Guest Jason Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In article <1183494210.612311.81520@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Bob T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > 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. Bob, Thanks--I'll visit the site. Jason Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0207071806470001@66-52-22-17.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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? > Jason Jason, I'm interested in how you look at the evidence for horse evolution and believe that it supports creation science. Please do not avoid the question, change it to something you can answer or alter it in any form. How is the horse evolution sequence evidence for creation science? Please be specific in your answer. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0207072302390001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <mdmj83phkn2ick9iivtuffc3tff4s430ti@4ax.com>, John Baker > <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: > >> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 00:45:20 -0000, Martin Phipps >> <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >On Jul 3, 1:45 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> In article <1183367570.892102.301...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >> >> Martin >> >> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > On Jul 2, 12:17 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > > In article <rPGdnUEMCJsZ5BXbnZ2dnUVZ_h_in...@comcast.com>, John > Popelish >> >> > > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: >> >> > > > Jason wrote: >> >> > > > > In article <DtidnbMBPbT77hXbnZ2dnUVZ_t3in...@sti.net>, "David >> >> > > > > V." >> >> > > > > <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > > > >> Jason wrote: >> >> > > > >>> Question for group: Martin told me that single animal cells >> >> > > > >>> evolved into animal cell colonies. If that is true, how do >> >> > > > >>> you >> >> > > > >>> explain this: >> >> >> >> > > > >>> Single-celled Transformers: Marine Phytoplankton Changes >> >> > > > >>> Form >> >> > > > >>> To Protect Itself >> >> > > > >> It's called evolution, something you refuse to understand. >> >> >> >> > > > > or reverse evolution >> >> >> >> > > > What is your working definition of "reverse evolution"? >> >> >> >> > > an example: >> >> > > cell colony reverse evolving into single cells >> >> >> >> > > This is the list that Martin posted--please notice that (as per > evolution) >> >> > > a single cell evolving into a cell colony. The article that I >> >> > > posted >> >> > > provided evidence of a cell colony reverse evolving into single >> >> > > cells. >> >> >> >> > Not at all, Jason. That's like saying that a frog de-evolves back >> >> > into a fish every time it goes for a swim. >> > >> >> In order for evolution to happen the way that you stated it happened, >> >> a >> >> cell colony would have to remain a cell colony before the next step of >> >> evolution would take place--true or false? >> > >> >False. Evolution is about diversity, not upward progress. You >> >learned nothing in your biology class in college. >> >> I seriously doubt that Jason actually went to college. >> >> >> > >> >Martin > > The evolution section of the biology class was a waste of time. Any science education for you was a waste of time. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0207072122210001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1183427374.460244.45350@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jul 3, 4:32 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <f6bkdv$ja...@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>, >> > c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote: >> > > In article <1183367816.929104.115...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com> >> > > Martin >> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> writes: >> > > > How does "de-evolution" fit in with "intelligent design"? >> > > > Does his god make mistakes and have to go back? XD >> > >> > > Well, given that most paleontologists agree that, as a crude >> > > estimate, over 99% of all species have gone extinct, I'd >> > > say that the Intelligent Desinger has a horrible recall rate. >> > >> > But millions of species have NOT gone extinct >> >> But billions have. >> >> > --that is a very good track record. >> >> No, it isn't. >> >> Martin > > It's a poor track record for macro evolution It's an even worse track record for the 'intelligent designer'! Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0207071812350001@66-52-22-17.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <f6boja$h19$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>, > cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote: > >> In article <Jason-0207071332240001@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) writes: >> > In article <f6bkdv$ja5$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>, >> > cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote: >> > >> > > In article <1183367816.929104.115300@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com> >> > > Martin >> > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> writes: >> > > > On Jul 2, 12:41 pm, John Popelish <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: >> > > > > Jason wrote: >> > > > > > John Popelish >> > > > > > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: >> > > > > >> Jason