Guest John Baker Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 00:45:20 -0000, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >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. I seriously doubt that Jason actually went to college. > >Martin Quote
Guest cactus Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 John Baker wrote: > 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. It is a confusing, sorry mess, isn't it? :-) > >>> >>>> 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 Martin Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 3, 9:10 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <SOqdnYaYk-z25RTbnZ2dnUVZ_hudn...@comcast.com>, John Popelish > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <1183401575.719720.76...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Bob > > > T." <b...@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. But were they the same as the foxes we see today? For many domesticated plants and animals the answer is NO. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 3, 12:22 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1183427374.460244.45...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@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. > > It's a poor track record for macro evolution. The theory of evolution doesn't hypothesize a god which would care either way. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 3, 12:37 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1183427713.076508.130...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@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 Tell us again what the conclusion of the 2004 National Geographic Magazine article "Was Darwin Wrong?" was again. Read what I posted above. Cell colonies HAVE been observed to evolve. > 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. This is the old "If monkeys evolved into man then why are their still monkeys argument." Well, if man came from God then why do you think there is still God? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 3, 12:46 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1183429476.650037.52...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@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. Did you learn about evolution in high school or not? > > > 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&-q...) > > > 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. > 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. There is the danger that children could fail to learn the truth, yes. That is why we don't want children lied to. Lying is evil, Jason. > The evolutionists don't want a competing theory to be taught since they > know the children would realize that ID makes more sense. I just told you that lying is evil and yet you just go on lying. You are consumate evil, Jason. > 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. It should be mentioned and laughed at the way it deserves to be laughed at. This is not the middle ages, Jason: there should be no impediments standing in the way of our children learning the truth about how the world really works. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 3, 12:49 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1183429649.303081.290...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@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. > 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. Explain why. Are you afraid that students might come to see that the flat Earth theory makes more sense? XD Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 3, 12:53 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <K3kii.175$m%....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, b...@nonespam.com > wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <lj0ii.23672$C96.6...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, > > > b...@nonespam.com wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > > >>> In article <4687FFEC.D670B...@osu.edu>, Jim Burns <burns...@osu.edu> > wrote: > > > >>>> Jason wrote: > > >>>>> In article <468286BD.8080...@osu.edu>, James Burns > > >>>>> <burns...@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. No Black people in your county, Jason? Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In article <1183440863.989670.291880@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 3, 9:10 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <SOqdnYaYk-z25RTbnZ2dnUVZ_hudn...@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > > > Jason wrote: > > > > In article <1183401575.719720.76...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Bob > > > > T." <b...@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. > > But were they the same as the foxes we see today? For many > domesticated plants and animals the answer is NO. > > Martin How would you know for sure whether or not foxes were the same or different over 1000 years ago? I saw a picture of a mosquito in a magazine that was preserved in hard resin. The mosquitoe was over 1000 years old but looked just like a mosquito living today. The foxes mentioned the Old Testament may have been identical to the foxes living today. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In article <MY2dnSWMf5V_ShTbnZ2dnUVZ_vjinZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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. Evolution is a theory Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In article <mdmj83phkn2ick9iivtuffc3tff4s430ti@4ax.com>, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: > On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 00:45:20 -0000, Martin Phipps > <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >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. > > I seriously doubt that Jason actually went to college. > > > > > >Martin The evolution section of the biology class was a waste of time. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In article <1183442035.915476.51890@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 3, 12:46 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1183429476.650037.52...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@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. > > Did you learn about evolution in high school or not? > > > > > 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&-q...) > > > > > 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. > > > 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. > > There is the danger that children could fail to learn the truth, yes. > That is why we don't want children lied to. Lying is evil, Jason. > > > The evolutionists don't want a competing theory to be taught since they > > know the children would realize that ID makes more sense. > > I just told you that lying is evil and yet you just go on lying. You > are consumate evil, Jason. > > > 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. > > It should be mentioned and laughed at the way it deserves to be > laughed at. This is not the middle ages, Jason: there should be no > impediments standing in the way of our children learning the truth > about how the world really works. > > Martin The children that are educated in Christian schools that teach creation science are learning the truth. Millions of Christian parents that teach creation science to their children are teaching the truth to their children. Quote
