Evolution is Just Junk Science

July 3, 2007

In article <A5idnfhzXpow_BfbnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V."

<spam@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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

Does Stephen Gould believe that evolution is an imperfect fact?

July 3, 2007

In article <X46dnUEQvdYw_xfbnZ2dnUVZ_tOmnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V."

<spam@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

According to the Nov/2004 issue of National Geographic, evolution

is a theory.

July 3, 2007

Jason wrote:

> 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.

How much more grief do you think science would have to put

up with if that actually happened? Do you really want a

school children coming home and telling their parents that

they heard a clear synopsis of I.D in science class, and it

is obvious crap? I doubt very much that you would like the

result if science and your religion were evaluated, side by

side in science class. This is a fight best not fought in

the classroom, if you want your religious version of

creation to survive even another generation. The light of

clear reason will not treat it gently.

> 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.

You act like children have no exposure to the creation myth

and its many apologies, now. That is certainly not the case

for any children raised by fundamentalist parents. You seem

to think that having this hypothesis of origins treated to

the same scrutiny that any other hypothesis is given in

science class will somehow give it better treatment than it

is getting outside science class, now. I hope you get your

wish, and I.D. can get the honest and fair debunking it so

richly deserves, instead of being protected, outside the

public educational process, as is happening now.

> In my opinion, that is the MAIN reason that they

> rush to court to stop any school systems from teaching ID.

I see. But, then, you believe all sorts of silly things

that you cannot defend except to remind us that you are

entitled to your opinions. You are certainly free to

believe any damn fool things that please you.

Carry on.

> 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.

July 3, 2007

Jason wrote:

> Those species are not doing a good job eating mosquitoes. They had to

> spray some areas to kill mosquitoes.

Perhaps the a creator god (not that you would recognize it)

actually loves mosquitoes and prefers them to all other life

forms. And that creator made men and other mammals just top

act as the food source for its preferred life forms.

Gee, isn't making up god hypotheticals fun?

July 3, 2007

On 3 Jul., 19:44, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1183472999.969640.255...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, "Bob

snip

>

> An alternative theory is that God created all of the transitional forms.- Skjul tekst i anf

July 3, 2007

On Jul 3, 10:35 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <5euviqF3a5qs...@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"

>

> <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote:

> > "Jason" <J...@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.

<sigh> You're lying again. No matter how many times we explain that

there is no science in creation science, you just don't get it.

Creation science is religion in disguise, and it has no place in our

schools.

> 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.

"Cover story" - wow, you are deluded. It's not a "cover story", it's

the truth. We don't want religious fanatics teaching lies to our

children in school. If you want to teach your children lies, you are

welcome to do it at home or in private religious schools.

- Bob T.

>

> Jason

July 3, 2007

On Jul 3, 10:44 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1183472999.969640.255...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, "Bob

>

> T." <b...@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.

That is the basic theory of theistic evolution that I have presented

to you several times. The physical evidence for evolution in the

history of life on this planet is overwhelming. We know that humans

share a common ancestor with chimpanzees a few millions years ago.

The genetic evidence, the physical evidence of our bodies, and the

fossil evidence all agree that humans are members of the ape family.

However, science cannot deny the possibility that God has been

carefully nurturing the primates encouraging the development of

creatures that have true intelligence. In this view, Adam and Eve

represent our first "truly human" ancestors, the ones who first became

aware of God.

There is no need to deny God or Jesus to accept evolution as the well-

founded scientific fast that it is. All you have to do is realize

that the Bible was written by fallible people who lived thousands of

years ago. Of course they didn't understand how God created us. If

He had explained that He created us through genetics they would not

have understood a word of it.

Worldwide, a majority of educated Christians believe in something like

the theory of "theistic evolution" that I have outlined above. Unlike

you, most Christians see fit to deny the physical evidence in order to

believe in God. They assume that God is a mystery, and that they will

never really understand His ways. They do, however, assume that the

physical evidence is honest - that the evidence of millions of fossils

agree with the geological and genetic evidence shows that we humans

evolved naturally over a very long time from single-celled creatures.

They feel no need to read Genesis literally, and they do not doubt

their faith in Jesus.

- Bob T.

July 3, 2007

"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:Jason-0307071047450001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> In article <A5idnfhzXpow_BfbnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V."

> <spam@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

>> 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

>

> Does Stephen Gould believe that evolution is an imperfect fact?

Yes.

July 3, 2007

"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:Jason-0307071044250001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> 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.

