Guest John Popelish Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Jason wrote: > We can look back in history one thousand or more years and find out that > foxes were mentioned. How do you know how similar those foxes are to the ones we see today (in all their varieties)? Have you compared mummified foxes from several thousand years ago to any modern foxes? Have you compared DNA to see what has changed? Do you have any idea how their immune systems are different? And how do you decide, of all the varieties now living belong to the fox group? I think you are assuming your conclusion, instead of studying foxes or any other animal to find out what changes have taken place. By the way, bears, foxes and wolves all share great similarities. Have you ever wondered what their common ancestor looked like, what it ate, where it lived, how big it was, or how long ago it lived? Other people wondered and dug out the evidence to answer their questions. But you just assume that at the point in history foxes, bears or wolves looked different enough to be called something else that that animal is not related to any of them, because at that point your hypothetical god must have created foxes, bears and wolves. Seems pretty convenient and arbitrary. But it is fine with me if you want to be intentionally dense. Keep up that fight, if it makes you happy. It won't make a bit of difference in the long run. We'll be dead soon and it won't matter any more. The argument will essentially die with our generation. In a few more generations, anyone who brings up the idea of divine creation will be considered to be insane in the face of all the accepted evolutionary science. Have a nice day. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:29:16 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0207071829170001@66-52-22-17.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <buvi83phng0f6hr6893ilg5v6cvdsbbhdl@4ax.com>, 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. > >Teachers have been teaching evolution in the public schools for over 35 >years. Have you wondered how successful those high school teachers have >been? > >Answer: Only 12% of Americans believe that humans evolved from other >life-forms without any involvement from a god. But, as you have been told, time and again, science has nothing to say about gods. You have to count everyone who accepts evolution whether they think there is divine intervention or not. Sadly, there are still self-described Christians who tell their children lies and deny that evolution occurred at all. That is inexcusable. >source: National Geographic Nov/2004 page 6 > >It appears to me that more Americans agree with me than agree with the >advocates of evolution. It also explains why evolutionists rush to court >every time a school system wants to teach intelligent design. They don't >want competition. > >jason > Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:19:46 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0207071819470001@66-52-22-17.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <maSdnVNWsvmdExTbnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." ><spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> 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? > >Yes--that is the reason they removed all mention of God, Jesus, religion >and scriptures from the textbook and curriculum guide. > But they didn't remove their religious doctrine that they had tarted up as fake science. The authors of "Pandas" are really disgusting human beings, I would never besmirch Christianity by accusing those liars of being Christian. There is no evidence that they are. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 02:11:15 -0000, in alt.atheism Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in <1183428675.149347.5720@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>: >On Jul 3, 7:43 am, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <uqednUun_vV_yxTbnZ2dnUVZ_j2dn...@sti.net>, "David V." >> > <s...@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. > >Actually his claim was that scientists couldn't explain how mankind >evolved from simple cells and I explained it to him in ten easy >steps. Was I wrong to do so? No, not if you were explaining it to anyone who was actually trying to learn, but Jason appears to worship his ignorance and examples like yours tend to get twisted around by him. Don't worry. No one here expects to see Jason learn a thing, but it's always good practice to hone your discussion. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:10:05 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0207071810050001@66-52-22-17.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <SOqdnYaYk-z25RTbnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish ><jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > >> 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. > >We can look back in history one thousand or more years and find out that >foxes were mentioned. > So what? There has been life on earth for billions of years. Mammals for many millions. Quote