Guest Martin Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 3, 1:59 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1183440863.989670.291...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jul 3, 9:10 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <SOqdnYaYk-z25RTbnZ2dnUVZ_hudn...@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > > > > Jason wrote: > > > > > In article <1183401575.719720.76...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Bob > > > > > T." <b...@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. > > > But were they the same as the foxes we see today? For many > > domesticated plants and animals the answer is NO. > How would you know for sure whether or not foxes were the same or > different over 1000 years ago? How indeed? It was your claim that foxes haven't changed in the past thousand years. > I saw a picture of a mosquito in a magazine > that was preserved in hard resin. The mosquitoe was over 1000 years old > but looked just like a mosquito living today. There's no 'e' in mosquito. As was explained to you previously (although it obviously didn't sink in) mosquitoes are already well adapted to their environment. > The foxes mentioned the Old > Testament may have been identical to the foxes living today. And yet we have far more varieties of dogs then we had thousands of years ago. Can you explain why? Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In article <1183442128.284710.224670@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 3, 12:49 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1183429649.303081.290...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmar...@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. > > > 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. > > Explain why. Are you afraid that students might come to see that the > flat Earth theory makes more sense? XD > > Martin I see creation science and ID as the truth and see Flat Earth Theory as a lie. However, unlike the evolutionists, I would not rush to court. Instead, I would write letters to the members of the school board. I wish that evolutionists would do that instead of rushing to court. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 02:28:48 -0000, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: - Refer: <1183429728.965647.282800@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com> >On Jul 3, 9:38 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> In article <1183424398.458591.242...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > On Jul 3, 2:21 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > In article <1183368314.787206.264...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > > On Jul 2, 2:42 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > > > > We had the power in the small county that I once lived in. As far as I >> > > > > know, there were only Christians living in that small Virginia County >> > > > > located in the Blue Ridge Mountains. One person was murdered in >> that town. >> > > > > We did not hang him or harm him in any way. The police arrested him. The >> > > > > court room was full. I wanted to attend but my parents would not >> take me. >> > > > > After the trial, he was placed in prison. >> >> > > > You mean, after somebody got murdered in your town, you arrested him, >> > > > tried him and put him in jail. Jason, that's just mean. You're >> > > > supposed to do an autopsy on him to determine cause of death and then >> > > > track down and try his killer. >> >> > > The police arrested the person that murdered the man. In this case "him" >> > > referred to the murderer. I should have explained it more fully so that >> > > you would not have been confused. >> >> > I see. Perhaps we need a program that can translate from Jasonese to >> > English. >> >> It's not needed--I'll explain anything you do not understand. > >It wouldn't be necessary if you could speak proper English in the >first place. I guess grammar is something else you never learned in >school. Along with basic science, and basic honesty. -- Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In article <1183442205.912916.165430@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 3, 12:53 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <K3kii.175$m%....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, b...@nonespam.com > > wrote: > > > Jason wrote: > > > > In article <lj0ii.23672$C96.6...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, > > > > b...@nonespam.com wrote: > > > > > >> Jason wrote: > > > >>> In article <4687FFEC.D670B...@osu.edu>, Jim Burns <burns...@osu.edu> > > wrote: > > > > > >>>> Jason wrote: > > > >>>>> In article <468286BD.8080...@osu.edu>, James Burns > > > >>>>> <burns...@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. > > No Black people in your county, Jason? > > Martin Yes--I went to school with black people, played on sports teams with black people and worked with black people. Quote
Guest Martin Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 3, 2:00 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <MY2dnSWMf5V_ShTbnZ2dnUVZ_vjin...@sti.net>, "David V." > > <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > 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. > > Evolution is a theory but On Jun 27, 2:34 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > We are in agreement--evolution is a theory. Yes, the theory explains the > facts that are backed up with evidence. Martin Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:28:50 GMT, cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote: - Refer: <6gkii.19118$RX.13691@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net> >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? My guess is that he has an obesessive compulsion to lie and confabulate. He apears to be quite mentally ill, and not a little retarded. Seriously. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 16:54:14 -0700, johac <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: - Refer: <jhachmann-782FFC.16541402072007@news.giganews.com> >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. Oh, so there is plenty of time to lose. Fancy a game of Whist, old chap? -- Quote