Oh, that is logical. God kept at it until he got it right. You have to

wonder just how powerful is this Christian god, if he can't do anything

right the first time.

July 3, 2007

"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:Jason-0307071039110001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> 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.

Yep, grade A moron :-))).

July 3, 2007

Jason wrote:

>

> 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.

Your opinion, as usual, is not based on reality.

Creationism is not a science, it is a religious dogma. It has no

place in public schools or in any science class.

ID is not a science, it is a religious dogma. It has no place in

public schools or in any science class.

Is there some simpler way I can explain it so that you will

understand?

--

Dave

"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.

July 3, 2007

Jason wrote:

> I

> An alternative theory is that God created all of the transitional forms.

That is not a theory, it is religious dogma. There is no

alternative to evolution.

--

Dave

"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.

July 3, 2007

Jason wrote:

> In article <A5idnfhzXpow_BfbnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V."

> <spam@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

>>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

>

> Does Stephen Gould believe....

Read the dam article. Evolution is a fact.

--

Dave

"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.

July 3, 2007

Jason wrote:

> In article <X46dnUEQvdYw_xfbnZ2dnUVZ_tOmnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V."

> <spam@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

>>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.

>

> According to......

Evolution is a fact. Get over it.

--

Dave

"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.

July 3, 2007

In alt.atheism On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 10:35:25 -0700, Jason@nospam.com

(Jason) let us all know that:

>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 just shows how stupid you are.

Once again: would you allow teachers to teach the controversy

about flat-earth/spheroid earth?

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"

July 3, 2007

In alt.atheism On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 10:51:19 -0700, Jason@nospam.com

(Jason) let us all know that:

>In article <X46dnUEQvdYw_xfbnZ2dnUVZ_tOmnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V."

><spam@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

>> 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.

>

>According to the Nov/2004 issue of National Geographic, evolution

>is a theory.

So's gravity.

Why do you keep forgetting that? Why are you so dishonest?

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"

July 3, 2007

In alt.atheism On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 10:37:41 -0700, Jason@nospam.com

(Jason) let us all know that:

>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.

>And you want your pet theory taught without giving equal time to

>Intelligent Design

ID = flat-earth.

Evolution = fact.

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"

July 3, 2007

In article <1183487937.178514.180440@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Bob

T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote:

> On Jul 3, 10:44 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <1183472999.969640.255...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, "Bob

> >

> > T." <b...@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.

>

> That is the basic theory of theistic evolution that I have presented

> to you several times. The physical evidence for evolution in the

> history of life on this planet is overwhelming. We know that humans

> share a common ancestor with chimpanzees a few millions years ago.

> The genetic evidence, the physical evidence of our bodies, and the

> fossil evidence all agree that humans are members of the ape family.

> However, science cannot deny the possibility that God has been

> carefully nurturing the primates encouraging the development of

> creatures that have true intelligence. In this view, Adam and Eve

> represent our first "truly human" ancestors, the ones who first became

> aware of God.

>

> There is no need to deny God or Jesus to accept evolution as the well-

> founded scientific fast that it is. All you have to do is realize

> that the Bible was written by fallible people who lived thousands of

> years ago. Of course they didn't understand how God created us. If

> He had explained that He created us through genetics they would not

> have understood a word of it.

>

> Worldwide, a majority of educated Christians believe in something like

> the theory of "theistic evolution" that I have outlined above. Unlike

> you, most Christians see fit to deny the physical evidence in order to

> believe in God. They assume that God is a mystery, and that they will

> never really understand His ways. They do, however, assume that the

> physical evidence is honest - that the evidence of millions of fossils

> agree with the geological and genetic evidence shows that we humans

> evolved naturally over a very long time from single-celled creatures.

> They feel no need to read Genesis literally, and they do not doubt

> their faith in Jesus.

>

> - Bob T.

Bob,

Thanks for your post. Yes, many Christians believe in thestic evolution. I

visited a Christian website and found out that some of the Christians now

use the terms macro-evolution and micro-evolution. They accept and support

micro-evolution and do not support macro-evolution. Is it your opinion

that micro-evolution is similar to theistic evolution?

Jason

July 3, 2007

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 10:39:11 -0700, Jason wrote:

> 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.

Suuure you did.

--

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

July 3, 2007

"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:Jason-0307071304140001@66-52-22-78.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> In article <1183487937.178514.180440@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Bob

> T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote:

>

>> On Jul 3, 10:44 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>> > In article <1183472999.969640.255...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,

>> > "Bob

>> >

>> > T." <b...@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.