Guest David V. Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <maSdnVNWsvmdExTbnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@sti.net>, "David > V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> 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? > > Yes--that is the reason they removed all mention of God, > Jesus, religion and scriptures from the textbook and > curriculum guide. So the ID/creationists just lie about it then? Since their whole argument is based on "god did it" those things cannot be honestly removed from their phony text books. So, again; teaching religion in our public schools is illegal. Don't our laws mean anything to you? Apparently not since you have done nothing but evade the question. -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest cactus Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <lj0ii.23672$C96.6027@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, > bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <4687FFEC.D670BAD6@osu.edu>, Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <468286BD.8080301@osu.edu>, James Burns >>>>> <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote: >>>> [...] >>>>>> So, the ID folks want to establish a church in the US. >>>>>> It doesn't matter to me if you want to deny it; that's >>>>>> what it all comes down to when you peel the rhetoric off. >>>>>> There's been a lot of discussion in this thread about how >>>>>> ID is just wrong factually -- and it is -- but what I find >>>>>> much more disturbing is what the lessons of history show, >>>>>> over and over and over, when someone establishes or even >>>>>> tries to establish a church. >>>>>> >>>>>> You, Jason, may well be willing to accept the human cost >>>>>> involved; I don't know. (Tell me, Jason, how you would >>>>>> feel about those deaths in the USSR if, instead of >>>>>> Stalin, it had been led by Jerry Falwell, establishing >>>>>> a Christian Empire? Would they have been worth the >>>>>> outcome?) I strongly suspect, though, that the 68% >>>>>> poll in Ohio did not talk about all this, though. >>>>>> How much support does your ID crowd really have, >>>>>> for, you know, the big picture <wink, wink>? >>>>> I doubt that ID will ever be taught in the public schoools >>>>> so you have nothing to fear. Even if ID was taught, all of >>>>> the problems you discussed would probably not happen. I have >>>>> never done any research related to the many adults that are >>>>> graduates of Christian high schools. It's my guess that the >>>>> vast majority of them are not guilty of any of those things >>>>> that you mentioned in your post. >>>> The efforts to get Intelligent Design into science classes >>>> is only part of the fundamentalist Christan agenda: to >>>> install their version of Christianity as the state religion >>>> of the US. >>>> >>>> Another part is the "Christian Soldier" movement. When the >>>> chaplain at the United States Air Force Academy complained >>>> to her superiors that cadets were being pressured to become >>>> "saved", that is, fundamentalist Christian, she was transferred >>>> to Japan. She resigned shortly thereafter in protest. >>>> Google "Capt. Melinda Morton". >>>> >>>> I find it very troubling that one religious group is working >>>> to exclude other groups from the military. What are they >>>> going to do with that control? >>>> >>>> The most blatant example I can think of, though, is the >>>> fuss the Christian Right kicked up over the nomination >>>> of Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court. The Democrats were >>>> expected to complain, but the White House knew it could >>>> push it through over their objections. What stopped her >>>> nomination cold was Bush's own right wing saying she >>>> wasn't far enough right wing for them. >>>> >>>> This was the personal lawyer of possibly the most >>>> conservative President ever, but that wasn't enough for >>>> them. I am reminded of the French Revolution, where >>>> those who had originally sent to the guillotine whatever >>>> nobility they could catch were later sent themselves >>>> for not being revolutionary enough. >>>> >>>> The Christian Right are fools, though, (those who want >>>> to make their religion the state religion -- I doubt it's >>>> unanimous). The best way to kill a religion at its >>>> roots is to force it down people's throats using the >>>> power of the state. They are trading the long-term viability >>>> of their religion /as religion/ (instead of public ceremonies) >>>> for a very worldly display of political power. I think >>>> Jesus had a few ripe things to say about people like that. >>>> >>>> Tell me, Jason, where you stand on the Christian Right >>>> agenda to make fundamentalist Christianity the state religion >>>> of the United States. Are you for it or against it? >>>> I solemnly promise that a candid answer from you >>>> could not possibly make me think any less of you. >>>> >>>> Jim Burns >>> We have no desire to force people to become Christians. When the Muslims >>> take over a country, they give people a choice: Become a Muslim or get >>> your head chopped off. >>> >>> Christians don't do it that way. We present the message and if people such >>> as yourself decide to not become Christians, we would not harm you or even >>> threaten your life. >> But those who don't face discrimination, repeated exposure to your >> religious dogma and occasionally social ostracism. >> >> Coercion is coercion. Don't think you are any better than Muslims. If >> you had your way you would be no different. >> >>> The answer to your question is that we will never make fundamentialist >>> Christianity the state religion. I would be against any effort to make it >>> the state religion. Even when I lived in the Bible Belt and over 90% of >>> the people were Christians--we did not try to make fundamentalist >>> Christianity the Virginia State Religion. We did not even try to make it >>> the official County Religion. >> Why not? Isn't that what you guys want to do? >> >>> You have much more to fear from Muslims than you have to fear from >>> Christians. >> Except that Christians are local, and Muslims are far away. The ones >> that are nearby are generally accepting of others because they know what >> it is like to be a minority faith. >> >> On your next vacation, I advise you to visit one of the Muslim >>> Countries to learn the dangers of a religion controlling the government. I >>> heard the testimony of a man that had a job in a Muslim country. He once >>> visited the area of the city where public punishments were done. He was >>> shocked when he saw thieves getting at least one hand chopped off. He even >>> saw them chop off the head of a man that had been found guilty of murder. >>> The crowd was clapping after each of those punishments or murders were >>> performed. >>> >>> You will never see that sort of thing done by Christians. >> They just don't have the power yet. If they did, they would hang lots >> of people they didn't like. > > We had the power in the small county that I once lived in. As far as I > know, there were only Christians living in that small Virginia County > located in the Blue Ridge Mountains. One person was murdered in that town. > We did not hang him or harm him in any way. The police arrested him. The > court room was full. I wanted to attend but my parents would not take me. > After the trial, he was placed in prison. I have seen Western movies where > they surrounded the court house and hanged the murderer. We did not do > that. > Some places are worse than others. People are generally decent, but you only need recall the treatment of African-Americans, Jews, and Catholics in small towns in the South. It's not criminality that is the issue - it's intolerance. Lynching was a means of rough justice in the old West, but has largely disappeared after a flurry of African American lynchings in the South 1920 - 1965 or so. Look at people like the late unlamented Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. They preach hatred and intolerance. If they were not constrained by convention, they would be burning books, burning people and discriminating against people different from them, with impunity. > Quote
Guest cactus Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. > > Well there you go. >>> source: Science Daily >>> >>> A tiny single-celled organism that plays a key role in the carbon cycle of >>> cold-water oceans may be a lot smarter than scientists had suspected. >>> >>> Researchers report the first evidence that a common species of saltwater >>> algae -- also known as phytoplankton -- can change form to protect itself >>> against attack by predators that have very different feeding habits. >>> >>> Suppressing colony formation is a useful strategy against copepods because >>> they prefer to eat colonies of phytoplankton. (Credit: Jeremy Long) >>> >>> To boost its survival chances, Phaeocystis globosa will enhance or >>> suppress the formation of colonies based on whether nearby grazers prefer >>> eating large or small particles. "Based on chemical signals from attacked >>> neighbors, Phaeocystis globosa enhances colony formation if that's the >>> best >>> thing to do for survival, or it suppresses the formation of colonies in >>> favor of growing as small solitary cells if that's the best thing to do," >>> >>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070615133823.htm >>> >>> > > Quote
Guest cactus Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 John Baker wrote: > 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? > This is confusing. Were you talking to me? > > >>> >> 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 Jason Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In article <1183427374.460244.45350@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 3, 4:32 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > 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: > > > > 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. > > > > But millions of species have NOT gone extinct > > But billions have. > > > --that is a very good track record. > > No, it isn't. > > Martin It's a poor track record for macro evolution Quote