Guest Martin Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 3, 2:02 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <mdmj83phkn2ick9iivtuffc3tff4s43...@4ax.com>, John Baker > <n...@bizniz.net> wrote: > > On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 00:45:20 -0000, Martin Phipps > > <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >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. > > > I seriously doubt that Jason actually went to college. > The evolution section of the biology class was a waste of time. It was where you are concerned. Keep in mind that genetics, biodiversity, paleantology and comparative anatomy and development are all part of the theory of evolution. It seems your entire biology class was wasted on you, Jason. Martin Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 16:48:17 -0700, johac <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: - Refer: <jhachmann-39D93E.16481702072007@news.giganews.com> >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! No. They all died of poisoning after we "interviewed" Dick Cheney. I hope that the Hamsters are riled up enough. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 16:53:01 -0700, johac <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: - Refer: <jhachmann-21B2BC.16530102072007@news.giganews.com> >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. Are you prepared to make sacrifices for love? -- Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In article <1183443132.679600.36660@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 3, 1:59 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1183440863.989670.291...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 3, 9:10 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <SOqdnYaYk-z25RTbnZ2dnUVZ_hudn...@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > > > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > > > > > Jason wrote: > > > > > > In article <1183401575.719720.76...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Bob > > > > > > T." <b...@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. > > > > > But were they the same as the foxes we see today? For many > > > domesticated plants and animals the answer is NO. > > > How would you know for sure whether or not foxes were the same or > > different over 1000 years ago? > > How indeed? It was your claim that foxes haven't changed in the past > thousand years. > > > I saw a picture of a mosquito in a magazine > > that was preserved in hard resin. The mosquitoe was over 1000 years old > > but looked just like a mosquito living today. > > There's no 'e' in mosquito. > > As was explained to you previously (although it obviously didn't sink > in) mosquitoes are already well adapted to their environment. > > > The foxes mentioned the Old > > Testament may have been identical to the foxes living today. > > And yet we have far more varieties of dogs then we had thousands of > years ago. Can you explain why? > > Martin Probably selective breeding--they are still dogs. Quote
Guest Martin Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 3, 2:09 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1183442035.915476.51...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jul 3, 12:46 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1183429476.650037.52...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > Phipps <martinphip...@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. > > > Did you learn about evolution in high school or not? > > > > > > 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&-q...) > > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > There is the danger that children could fail to learn the truth, yes. > > That is why we don't want children lied to. Lying is evil, Jason. > > > > The evolutionists don't want a competing theory to be taught since they > > > know the children would realize that ID makes more sense. > > > I just told you that lying is evil and yet you just go on lying. You > > are consumate evil, Jason. > > > > 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. > > > It should be mentioned and laughed at the way it deserves to be > > laughed at. This is not the middle ages, Jason: there should be no > > impediments standing in the way of our children learning the truth > > about how the world really works. > The children that are educated in Christian schools that teach creation > science are learning the truth. No, Jason, they are not, Jason, and you know damn well they are not. Presumably you believe your imaginary god will reward you for your lyng and send you to your imaginary heaven when you die. The truth is, though, that lying is evil. You are no better than any other nazi when you lie to children, Jason, and that's the truth. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 3, 2:12 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1183442128.284710.224...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jul 3, 12:49 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1183429649.303081.290...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > <phippsmar...@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. > > > > 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. > > > Explain why. Are you afraid that students might come to see that the > > flat Earth theory makes more sense? XD > > I see creation science and ID as the truth and see Flat Earth Theory as a > lie. However, unlike the evolutionists, I would not rush to court. > Instead, I would write letters to the members of the school board. I wish > that evolutionists would do that instead of rushing to court. You should learn a bit about the "flat Earth theory" and find out who was promoting it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#The_Early_Christian_Church "A few Christian authors directly opposed the round Earth. Lactantius (245-325), after his conversion to Christianity became a trenchant critic of all pagan philosophy. In Book III of The Divine Institutes[21] he ridicules the notion that there could be inhabitants of the antipodes "whose footsteps are higher than their heads". After presenting some arguments which he claims advocates for a spherical heaven and earth had advanced to support their views, he writes: "Cosmas Indicopleustes' world picture - flat earth in a Tabernacle.But if you inquire from those who defend these marvellous fictions, why all things do not fall into that lower part of the heaven, they reply that such is the nature of things, that heavy bodies are borne to the middle, and that they are all joined together towards the middle, as we see spokes in a wheel; but that the bodies which are light, as mist, smoke, and fire, are borne away from the middle, so as to seek the heaven. I am at a loss what to say respecting those who, when they have once erred, consistently persevere in their folly, and defend one vain thing by another; "In his Homilies Concerning the Statutes[22] St.John Chrysostom (344- 408) explicitly espoused the idea, based on his reading of Scripture, that the Earth floated on the waters gathered below the firmament, and St. Athanasius (c.293-373) expressed similar views in Against the Heathen[23]. Diodorus of Tarsus (d. 394) also argued for a flat Earth based on scriptures; however, Diodorus' opinion on the matter is known to us only by a criticism of it by Photius.[24] Severian, Bishop of Gabala (d. 408), wrote: "The earth is flat and the sun does not pass under it in the night, but travels through the northern parts as if hidden by a wall".[25] The Egyptian monk Cosmas Indicopleustes (547) in his Topographia Christiana, where the Covenant Ark was meant to represent the whole universe, argued on theological grounds that the Earth was flat, a parallelogram enclosed by four oceans." The creationism proponents today are the equivalent of the flat Earth proponents of the middle ages. They too would have been bolstered by the fact that most people thought the Earth was flat, the fact that most people were ignorant peasants be damned! 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.