desinger has a horrible recall rate. > > > > > > -- cary > > But millions of species have NOT gone extinct--that is a very good track record. More than 99 out of every 100 is not a good track record at all. Would you hire a programmer whose code worked one time in a hundred? > God left mankind in charge of the world--in many cases--mankind is to > blame for the extinctions. Since the vast majority of all species were extinct long before we evolved, that's not really the case. At the end of the Permian, an estimated 70% of all land species and 96% of all marine species vanished, for unknown reasons. We have had nothing like such an effect. -- cary Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0207071348510001@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <uqednUin_vUOyxTbnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." > <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <rtOdndKu0bu3oRTbnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@sti.net>, "David >> > V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> 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? >> > >> > >> > No--I believe that both evolution and ID should be taught. >> >> Why should your religious beliefs be taught in public schools? >> It is the law in this country that religious beliefs are not to >> be taught in public schools. Don't our laws mean anything to you? > > According to the advocates of Intelligent Design, God, Religion, Jesus and > scriptures are not mentioned in the textbook or curriculum guide. > > The term "intelligent designer" is used instead of the term "God". That is about as transparent as glass. You like to use legal terms and situations, why don't you learn of the term 'intent'. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0207071344410001@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <uqednUmn_vW8yxTbnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." > <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > You already know that we believe that God created mankind; >> > some plants and some animals. >> >> Yet you have failed at every opportunity to provide any proof of >> that this god exists. Until you prove the god exists you cannot >> claim it created anything. You have even less proof for a god >> than what proof you believe there isn't for evolution. > > In much the same way that evolutionists take a look at plants and animals > living today to find evidence of evolution, the advocates of creation > science look at plants and animals living today as proof for creation > science and ID. Without the foggiest notion that genetics has already proven common descent. > When I find evidence of a life form not progressing from step 1 to step 4 > as is predicted by evolution theory--I see that as evidence of creation > science. In this case, single celled life forms formed into a cell colony. > However, instead of evolving into a multicelled life form (step 4), the > cell colony changed back into single cells that were not part of a colony. > That is evidence (at least in this case), that the cell colony did not > evolve into a multicelled life form. I doubt that you understand my point > since you have on your evolution tinted glasses and as a result can not > look at this evidence from a creation science point of view. Summary: this > evidence supports creation science and does not support evolution. If the > the cell colony had evolved into a multicelled life form--that would have > supported evolution theory. You don't have a point, how can you show it? Quote
Guest Bob T. Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On Jul 2, 1:44 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <uqednUmn_vW8yxTbnZ2dnUVZ_j2dn...@sti.net>, "David V." > > <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > You already know that we believe that God created mankind; > > > some plants and some animals. > > > Yet you have failed at every opportunity to provide any proof of > > that this god exists. Until you prove the god exists you cannot > > claim it created anything. You have even less proof for a god > > than what proof you believe there isn't for evolution. > > In much the same way that evolutionists take a look at plants and animals > living today to find evidence of evolution, the advocates of creation > science look at plants and animals living today as proof for creation > science and ID. Not the same way at all. Biologists look at plants and animals, fossils and genes, and see overwhelming evidence that evolution occurred - regardless of what they believed before. Creationists begin with the assumption that the Bible is literally true, and filter everything through that assumption. > > When I find evidence of a life form not progressing from step 1 to step 4 > as is predicted by evolution theory--I see that as evidence of creation > science. In this case, single celled life forms formed into a cell colony. > However, instead of evolving into a multicelled life form (step 4), the > cell colony changed back into single cells that were not part of a colony. > That is evidence (at least in this case), that the cell colony did not > evolve into a multicelled life form. I doubt that you understand my point > since you have on your evolution tinted glasses and as a result can not > look at this evidence from a creation science point of view. Summary: this > evidence supports creation science and does not support evolution. If the > the cell colony had evolved into a multicelled life form--that would have > supported evolution theory. You really don't understand evolution, do you? There is no requirement that a cell colony evolve into a genuine multi-cellular creature. Most living things that have ever lived never had more than one cell. By the way, be thankful that _some_ cell colonies evolved further than that - they are our ancestors. You seem to think that evolution has a direction, an ever-upward striving of sorts... it does not. Creatures are just as likely to evolve into a simpler form, if that has survival value. - Bob T. Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1183401575.719720.76400@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Bob > T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote: (snip) >> 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 > > Good point--however, we don't find evidence of foxes evolving into other > animals that are NOT FOXES today. (snip) How can you know what something is evolving into from a look at it only at a single point in time? If you could jump to a a few thousand years into the future, you might not recognize some of the offspring of today's foxes. Since we don't have a time machine to examine the future, the only way we can observe lines changing over time is to review the record of Earth's history. Quote