Guest cactus Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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? > > You are attempting to equate the 16th Century CE Catholic Church with the modern scientific establishment. It's totally inappropriate: The Scientific Establishment welcomes conflicting viewpoints, only requiring scientifically valid evidence for the process. The Catholic Church sought to be the arbiter of all knowledge, and Galileo was one of the first to show that ultimately it could not succeed. Science is not the arbiter of knowledge, it is really a repository of information and methods. If creationism had something to add, it would be included without hesitation. The problem is that creationism and its cats-paw "intelligent design" have no scientific merit whatsoever. That's your problem Jason. You might as well build a perpetual motion machine - it's no more harebrained that creationism. BTW, if you would like one, I've got one in my basement. I'll sell it to you at a very reasonable price, even give you the patent application I started. Quote
Guest cactus Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 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. 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. > Believe it or not, most of the advocates of ID support Natural Selection. > They do not support common descent or abiogenesis. > jason > > Jason, we've been corresponding for a while. Many people consider you rude, others consider you to be obdurately stupid, and others don't know what to make of you. You average at least one patronizing putdown per response. My question to you is, why are you here? Why do you persist in the face of such vituperation? What is your purpose in posting, and why do you brave such nastiness in order to do so? Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In article <1183427713.076508.130990@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 3, 4:44 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > 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. > > Nice to see you admit that. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_multicellularity > > "The advantage of the Colonial Theory hypothesis is that it has been > seen to occur independently numerous times (in 16 different > protoctistan phyla). For instance, Dictyostelium is an amoeba which > groups together during times of food shortage, forming a colony that > moves as one to a new location. Some of these amoeba then become > slightly differentiated from each other. Other examples of colonial > organisation in protozoa are Eudorina and Volvox (the latter of which > consist around 10,000 cells, only about 25-35 which reproduce - 8 > asexually and around 15-25 sexually). It can often be hard to tell, > however, what is a colonial protist and what is a multicellular > organism in its own right. > > "Most scientists accept that is by the Colonial theory that > Multicellular organisms evolved." > > Martin If the cell colony had evolved into a multicelled life form--we all would have seen these words on the cover of National Geographic magazine: EVOLUTION FINALLY PROVED TO BE A FACT Since the cell colony did not evolve into a multicelled life form, this story and similar stories will be ignored and explained away in much the same way that posters explained away this story. Quote
Guest cactus Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <maSdnVNWsvmdExTbnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." > <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> 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? > > Yes--that is the reason they removed all mention of God, Jesus, religion > and scriptures from the textbook and curriculum guide. > > It's the idea, not the packaging. The Kaddish prayer is one of Judaism's oldest - it's not even in Hebrew. It never mentions G-d, except by allusion. But it's still a prayer. And those textbooks may never mention any deities, but the fact is that they are attempting to pass unscientific mythological lies off as truth, and that's why these books should never make it anywhere near a public school. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In article <1183429476.650037.52430@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 3, 9:29 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <buvi83phng0f6hr6893ilg5v6cvdsbb...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 11:50:30 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > <Jason-0207071150300...@66-52-22-22.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > >In article <rtOdndKu0bu3oRTbnZ2dnUVZ_sudn...@sti.net>, "David V." > > > ><s...@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. > > > > Teachers have been teaching evolution in the public schools for over 35 > > years. Have you wondered how successful those high school teachers have > > been? > > 35 years, huh? You're 57 so you were 22 back then. So you never > learned about evolution in high school. You obviously should have. I stated in my post--OVER 35 years. > > > Answer: Only 12% of Americans believe that humans evolved from other > > life-forms without any involvement from a god. > > source: National Geographic Nov/2004 page 6 > > According to the 2005 American Community Survey > (See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_S0101&-ds_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_) > 16.6% of the American population is over sixty. By your own > admission, these people never learned evolution is high school. The > number of people who know the truth can only go up as people your age > and older pass on. > > Martin As long as the evolutionists are able to prevent the teaching of ID in public high schools, you are correct. However, if children in high school were allowed to learn about Intelligent Design, the statistics would run in our favor. The evolutionists don't want a competing theory to be taught since they know the children would realize that ID makes more sense. If evolutionists honestly believed the children would see it as a lie--they would not even care whether or not ID was taught in the public schools. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In article <1183429649.303081.290600@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 3, 9:34 am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > In alt.atheism On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:29:16 -0700, J...@nospam.com > > (Jason) let us all know that: > > > > >Teachers have been teaching evolution in the public schools for over 35 > > >years. Have you wondered how successful those high school teachers have > > >been? > > > > They've also been teaching mathematics and that the Earth is a > > spheroid. > > > > >Answer: Only 12% of Americans believe that humans evolved from other > > >life-forms without any involvement from a god. > > >source: National Geographic Nov/2004 page 6 > > > > >It appears to me that more Americans agree with me than agree with the > > >advocates of evolution. > > > > So what? > > > > > It also explains why evolutionists rush to court > > >every time a school system wants to teach intelligent design. > > > > No it doesn't. > > > > Jason: would you support the teaching of "Flat-Earth Theory" > > in schools. Remember: it's a competing idea. It doesn't matter how > > many people believe it: IT'S A COMPETING IDEA. > > The flat Earth theory does get mentioned in schools and is followed by > laughter. > > Martin If a school system tried to teach the Flat Earth Theory, I would write letters to each member of the school board and ask them to reconsider their decision. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In article <K3kii.175$m%.126@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <lj0ii.23672$C96.6027@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, > > bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <4687FFEC.D670BAD6@osu.edu>, Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>> In article <468286BD.8080301@osu.edu>, James Burns > >>>>> <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote: > >>>> [...] > >>>>>> So, the ID folks want to establish a church in the US. > >>>>>> It doesn't matter to me if you want to deny it; that's > >>>>>> what it all comes down to when you peel the rhetoric off. > >>>>>> There's been a lot of discussion in this thread about how > >>>>>> ID is just wrong factually -- and it is -- but what I find > >>>>>> much more disturbing is what the lessons of history show, > >>>>>> over and over and over, when someone establishes or even > >>>>>> tries to establish a church. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You, Jason, may well be willing to accept the human cost > >>>>>> involved; I don't know. (Tell me, Jason, how you would > >>>>>> feel about those deaths in the USSR if, instead of > >>>>>> Stalin, it had been led by Jerry Falwell, establishing > >>>>>> a Christian Empire? Would they have been worth the > >>>>>> outcome?) I strongly suspect, though, that the 68% > >>>>>> poll in Ohio did not talk about all this, though. > >>>>>> How much support does your ID crowd really have, > >>>>>> for, you know, the big picture <wink, wink>? > >>>>> I doubt that ID will ever be taught in the public schoools > >>>>> so you have nothing to fear. Even if ID was taught, all of > >>>>> the problems you discussed would probably not happen. I have > >>>>> never done any research related to the many adults that are > >>>>> graduates of Christian high schools. It's my guess that the > >>>>> vast majority of them are not guilty of any of those things > >>>>> that you mentioned in your post. > >>>> The efforts to get Intelligent Design into science classes > >>>> is only part of the fundamentalist Christan agenda: to > >>>> install their version of Christianity as the state religion > >>>> of the US. > >>>> > >>>> Another part is the "Christian Soldier" movement. When the > >>>> chaplain at the United States Air Force Academy complained > >>>> to her superiors that cadets were being pressured to become > >>>> "saved", that is, fundamentalist Christian, she was transferred > >>>> to Japan. She resigned shortly thereafter in protest. > >>>> Google "Capt. Melinda Morton". > >>>> > >>>> I find it very troubling that one religious group is working > >>>> to exclude other groups from the military. What are they > >>>> going to do with that control? > >>>> > >>>> The most blatant example I can think of, though, is the > >>>> fuss the Christian Right kicked up over the nomination > >>>> of Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court. The Democrats were > >>>> expected to