wrote: >> > > > > ... >> > > > > >>> or reverse evolution >> > > > > >> What is your working definition of "reverse evolution"? >> > > > > >> > > > > > an example: >> > > > > > cell colony reverse evolving into single cells >> > > > > >> > > > > You are using the term reverse evolution to describe the >> > > > > example of reverse evolution. That is pretty circular. >> > > > > >> > > > > Can you summarize a definition without giving an example >> > > > > labeled as reverse evolution. I see nothing but ordinary >> > > > > forward time evolution in your example, regardless of you >> > > > > adding the label "reverse evolution" to it. >> > > > > >> > > > > > This is the list that Martin posted--please notice that (as per >> > evolution) >> > > > > > a single cell evolving into a cell colony. The article that I >> > > > > > posted >> > > > > > provided evidence of a cell colony reverse evolving into > single cells. >> > > > > >> > > > > Any change caused by mutation in the genome of a reproducing >> > > > > population, that spreads through that population by natural >> > > > > selection, is evolution. The nature of the change has no >> > > > > bearing on that simple statement. In other words, evolution >> > > > > has no goal or direction of complexity or any other aspect. >> > > > > It is the process that changes life forms as time passes. >> > > > > >> > > > > >>>>> STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) >> > > > > >>>>> STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of >> > > > > >>>>> sexual >> > > > > >>>>> reproduction) >> > > > > >>>>> STEP 3 Animal cell colony (with cells depending upon each > other for >> > > > > >>>>> survival) >> > > > > >>>>> STEP 4 Multicelled animal (with cells differentiated > according to >> > > > > >>>>> function) >> > > > > >>>>> STEP 5 Vertibrates (example: fish) >> > > > > >>>>> STEP 6 Amphibians (example: frog) >> > > > > >>>>> STEP 7 Reptiles (example: lizard) >> > > > > >>>>> STEP 8 Mammals (example: mouse) >> > > > > >>>>> STEP 9 Primates (example: chimpanzee) >> > > > > >>>>> STEP 10 Man (examples: me and you) >> > > > > >> > > > > Those are some of the major changes that took place in the >> > > > > family line ending with you and me. Other changes took >> > > > > place in other lines. Lines that lead to present day >> > > > > parasitic forms often have lots of simplification and loss >> > > > > of function, because their host provides such a special and >> > > > > consistent environment that abilities that were useful to >> > > > > their non parasitic forbears have little use for them. But >> > > > > losing something you don't need is not reverse evolution, >> > > > > but the continuation of evolution, just as much as gaining >> > > > > something new that is useful that your forbears didn't need >> > > > > because they had a different environment, is continuing >> > > > > evolution. >> > > > > >> > > > > Evolution is the process that changes living forms during >> > > > > the passage of time and circumstance. Sometimes and >> > > > > somewheres, larger and more complicated is better for >> > > > > survival, and sometimes and somewheres, smaller and simpler >> > > > > is better for survival. And sometimes and somewheres, doing >> > > > > either is better and a species gives rise to both a larger >> > > > > and more complicated variant, and a smaller and simpler >> > > > > variant, that each take advantage of different niches. >> > > > > >> > > > > I understand why this is difficult for you. When you start >> > > > > out with the preconceived notion that all things are >> > > > > preplanned and carefully designed, and everything is >> > > > > intentional and purposeful, it is very strange to let go of >> > > > > the notions of planning, intention, design and purpose and >> > > > > really try to imagine things happening for no other reason >> > > > > than because they can happen. >> > > > >> > > > Exactly! How does "de-evolution" fit in with "intelligent design"? >> > > > Does his god make mistakes and have to go back? XD >> > > >> > > >> > > Well, given that most paleontologists agree that, as a crude >> > > estimate, over 99% of all species have gone extinct, I'd >> > > say that the Intelligent Desinger has a horrible recall rate. >> > > >> > > >> > > -- cary >> > >> > But millions of species have NOT gone extinct--that is a very good > track record. >> >> More than 99 out of every 100 is not a good track record at all. >> Would you hire a programmer whose code worked one time in a hundred? >> >> >> > God left mankind in charge of the world--in many cases--mankind is to >> > blame for the extinctions. >> >> Since the vast majority of all species were extinct long before >> we evolved, that's not really the case. >> >> At the end of the Permian, an estimated 70% of all land >> species and 96% of all marine species vanished, for >> unknown reasons. >> >> We have had nothing like such an effect. >> >> >> -- cary > > The good news is that we still have millions of species of plants and > animals. I wish that mosquitoes would become extinct. Notice folks how Jason carefully moves away from the topic of discussion. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0207072300300001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <MY2dnSWMf5V_ShTbnZ2dnUVZ_vjinZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." > <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > >> > If the cell colony had evolved into a multicelled life >> > form--we all would have seen these words on the cover of >> > National Geographic magazine: >> > >> > EVOLUTION FINALLY PROVED TO BE A FACT >> >> Do you know why you'll never see those words? Evolution has been >> proven as a fact for some time now. The only objections are >> religious. > > Evolution is a theory Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0207072309520001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1183442035.915476.51890@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jul 3, 12:46 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1183429476.650037.52...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >> > Martin >> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > On Jul 3, 9:29 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > > In article <buvi83phng0f6hr6893ilg5v6cvdsbb...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > > > > On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 11:50:30 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> > > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> > > > > <Jason-0207071150300...@66-52-22-22.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> > > > > >In article <rtOdndKu0bu3oRTbnZ2dnUVZ_sudn...@sti.net>, "David >> > > > > >V." >> > > > > ><s...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > > > >> Jason wrote: >> > > > > >> > \ Would you agree or disagee that the main reason they >> > > > > >> > attacked Galileo was because they did not want any >> > > > > >> > competition? >> > >> > > > > >> Is that the reason you attack evolution? >> > >> > > > > >No--I believe that both evolution and ID should be taught. It's >> > > > > >my >> > opinion >> > > > > >(and I could be wrong) that if both evolution and ID was >> > taught--that most >> > > > > >of the children would agree that ID made more sense than >> > > > > >evolution. >> > >> > > > > Particularly when the teacher explains that ID is totally > unsupported by >> > > > > any scientific evidence and was invented by religious zealots who >> > > > > want >> > > > > to get around the First Amendment. Furthermore, these zealots >> > > > > have >> > > > > written many books full of lies to try to con children into >> > > > > believing >> > > > > these religious doctrines. >> > >> > > > > >Believe it or not, most of the advocates of ID support Natural > Selection. >> > > > > >They do not support common descent or abiogenesis. >> > >> > > > > You are full of lies. >> > >> > > > Teachers have been teaching evolution in the public schools for >> > > > over 35 >> > > > years. Have you wondered how successful those high school teachers >> > > > have >> > > > been? >> > >> > > 35 years, huh? You're 57 so you were 22 back then. So you never >> > > learned about evolution in high school. You obviously should have. >> > >> > I stated in my post--OVER 35 years. >> >> Did you learn about evolution in high school or not? >> >> > > > Answer: Only 12% of Americans believe that humans evolved from >> > > > other >> > > > life-forms without any involvement from a god. >> > > > source: National Geographic Nov/2004 page 6 >> > >> > > According to the 2005 American Community Survey >> > > (See >> > >> > http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-q...) >> > >> > > 16.6% of the American population is over sixty. By your own >> > > admission, these people never learned evolution is high school. The >> > > number of people who know the truth can only go up as people your age >> > > and older pass on. >> >> > As long as the evolutionists are able to prevent the teaching of ID in >> > public high schools, you are correct. However, if children in high >> > school >> > were allowed to learn about Intelligent Design, the statistics would >> > run >> > in our favor. >> >> There is the danger that children could fail to learn the truth, yes. >> That is why we don't want children lied to. Lying is evil, Jason. >> >> > The evolutionists don't want a competing theory to be taught since they >> > know the children would realize that ID makes more sense. >> >> I just told you that lying is evil and yet you just go on lying. You >> are consumate evil, Jason. >> >> > If evolutionists >> > honestly believed the children would see it as a lie--they would not >> > even >> > care whether or not ID was taught in the public schools. >> >> It should be mentioned and laughed at the way it deserves to be >> laughed at. This is not the middle ages, Jason: there should be no >> impediments standing in the way of our children learning the truth >> about how the world really works. >> >> Martin > > The children that are educated in Christian schools that teach creation > science are learning the truth. Millions of Christian parents that teach > creation science to their children are teaching the truth to their > children. No they aren't and hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world agree that is the case. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In article <4fyii.62$yD2.51@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "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. Thanks for your post. Are you stating that those people that support Theistic evolution do not believe that God created mankind but instead believe that God created cells that eventually evolved into mankind? If so, they should just say they support evolution and leave God out of it since their beliefs conflict with the first two chapters of the Bible. Jason Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0207072312460001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1183442128.284710.224670@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jul 3, 12:49 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1183429649.303081.290...