>>

>> That is the basic theory of theistic evolution that I have presented

>> to you several times. The physical evidence for evolution in the

>> history of life on this planet is overwhelming. We know that humans

>> share a common ancestor with chimpanzees a few millions years ago.

>> The genetic evidence, the physical evidence of our bodies, and the

>> fossil evidence all agree that humans are members of the ape family.

>> However, science cannot deny the possibility that God has been

>> carefully nurturing the primates encouraging the development of

>> creatures that have true intelligence. In this view, Adam and Eve

>> represent our first "truly human" ancestors, the ones who first became

>> aware of God.

>>

>> There is no need to deny God or Jesus to accept evolution as the well-

>> founded scientific fast that it is. All you have to do is realize

>> that the Bible was written by fallible people who lived thousands of

>> years ago. Of course they didn't understand how God created us. If

>> He had explained that He created us through genetics they would not

>> have understood a word of it.

>>

>> Worldwide, a majority of educated Christians believe in something like

>> the theory of "theistic evolution" that I have outlined above. Unlike

>> you, most Christians see fit to deny the physical evidence in order to

>> believe in God. They assume that God is a mystery, and that they will

>> never really understand His ways. They do, however, assume that the

>> physical evidence is honest - that the evidence of millions of fossils

>> agree with the geological and genetic evidence shows that we humans

>> evolved naturally over a very long time from single-celled creatures.

>> They feel no need to read Genesis literally, and they do not doubt

>> their faith in Jesus.

>>

>> - Bob T.

>

> Bob,

> Thanks for your post. Yes, many Christians believe in thestic evolution. I

> visited a Christian website and found out that some of the Christians now

> use the terms macro-evolution and micro-evolution. They accept and support

> micro-evolution and do not support macro-evolution. Is it your opinion

> that micro-evolution is similar to theistic evolution?

> Jason

Not at all Jason. Theistic evolution is evolution, period. Macro and micro

are not separate in TE. I don't know how limited your research is but you

need to go back to Google.

July 3, 2007

On Jul 3, 1:04 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1183487937.178514.180...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Bob

>

> T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:

> > On Jul 3, 10:44 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > In article <1183472999.969640.255...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, "Bob

>

> > > T." <b...@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.

>

> > That is the basic theory of theistic evolution that I have presented

> > to you several times. The physical evidence for evolution in the

> > history of life on this planet is overwhelming. We know that humans

> > share a common ancestor with chimpanzees a few millions years ago.

> > The genetic evidence, the physical evidence of our bodies, and the

> > fossil evidence all agree that humans are members of the ape family.

> > However, science cannot deny the possibility that God has been

> > carefully nurturing the primates encouraging the development of

> > creatures that have true intelligence. In this view, Adam and Eve

> > represent our first "truly human" ancestors, the ones who first became

> > aware of God.

>

> > There is no need to deny God or Jesus to accept evolution as the well-

> > founded scientific fast that it is. All you have to do is realize

> > that the Bible was written by fallible people who lived thousands of

> > years ago. Of course they didn't understand how God created us. If

> > He had explained that He created us through genetics they would not

> > have understood a word of it.

>

> > Worldwide, a majority of educated Christians believe in something like

> > the theory of "theistic evolution" that I have outlined above. Unlike

> > you, most Christians see fit to deny the physical evidence in order to

> > believe in God. They assume that God is a mystery, and that they will

> > never really understand His ways. They do, however, assume that the

> > physical evidence is honest - that the evidence of millions of fossils

> > agree with the geological and genetic evidence shows that we humans

> > evolved naturally over a very long time from single-celled creatures.

> > They feel no need to read Genesis literally, and they do not doubt

> > their faith in Jesus.

>

> > - Bob T.

>

> Bob,

> Thanks for your post. Yes, many Christians believe in thestic evolution. I

> visited a Christian website and found out that some of the Christians now

> use the terms macro-evolution and micro-evolution. They accept and support

> micro-evolution and do not support macro-evolution. Is it your opinion

> that micro-evolution is similar to theistic evolution?

No, theistic evolution believes that both micro-evolution and macro-

evolution have occurred as indicated in the fossil record. One might

guess that God would be more likely to be involved in the big changes

than the small ones, but who could really say how He might choose to

operate? Perhaps He likes to make tiny changes in the genetic code

that have subtle effects many generations later.