complain, but the White House knew it could > >>>> push it through over their objections. What stopped her > >>>> nomination cold was Bush's own right wing saying she > >>>> wasn't far enough right wing for them. > >>>> > >>>> This was the personal lawyer of possibly the most > >>>> conservative President ever, but that wasn't enough for > >>>> them. I am reminded of the French Revolution, where > >>>> those who had originally sent to the guillotine whatever > >>>> nobility they could catch were later sent themselves > >>>> for not being revolutionary enough. > >>>> > >>>> The Christian Right are fools, though, (those who want > >>>> to make their religion the state religion -- I doubt it's > >>>> unanimous). The best way to kill a religion at its > >>>> roots is to force it down people's throats using the > >>>> power of the state. They are trading the long-term viability > >>>> of their religion /as religion/ (instead of public ceremonies) > >>>> for a very worldly display of political power. I think > >>>> Jesus had a few ripe things to say about people like that. > >>>> > >>>> Tell me, Jason, where you stand on the Christian Right > >>>> agenda to make fundamentalist Christianity the state religion > >>>> of the United States. Are you for it or against it? > >>>> I solemnly promise that a candid answer from you > >>>> could not possibly make me think any less of you. > >>>> > >>>> Jim Burns > >>> We have no desire to force people to become Christians. When the Muslims > >>> take over a country, they give people a choice: Become a Muslim or get > >>> your head chopped off. > >>> > >>> Christians don't do it that way. We present the message and if people such > >>> as yourself decide to not become Christians, we would not harm you or even > >>> threaten your life. > >> But those who don't face discrimination, repeated exposure to your > >> religious dogma and occasionally social ostracism. > >> > >> Coercion is coercion. Don't think you are any better than Muslims. If > >> you had your way you would be no different. > >> > >>> The answer to your question is that we will never make fundamentialist > >>> Christianity the state religion. I would be against any effort to make it > >>> the state religion. Even when I lived in the Bible Belt and over 90% of > >>> the people were Christians--we did not try to make fundamentalist > >>> Christianity the Virginia State Religion. We did not even try to make it > >>> the official County Religion. > >> Why not? Isn't that what you guys want to do? > >> > >>> You have much more to fear from Muslims than you have to fear from > >>> Christians. > >> Except that Christians are local, and Muslims are far away. The ones > >> that are nearby are generally accepting of others because they know what > >> it is like to be a minority faith. > >> > >> On your next vacation, I advise you to visit one of the Muslim > >>> Countries to learn the dangers of a religion controlling the government. I > >>> heard the testimony of a man that had a job in a Muslim country. He once > >>> visited the area of the city where public punishments were done. He was > >>> shocked when he saw thieves getting at least one hand chopped off. He even > >>> saw them chop off the head of a man that had been found guilty of murder. > >>> The crowd was clapping after each of those punishments or murders were > >>> performed. > >>> > >>> You will never see that sort of thing done by Christians. > >> They just don't have the power yet. If they did, they would hang lots > >> of people they didn't like. > > > > We had the power in the small county that I once lived in. As far as I > > know, there were only Christians living in that small Virginia County > > located in the Blue Ridge Mountains. One person was murdered in that town. > > We did not hang him or harm him in any way. The police arrested him. The > > court room was full. I wanted to attend but my parents would not take me. > > After the trial, he was placed in prison. I have seen Western movies where > > they surrounded the court house and hanged the murderer. We did not do > > that. > > > > Some places are worse than others. People are generally decent, but you > only need recall the treatment of African-Americans, Jews, and Catholics > in small towns in the South. > > It's not criminality that is the issue - it's intolerance. Lynching was > a means of rough justice in the old West, but has largely disappeared > after a flurry of African American lynchings in the South 1920 - 1965 or so. > > Look at people like the late unlamented Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. > They preach hatred and intolerance. If they were not constrained by > convention, they would be burning books, burning people and > discriminating against people different from them, with impunity. > > Those sorts of things did not happen in my county. Quote