Guest Bob T. Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On Jul 2, 1:52 pm, c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote: > In article <Jason-0207071332240...@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> J...@nospam.com (Jason) writes: > > > > > > > In article <f6bkdv$ja...@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>, > > c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote: > > > > In article <1183367816.929104.115...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com> Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> writes: > > > > 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 > > > > Well, given that most paleontologists agree that, as a crude > > > estimate, over 99% of all species have gone extinct, I'd > > > say that the Intelligent Desinger has a horrible recall rate. > > > > -- cary > > > But millions of species have NOT gone extinct--that is a very good track record. > > More than 99 out of every 100 is not a good track record at all. > Would you hire a programmer whose code worked one time in a hundred? > > > God left mankind in charge of the world--in many cases--mankind is to > > blame for the extinctions. > > Since the vast majority of all species were extinct long before > we evolved, that's not really the case. > > At the end of the Permian, an estimated 70% of all land > species and 96% of all marine species vanished, for > unknown reasons. > > We have had nothing like such an effect. So far... - Bob T. > > -- cary- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 23:45:27 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0107072345280001@66-52-22-55.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >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. And their belief is contrary to scientific evidence. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 11:50:30 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0207071150300001@66-52-22-22.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <rtOdndKu0bu3oRTbnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." ><spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> 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? > >No--I believe that both evolution and ID should be taught. It's my opinion >(and I could be wrong) that if both evolution and ID was taught--that most >of the children would agree that ID made more sense than evolution. Particularly when the teacher explains that ID is totally unsupported by any scientific evidence and was invented by religious zealots who want to get around the First Amendment. Furthermore, these zealots have written many books full of lies to try to con children into believing these religious doctrines. >Believe it or not, most of the advocates of ID support Natural Selection. >They do not support common descent or abiogenesis. You are full of lies. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 13:48:51 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0207071348510001@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <uqednUin_vUOyxTbnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." ><spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <rtOdndKu0bu3oRTbnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@sti.net>, "David >> > V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> 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? >> > >> > >> > No--I believe that both evolution and ID should be taught. >> >> Why should your religious beliefs be taught in public schools? >> It is the law in this country that religious beliefs are not to >> be taught in public schools. Don't our laws mean anything to you? > >According to the advocates of Intelligent Design, God, Religion, Jesus and >scriptures are not mentioned in the textbook or curriculum guide. What hogwash. >The term "intelligent designer" is used instead of the term "God". Don't forget the capital letters. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On 02 Jul 2007 18:48:25 GMT, in alt.talk.creationism "Dan Drake" <dd@dandrake.com> wrote in <vhIsdqY67dTD-pn2-dGd00lggsxxM@M>: >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.] Isn't it nice how easy it is to explain history by reference to current political problems? Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 In alt.atheism On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 13:48:51 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <uqednUin_vUOyxTbnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." ><spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <rtOdndKu0bu3oRTbnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@sti.net>, "David >> > V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> 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? >> > >> > >> > No--I believe that both evolution and ID should be taught. >> >> Why should your religious beliefs be taught in public schools? >> It is the law in this country that religious beliefs are not to >> be taught in public schools. Don't our laws mean anything to you? > >According to the advocates of Intelligent Design, God, Religion, Jesus and >scriptures are not mentioned in the textbook or curriculum guide. > >The term "intelligent designer" is used instead of the term "God". And "blunt impact tool" can be used instead of "hammer". But it's still a hammer. 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 John Baker Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 17:45:52 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 11:50:30 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in ><Jason-0207071150300001@66-52-22-22.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>In article <rtOdndKu0bu3oRTbnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." >><spam@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> 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? >> >>No--I believe that both evolution and ID should be taught. It's my opinion >>(and I could be wrong) that if both evolution and ID was taught--that most >>of the children would agree that ID made more sense than evolution. > >Particularly when the teacher explains that ID is totally unsupported by >any scientific evidence and was invented by religious zealots who want >to get around the First Amendment. Furthermore, these zealots have >written many books full of lies to try to con children into believing >these religious doctrines. > >>Believe it or not, most of the advocates of ID support Natural Selection. >>They do not support common descent or abiogenesis. > >You are full of lies. That isn't all he's full of. Quote