Here is an interesting interview with a physicist who has a view that

is neither Christian nor atheist:

(from today's Salon.com)

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/07/03/paul_davies/

- Bob T.

> Jason- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

July 3, 2007

In article <1183487227.346475.282000@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Bob

T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote:

> > 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.

>

> "Cover story" - wow, you are deluded. It's not a "cover story", it's

> the truth. We don't want religious fanatics teaching lies to our

> children in school. If you want to teach your children lies, you are

> welcome to do it at home or in private religious schools.

>

> - Bob T.

Bob,

Please read the following report. If the lawyers that worked for the

evolutionists in the Dover case really were concerned about children

learning false information, they would file lawsuits against school

systems that taught historical revisionism instead of historical facts.

This is a report about historical revisionism:

"What Are Some Examples of Historical Revisionism?"

source: Probe Ministries website

Dear Kerby,

I have heard you discuss the topic of historical revisionism on radio. I

told my son about this, and he doesn't believe it. Do you have some

examples of how our history has been revised from the original?

Many historians have wanted to secularize our founders. Take this quote

from W.E. Woodward. He wrote that "The name of Jesus Christ is not

mentioned even once in the vast collection of Washington's published

letters."{1}

Anyone who has read some of Washington's writing knows he mentions God and

divine providence. But it isn't too difficult to also find times in which

he mentions Jesus Christ. For example, when George Washington wrote to the

Delaware Indian Chiefs (June 12, 1779) he said: "You do well to wish to

learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus

Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are.

Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this wise

intention."{2}

Other examples are also available. For example, a well-worn, handwritten

prayer book found among Washington's personal writings after his death had

the name "Jesus Christ" used sixteen times. {3}

Often historical revisionism is done by selective omission. Consider this

famous quote from a book on American history by Kenneth Davis.{4} In 1775,

Patrick Henry asked, "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased

at the price of chains and slavery?" Davis then picks up the quote again

with the final statement by Patrick Henry: "I know not what course others

may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death."

Technically the quote is correct, but what is missing is very important.

The entire quote should read: "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be

purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I

know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or

give me death."

Davis does the same thing when he cites the Mayflower Compact. "We whose

names are under-written . . . do by these presents solemnly and mutually

in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine our selves

together into a civil body politick, for our better ordering and

preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid."

Some important points are omitted. The section should read: "We whose

names are under-written having undertaken, for the glory of God, and

advancement of the Christian faith and honor of our king and country, a

voyage to the first colonie in the Northern parts of Virginia do by these

presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one another,

covenant and combine our selves together into a civil body politick, for

our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends

aforesaid."

Some of the best documented cases of historical revision were provided by

the work of Paul Vitz and funded by the U.S. Department of Education. He

notes that "One social studies book has thirty pages on the Pilgrims,

including the first Thanksgiving. But there is not one word (or image)

that referred to religion as even a part of the Pilgrims' life." {6}

Another textbook said that "Pilgrims are people who take long trips." They

were described entirely without reference to religion. One reference said

the Pilgrims "wanted to give thanks for all they had" but never mentioned

that it was God to whom they wanted to give thanks.{7}

Historical revisionism is a sad fact of American education today. Students

are not getting the whole story, and often references to religion and

Christianity are left out.

Kerby Anderson

Probe Ministries

Notes

1. W.E. Woodward, George Washington: The Image and the Man (New York: Boni

and Liverlight, 1926), 142.

2. George Washington, The Writings of George Washington (Washington, DC:

Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XV, 55.

3. Manuscript Prayer-Book Written by George Washington (Philadelphia, 1891).

4. Kenneth C. Davis, Don't Know Much About History (New York: Avon Books,

1990), 61.

5. Davis, 21.

6. Paul Vitz, Censorship: Evidence of Bias in Our Children's Textbooks

(Michigan: Servant Books, 1986), 3.

7. Vitz, 18-19.

Sign In

Evolution is Just Junk Science

Recommended Posts

Guest Jason

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Guest Jason

Guest John Popelish

Guest John Popelish

Guest gudloos@yahoo.com

Guest Bob T.

Guest Bob T.

Guest Ralph

Guest Ralph

Guest Ralph

Guest David V.

Guest David V.

Guest David V.

Guest David V.

Guest Don Kresch

Guest Don Kresch

Guest Don Kresch

Guest Jason

Guest Frank Mayhar

Guest Ralph

Guest Bob T.

Guest Jason

Guest Ralph

Guest Jason

Guest Ralph

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity

Support