Guest cactus Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1183429649.303081.290600@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jul 3, 9:34 am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >>> In alt.atheism On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:29:16 -0700, J...@nospam.com >>> (Jason) let us all know that: >>> >>>> Teachers have been teaching evolution in the public schools for over 35 >>>> years. Have you wondered how successful those high school teachers have >>>> been? >>> They've also been teaching mathematics and that the Earth is a >>> spheroid. >>> >>>> Answer: Only 12% of Americans believe that humans evolved from other >>>> life-forms without any involvement from a god. >>>> source: National Geographic Nov/2004 page 6 >>>> It appears to me that more Americans agree with me than agree with the >>>> advocates of evolution. >>> So what? >>> >>>> It also explains why evolutionists rush to court >>>> every time a school system wants to teach intelligent design. >>> No it doesn't. >>> >>> Jason: would you support the teaching of "Flat-Earth Theory" >>> in schools. Remember: it's a competing idea. It doesn't matter how >>> many people believe it: IT'S A COMPETING IDEA. >> The flat Earth theory does get mentioned in schools and is followed by >> laughter. >> >> Martin > > If a school system tried to teach the Flat Earth Theory, I would write > letters to each member of the school board and ask them to reconsider > their decision. > > Funny, isn't it - if a school system tried to teach creationism, I would not only write letters to the school board, I would contact the media and find an attorney who would obtain an injunction. Probably for exactly the same reasons as you. Quote
Guest John Baker Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:19:46 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >In article <maSdnVNWsvmdExTbnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." ><spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> 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? > >Yes--that is the reason they removed all mention of God, Jesus, religion >and scriptures from the textbook and curriculum guide. "What's in a name? That which we call a rose would, by any other name, smell as sweet." Get the point, Jason? > Quote
Guest Bob T. Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 2, 6:06 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1183409470.998394.202...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, "Bob > > > > > > T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > > On Jul 2, 1:29 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > You mention that it takes millions of years before a fox could evolve into > > > another type of creature. The reality is that foxes have NOT evolved in > > > the past several thousand years. Foxes are mentioned in the Old > > > Testament--Judges 15:4. the Book of Judges was written prior to 1004 B.C. > > > At the very least, the foxes that are living today should be radically > > > different than the foxes that existed in 1004 B.C. The reality is that > > > they are still foxes. You mentioned a child growing up--that is about 17 > > > years. In this case, we will are not discussing 17 years but thousands of > > > years. In much the same way that a child will change in 17 years--the > > > foxes should have changed within thousands of years. The reality is that > > > they are still foxes. > > > Here is a snippet from the Evolution of the Horse article on > > Wikipedia: > > > "Detailed fossil information on the rate and distribution of new equid > > species has also revealed that the progression between species was not > > as smooth and consistent as was once believed: although some > > transitions, such as that of Dinohippus to Equus, were indeed gradual > > progressions, a number of others, such as that of Epihippus to > > Mesohippus, were relatively abrupt and sudden in geologic time, taking > > place over only a few million years." > > > Jason, please read that sentence several times until you understand > > this fact: biologists describe the evolution of one species > > (Epihippus) into another (Mesohippus) as "relatively abrupt and > > sudden" because it took "only a few million years". Compare that to > > the few thousand years that have gone by since Biblical times. We > > should expect to see _no visible evolution in any mammal in only a few > > thousand years_!!! > > > - Bob T. > > Bob T., > I understand your point. However, I doubt that you understand the points > that I made in my posts. I clearly understand the points you have made. The problem is, you're just plain wrong. > I continue to believe that God made a horse-like > creature like the Hyracotherium and at least one or more dog-like > creatures. They eventually evolved into the various types of horses and > dogs we have today. If you want to believe that God nudged the process of natural selection along here and there to help guide evolution, that could never be contradicted by the data. However, if you want to believe that evolution has not been a continuous process stretching in a discernable pattern from very ancient single-celled organisms up through us, you will be just plain wrong. > We can examine the same data related to horse > evolution. You believe the evidence proves evolution and I will look at > that evidence and believe that it proves creation science. "You believe the evidence proves the world is round, and I will look at that evidence and believe that it proves the world is flat." > Please tell me the name of the animal that the Hyracotherium evolved from? I did not find that in a quick search, but I found an interesting discussion of the family that Hyracotherium belonged to: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/mesaxonia/perissodactyla.html - Bob T. > Jason- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Quote
