Guest Martin Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 3, 2:15 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1183442205.912916.165...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@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: > > > > 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? > > Yes--I went to school with black people, played on sports teams with black > people and worked with black people. I guess they can consider themselves lucky you never lynched them. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 3, 3:22 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1183443132.679600.36...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmar...@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? > Probably selective breeding--they are still dogs. But they are not the same as dogs from thousands of years ago. That's the point. Martin Quote
Guest John Baker Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:06:46 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >In article <1183409470.998394.202050@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, "Bob >T." <bob@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 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. 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. Please tell me >the name of the animal that the Hyracotherium evolved from? Please tell me the name of your direct ancestor who lived 5,000 years ago. >Jason > 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. Much to my amazement, I find that there are "scientists" to this day who claim that the Earth is really flat and that there is a "conspiracy" covering up this fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#The_Flat_Earth_Society "The last known group of Flat Earth proponents, the Flat Earth Society, kept the concept alive and at one time claimed a few thousand followers. The society declined in the 1990s following a fire at its headquarters in California and the death of its last president, Charles K. Johnson, in 2001.[66] In 2004, a new Flat Earth Society (not directly connected to Charles K. Johnson's) was founded and currently maintains the Flat Earth Society website and forum. [ http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/ ] "William Carpenter (1830-1896) maintained that "There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet - notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's 'convexity.'"[67] Carpenter also presented aeronautic testimony that even at the great observable heights no curvature of the earth is observed, and fits with the idea of a flat-earth, since it is the nature of level surfaces to rise to a level with the human eye. "English scientist Samuel Rowbotham (1816-1885), writing under the pseudonym "Parallax," published results of many experiments which tested the curvatures of water over lakes. He also produced studies which purported to show the effects of ships disappearing into the horizon can be explained by the laws of perspective in relation to the human eye.[68] "Flat-Earth president Charles K. Johnson, who spent years examining the studies of flat and round earth theories, produced supposed evidence of a conspiracy against flat-earth: "The idea of a spinning globe is only a conspiracy of error that Moses, Columbus, and FDR all fought..." His article was published in Science Digest, 1980, and has since achieved much controversy. The magazine, Science Digest, goes on to state, "If it is a sphere, the surface of a large body of water must be curved. The Johnsons have checked the surfaces of Lake Tahoe and the Salton Sea (a shallow salt lake in southern California near the Mexican border) without detecting any curvature."[69]" Can you provide a single reason why your "theory" should be taught in class and not theirs? Martin Quote
Guest John Baker Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 22:33:13 -0700, cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote: >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? :-) It is indeed, and I confess I'm out of patience with our willfully ignorant "friend". A five year old could have learned something from this thread by now, but apparently not Jason. It would seem that he's unwilling (or perhaps geniunely unable) to consider anything that doesn't agree with his preconceived notions. > >> >>>> >>>>> 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 gudloos@yahoo.com Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On 2 Jul., 19:41, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:Jason-0207071041180001@66-52-22-22.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... snip > >> The point that is often overlooked is that even if he had been > >> absolutley in error the Church's reasons for attacking him were > >> invalid, i.e. objective evidence should not be judged on the basis of > >> whether or not it contradicts something a book says. Furthermore the > >> Church has still not admitted that it does not have the right to judge > >> such cases only that errors were made in that particular case. > > > Would you agree or disagee that the main reason they attacked Galileo was > > because they did not want any competition? > > Disagree.- More importantly it is in no way analogous to modern biologists wanting to keep creationism out of public schools, which is clearly the silly point Jason the liar is trying to make. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On 2 Jul., 19:45, 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. > > > Martin > > In order for evolution to happen the way that you stated it happened, a > cell colony would have to remain a cell colony before the next step of > evolution would take place--true or false? > > Jason- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On 2 Jul., 20:06, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <b1bi839a5v5k9fbibdphar5f05dorvp...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > snip > One of main criticisms of evolution theory is not from any reputable biologist. snip of usual idiocy. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On 2 Jul., 20:41, "Dan Drake" <d...@dandrake.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 11:06:25 UTC, gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > >... > > > The point that is often overlooked is that even if [Galileo] had been > > absolutley in error the Church's reasons for attacking him were > > invalid, i.e. objective evidence should not be judged on the basis of > > whether or not it contradicts something a book says. Furthermore the > > Church has still not admitted that it does not have the right to judge > > such cases only that errors were made in that particular case. > > The latter, is I think, pretty much the same point, stated more baldly, > that the Jesuit George Coyne made in criticism of the official apology in > the 90s. But then, Jesuits gave up defending the Galileo action long > before the 90s. > > This all gets one into some deep and dirty waters; fortunately, they're > off topic for this thread, but a Google on "error has no rights", with the > quote marks, shows a problem of long standing. At least, the idea and its > proper application (if any) are now _controversial_ within the Church. > > -- > Dan Drake > d...@dandrake.comhttp://www.dandrake.com/ > porlockjr.blogspot.com Unless they drop the basic source of such evil (the claim that they have authority from god), they are bound to repeat it if they ever gain secular authority again. Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 "johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news: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? Deary me. This concept certainly went downhill -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> snipo > > I see it different. I see evolutionists that that rush to court to stop > any school systems from teaching Intelligent Design. They do not want any > competition. Why do you keep telling this lie? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In alt.atheism On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:12:45 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >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 >> >I see creation science and ID as the truth and see Flat Earth Theory as a >lie. Ah, so it's only YOUR PET IDEAS that should be given equal time. Hypocrite. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest John Baker Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:12:45 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >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. During the Middle Ages, the Church saw flat earth "theory" as the truth, and most of the populace agreed. Never mind that even at that time, educated people had known the world is round for well over a thousand years, just as educated people today know that common descent is true. Like the creationists/IDers today, the flat-earthers were utterly convinced that they were right and the people who actually knew the truth were wrong. We know how that turned out, don't we? >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. "Evolutionists" wish that creationists would stop lying through their teeth trying to circumvent the Antiestablishment Clause too, Jason. > Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in snip > > The good news is that we still have millions of species of plants and > animals. I wish that mosquitoes would become extinct. And gee, guess what would have happened to all the other species that eat them? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Bob T. Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 2, 9:37 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 > > 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. I wish I had access to your bathroom mirror, so I could write "Evolution takes a long time" on it. Without that reminder, you seem to forget that obvious fact every day. Cell colonies _did_ evolve into multi-celled life - humans, cats, walruses and lobsters are all the result of cell colonies evolving into multi-celled life. - Bob T. Quote
Guest Bob T. Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 2, 11:09 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. > > > 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. No, they aren't. Creationism is a lie. - Bob T. > > - Show quoted text - Quote
Guest David V. Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Jason wrote: > "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 Evolution is a fact. Get over it. In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was." Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered. Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution. - Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981 -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest David V. Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Martin wrote: > 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. Evolution is a fact. It happened, and is happening now. That is not a theory, that's a fact. The explanation of how evolution happened is a theory, but you have to remember that anti-evolutionists the word "theory" ALWAYS means a "guess". They purposely, and dishonestly, use the wrong meaning of the word. -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest Frank Mayhar Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:02:39 -0700, Jason wrote: > The evolution section of the biology class was a waste of time. Flunked, did you? -- Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/ Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/ http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/ http://www.zazzle.com/fmayhar Quote
Guest ebataitis Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Jason wrote: > (snip) > When I find evidence of a life form not progressing from step 1 to step 4 > as is predicted by evolution theory--I see that as evidence of creation > science. In this case, single celled life forms formed into a cell colony. > However, instead of evolving into a multicelled life form (step 4), the > cell colony changed back into single cells that were not part of a colony. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siphonophora Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In article <5euviqF3a5qs7U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> > > snipo > > > > I see it different. I see evolutionists that that rush to court to stop > > any school systems from teaching Intelligent Design. They do not want any > > competition. > > Why do you keep telling this lie? It's my opinion that if evolutionists honestly believed that childen would laugh at creation science and would understand that evolution made much more sense than creation science--that they would not ever be concerned when many school systems started teaching intelligent design. That is NOT the case. Instead, the evidence is that they are really worried that MANY students would realize that creation science made much more sense than macro evolution theory. In my opinion, that is the MAIN reason that they rush to court to stop any school systems from teaching ID. The cover story is that they are protecting children from learning false information instead of science. The cover story is working well since several different posters have told me the cover story. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In article <vtik83pmktiob0q44cc0pjsdocg4fd6h61@4ax.com>, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > In alt.atheism On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:12:45 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > (Jason) let us all know that: > > >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 > >> > > >I see creation science and ID as the truth and see Flat Earth Theory as a > >lie. > > Ah, so it's only YOUR PET IDEAS that should be given equal > time. Hypocrite. > > > 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" And you want your pet theory taught without giving equal time to Intelligent Design--does that mean that you are also a hypocrite? Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In article <pan.2007.07.03.17.04.58@exit.com>, Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com> wrote: > On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:02:39 -0700, Jason wrote: > > The evolution section of the biology class was a waste of time. > > Flunked, did you? I received an A grade. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In article <5ev4bnF3amntfU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in > > snip > > > > The good news is that we still have millions of species of plants and > > animals. I wish that mosquitoes would become extinct. > > And gee, guess what would have happened to all the other species that eat > them? Those species are not doing a good job eating mosquitoes. They had to spray some areas to kill mosquitoes. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In article <1183472999.969640.255720@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, "Bob T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > On Jul 2, 9:37 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 > > > > 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. > > I wish I had access to your bathroom mirror, so I could write > "Evolution takes a long time" on it. Without that reminder, you seem > to forget that obvious fact every day. > > Cell colonies _did_ evolve into multi-celled life - humans, cats, > walruses and lobsters are all the result of cell colonies evolving > into multi-celled life. > > - Bob T. An alternative theory is that God created all of the transitional forms. 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.