Guest David V. Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 Jason wrote: > > In much the same way that evolutionists take a look at plants > and animals living today to find evidence of evolution, the > advocates of creation science look at plants and animals > living today as proof for creation science and ID. That is a claim made by religionists that has absolutely no logical, or rational, support. I do not care one bit how creationists see anything. For one thing creationism is NOT a science by any definition of either word. It is a religious dogma. ID is just creationism in a pretty dress with lots of make up on. There's still a whore underneath. > When I find evidence of a life form not progressing from step > 1 to step 4 Again.... there is no step 1 progressing through step 4. To get to humans in a few steps is a gross mischaracterization of evolution. Such a mischaracterization ignores the billions of steps, or generations, in between.... but then that's what cretonists do, they mischaracterize on purpose because they don't want their god to have any competition. -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest David V. Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <uqednUun_vV_yxTbnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." > <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: >>Those are not the "steps." Evolution does not work that way. >>There are no "steps." > > You will have to discuss your point with Martin since he was the person > that posted these steps. He was trying to explain something that went over your head. -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest David V. Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <uqednUin_vUOyxTbnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@sti.net>, "David > V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> Jason wrote: >> >>> In article <rtOdndKu0bu3oRTbnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@sti.net>, >>> "David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> 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? >>> >>> >>> No--I believe that both evolution and ID should be taught. >>> >> >> Why should your religious beliefs be taught in public >> schools? It is the law in this country that religious >> beliefs are not to be taught in public schools. Don't our >> laws mean anything to you? > > > According to the advocates of Intelligent Design..... Do you really think I care what lies they tell? Answer the question though.... don't our laws mean anything to you? -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest johac Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 In article <giug83dnupjrcnsegga5vhh53k901jcvkp@4ax.com>, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > 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. > Not the rats again! -- 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 <468903b2$1$jnyxfnybar$mr2ice@news.datemas.de>, walksalone@dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc wrote: > 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]. Those ancient gods got around. I'll have to do some more research. thanks for the references. > > 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.> LOL! > > 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 -- 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 <ekug83930fco6pkfvk4si6229p4fbvp851@4ax.com>, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > 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? Not too round, but a little 'meat' is OK. > > -- -- 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 <cegh83hcuokhc1qn5bbci2mhu9sdobp6gm@4ax.com>, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > 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. > > -- Yep. -- 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 <hqug83p5d2ngfg5025p4r24ml0mmi6hqeg@4ax.com>, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > 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! The game was called off due to rain. > > -- -- 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 John Baker Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 21:10:03 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: >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. At least. The fact is creationist propaganda mills like DI and ICR don't even try to get their crap published in peer-reviewed journals. They know it isn't science. But they whine and cry about being "censored" because they know it'll get clueless idiots like Jason up in arms about a "conspiracy". Pathetic. Quote
Guest John Baker Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 17:08:01 -0400, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >news:Jason-0207071344410001@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> In article <uqednUmn_vW8yxTbnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." >> <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Jason wrote: >>> > You already know that we believe that God created mankind; >>> > some plants and some animals. >>> >>> Yet you have failed at every opportunity to provide any proof of >>> that this god exists. Until you prove the god exists you cannot >>> claim it created anything. You have even less proof for a god >>> than what proof you believe there isn't for evolution. >> >> In much the same way that evolutionists take a look at plants and animals >> living today to find evidence of evolution, the advocates of creation >> science look at plants and animals living today as proof for creation >> science and ID. > >Without the foggiest notion that genetics has already proven common descent. <PIGGYBACKING> > >> When I find evidence of a life form not progressing from step 1 to step 4 >> as is predicted by evolution theory--I see that as evidence of creation >> science. Unfortunately for you, evolutionary theory makes no such prediction. >> In this case, single celled life forms formed into a cell colony. >> However, instead of evolving into a multicelled life form (step 4), the >> cell colony changed back into single cells that were not part of a colony. As has been pointed out to you before, this is an example of behavior , not of evolution. Although it's likely that this sort of behavior laid the foundation for the evolution of multicellular organisms, it is not in and of itself evolution. >> That is evidence (at least in this case), that the cell colony did not >> evolve into a multicelled life form. I doubt that you understand my point >> since you have on your evolution tinted glasses and as a result can not >> look at this evidence from a creation science point of view. Jason, the only point you've shown so far is the one under your hair. >> Summary: this >> evidence supports creation science and does not support evolution. If the >> the cell colony had evolved into a multicelled life form--that would have >> supported evolution theory. You've already proven beyond all doubt that you don't have the foggiest notion what evidence is let alone what it does or doesn't support. > >You don't have a point, how can you show it? > Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 3, 1:41 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1183374385.768726.77...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > gudl...@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? They attacked Galileo because, like you, they were ignorant fools. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 3, 1:45 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1183367570.892102.301...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@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. > 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? False. Evolution is about diversity, not upward progress. You learned nothing in your biology class in college. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 3, 2:06 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. > One of main criticisms of evolution theory is that we have not seen cases > of a genus evolving into another genus today. So? We can see the transitional forms in the fossil records. 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.