Guest David V. Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Jason wrote: > > If the cell colony had evolved into a multicelled life > form--we all would have seen these words on the cover of > National Geographic magazine: > > EVOLUTION FINALLY PROVED TO BE A FACT Do you know why you'll never see those words? Evolution has been proven as a fact for some time now. The only objections are religious. -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest David V. Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Jason wrote: > > As long as the evolutionists are able to prevent the teaching > of ID in public high schools, No, we do not want RELIGION taught in public schools. ID is a religious dogma. -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In alt.atheism On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 21:49:17 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <1183429649.303081.290600@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jul 3, 9:34 am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> > In alt.atheism On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:29:16 -0700, J...@nospam.com >> > (Jason) let us all know that: >> > >> > >Teachers have been teaching evolution in the public schools for over 35 >> > >years. Have you wondered how successful those high school teachers have >> > >been? >> > >> > They've also been teaching mathematics and that the Earth is a >> > spheroid. >> > >> > >Answer: Only 12% of Americans believe that humans evolved from other >> > >life-forms without any involvement from a god. >> > >source: National Geographic Nov/2004 page 6 >> > >> > >It appears to me that more Americans agree with me than agree with the >> > >advocates of evolution. >> > >> > So what? >> > >> > > It also explains why evolutionists rush to court >> > >every time a school system wants to teach intelligent design. >> > >> > No it doesn't. >> > >> > Jason: would you support the teaching of "Flat-Earth Theory" >> > in schools. Remember: it's a competing idea. It doesn't matter how >> > many people believe it: IT'S A COMPETING IDEA. >> >> The flat Earth theory does get mentioned in schools and is followed by >> laughter. >> >> Martin > >If a school system tried to teach the Flat Earth Theory, I would write >letters to each member of the school board and ask them to reconsider >their decision. Then you're a hypocrite, Jason. 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 Bob T. Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 2, 6:29 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <buvi83phng0f6hr6893ilg5v6cvdsbb...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 11:50:30 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-0207071150300...@66-52-22-22.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <rtOdndKu0bu3oRTbnZ2dnUVZ_sudn...@sti.net>, "David V." > > ><s...@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. > > Teachers have been teaching evolution in the public schools for over 35 > years. Have you wondered how successful those high school teachers have > been? > > Answer: Only 12% of Americans believe that humans evolved from other > life-forms without any involvement from a god. That is because many Americans believe that humans evolved from other life-forms _with_ involvement from a god. Evolution is inconrtrovertably demonstrated by the facts, but science could never disprove the notion that Vishnu or Loki interferes with natural selection a subtle way. > source: National Geographic Nov/2004 page 6 > > It appears to me that more Americans agree with me than agree with the > advocates of evolution. It also explains why evolutionists rush to court > every time a school system wants to teach intelligent design. They don't > want competition. No, we don't want schools to teach intelligent design because ID is a lie. We don't want our children taught that the world is flat, either, no how many Americans believe it to be so. - Bob T. > > jason- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Quote
Guest John Baker Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 21:19:05 -0700, cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote: >John Baker wrote: >> 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? >> > >This is confusing. Were you talking to me? No, I was talking to Jason. This thread is getting out of hand, so I delete most of Jason's posts unread and read only the replies. I decided to respond to Jason't tired old claim of deliberate censorship of "creation science" (although I have no idea why I bothered), but had to "piggyback" on your post since Jason's original had been deleted. Sorry for the confusion. > >> >> >>>> >>> 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
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.