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, >> > Martin >> > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > On Jul 3, 9:34 am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> > > > In alt.atheism On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:29:16 -0700, J...@nospam.com >> > > > (Jason) let us all know that: >> > >> > > > >Teachers have been teaching evolution in the public schools for >> > > > >over 35 >> > > > >years. Have you wondered how successful those high school teachers >> > > > >have >> > > > >been? >> > >> > > > They've also been teaching mathematics and that the Earth >> > > > is a >> > > > spheroid. >> > >> > > > >Answer: Only 12% of Americans believe that humans evolved from >> > > > >other >> > > > >life-forms without any involvement from a god. >> > > > >source: National Geographic Nov/2004 page 6 >> > >> > > > >It appears to me that more Americans agree with me than agree with >> > > > >the >> > > > >advocates of evolution. >> > >> > > > So what? >> > >> > > > > It also explains why evolutionists rush to court >> > > > >every time a school system wants to teach intelligent design. >> > >> > > > No it doesn't. >> > >> > > > Jason: would you support the teaching of "Flat-Earth >> > > > Theory" >> > > > in schools. Remember: it's a competing idea. It doesn't matter how >> > > > many people believe it: IT'S A COMPETING IDEA. >> > >> > > The flat Earth theory does get mentioned in schools and is followed >> > > by >> > > laughter. >> >> > If a school system tried to teach the Flat Earth Theory, I would write >> > letters to each member of the school board and ask them to reconsider >> > their decision. >> >> Explain why. Are you afraid that students might come to see that the >> flat Earth theory makes more sense? XD >> >> Martin > > I see creation science and ID as the truth and see Flat Earth Theory as a > lie. However, unlike the evolutionists, I would not rush to court. > Instead, I would write letters to the members of the school board. I wish > that evolutionists would do that instead of rushing to court. Why would you wish that, Jason? If someone is breaking the law you don't beg them to stop, you report them to the proper authorities. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0107072342160001@66-52-22-55.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <lj0ii.23672$C96.6027@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, > bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <4687FFEC.D670BAD6@osu.edu>, Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> >>> In article <468286BD.8080301@osu.edu>, James Burns >> >>> <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>>> So, the ID folks want to establish a church in the US. >> >>>> It doesn't matter to me if you want to deny it; that's >> >>>> what it all comes down to when you peel the rhetoric off. >> >>>> There's been a lot of discussion in this thread about how >> >>>> ID is just wrong factually -- and it is -- but what I find >> >>>> much more disturbing is what the lessons of history show, >> >>>> over and over and over, when someone establishes or even >> >>>> tries to establish a church. >> >>>> >> >>>> You, Jason, may well be willing to accept the human cost >> >>>> involved; I don't know. (Tell me, Jason, how you would >> >>>> feel about those deaths in the USSR if, instead of >> >>>> Stalin, it had been led by Jerry Falwell, establishing >> >>>> a Christian Empire? Would they have been worth the >> >>>> outcome?) I strongly suspect, though, that the 68% >> >>>> poll in Ohio did not talk about all this, though. >> >>>> How much support does your ID crowd really have, >> >>>> for, you know, the big picture <wink, wink>? >> >>> I doubt that ID will ever be taught in the public schoools >> >>> so you have nothing to fear. Even if ID was taught, all of >> >>> the problems you discussed would probably not happen. I have >> >>> never done any research related to the many adults that are >> >>> graduates of Christian high schools. It's my guess that the >> >>> vast majority of them are not guilty of any of those things >> >>> that you mentioned in your post. >> >> The efforts to get Intelligent Design into science classes >> >> is only part of the fundamentalist Christan agenda: to >> >> install their version of Christianity as the state religion >> >> of the US. >> >> >> >> Another part is the "Christian Soldier" movement. When the >> >> chaplain at the United States Air Force Academy complained >> >> to her superiors that cadets were being pressured to become >> >> "saved", that is, fundamentalist Christian, she was transferred >> >> to Japan. She resigned shortly thereafter in protest. >> >> Google "Capt. Melinda Morton". >> >> >> >> I find it very troubling that one religious group is working >> >> to exclude other groups from the military. What are they >> >> going to do with that control? >> >> >> >> The most blatant example I can think of, though, is the >> >> fuss the Christian Right kicked up over the nomination >> >> of Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court. The Democrats were >> >> expected to complain, but the White House knew it could >> >> push it through over their objections. What stopped her >> >> nomination cold was Bush's own right wing saying she >> >> wasn't far enough right wing for them. >> >> >> >> This was the personal lawyer of possibly the most >> >> conservative President ever, but that wasn't enough for >> >> them. I am reminded of the French Revolution, where >> >> those who had originally sent to the guillotine whatever >> >> nobility they could catch were later sent themselves >> >> for not being revolutionary enough. >> >> >> >> The Christian Right are fools, though, (those who want >> >> to make their religion the state religion -- I doubt it's >> >> unanimous). The best way to kill a religion at its >> >> roots is to force it down people's throats using the >> >> power of the state. They are trading the long-term viability >> >> of their religion /as religion/ (instead of public ceremonies) >> >> for a very worldly display of political power. I think >> >> Jesus had a few ripe things to say about people like that. >> >> >> >> Tell me, Jason, where you stand on the Christian Right >> >> agenda to make fundamentalist Christianity the state religion >> >> of the United States. Are you for it or against it? >> >> I solemnly promise that a candid answer from you >> >> could not possibly make me think any less of you. >> >> >> >> Jim Burns >> > >> > We have no desire to force people to become Christians. When the >> > Muslims >> > take over a country, they give people a choice: Become a Muslim or get >> > your head chopped off. >> > >> > Christians don't do it that way. We present the message and if people >> > such >> > as yourself decide to not become Christians, we would not harm you or >> > even >> > threaten your life. >> >> But those who don't face discrimination, repeated exposure to your >> religious dogma and occasionally social ostracism. >> >> Coercion is coercion. Don't think you are any better than Muslims. If >> you had your way you would be no different. >> >> > >> > The answer to your question is that we will never make fundamentialist >> > Christianity the state religion. I would be against any effort to make >> > it >> > the state religion. Even when I lived in the Bible Belt and over 90% of >> > the people were Christians--we did not try to make fundamentalist >> > Christianity the Virginia State Religion. We did not even try to make >> > it >> > the official County Religion. >> >> Why not? Isn't that what you guys want to do? >> >> > >> > You have much more to fear from Muslims than you have to fear from >> > Christians. >> >> Except that Christians are local, and Muslims are far away. The ones >> that are nearby are generally accepting of others because they know what >> it is like to be a minority faith. >> >> On your next vacation, I advise you to visit one of the Muslim >> > Countries to learn the dangers of a religion controlling the >> > government. I >> > heard the testimony of a man that had a job in a Muslim country. He >> > once >> > visited the area of the city where public punishments were done. He was >> > shocked when he saw thieves getting at least one hand chopped off. He >> > even >> > saw them chop off the head of a man that had been found guilty of >> > murder. >> > The crowd was clapping after each of those punishments or murders were >> > performed. >> > >> > You will never see that sort of thing done by Christians. >> >> They just don't have the power yet. If they did, they would hang lots >> of people they didn't like. > > We had the power in the small county that I once lived in. As far as I > know, there were only Christians living in that small Virginia County > located in the Blue Ridge Mountains. One person was murdered in that town. > We did not hang him or harm him in any way. The police arrested him. The > court room was full. I wanted to attend but my parents would not take me. > After the trial, he was placed in prison. I have seen Western movies where > they surrounded the court house and hanged the murderer. We did not do > that. I would imagine that the murderer claimed to be a Christian. Not any atheists in small Virginia towns. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In article <bpal83taih71ub9kiiahs3238r7vhr1d4q@4ax.com>, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > 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" I am not being dishonest. Were the editors and writers of the article in National Geographic being dishonest when they used the term "the theory of evolution". I challenge you to google "theory of evolution". You will receive lots of hits. Even my dictionary refers to evolution as a theory. Jason Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0107071917380001@66-52-22-111.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > Should Only Naturalistic Explanations > Be Allowed in Our Science Classrooms? Of course. How could you have anything other than naturalistic explanations and still have science? The answer is that you can't. That my little fundie buddy, is exactly why creationism and all of its forms should not be in a science classroom. I couldn't have said it better myself. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In article <dvyii.76$yD2.31@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0107072342160001@66-52-22-55.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <lj0ii.23672$C96.6027@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, > > bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >> > In article <4687FFEC.D670BAD6@osu.edu>, Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> Jason wrote: > >> >>> In article <468286BD.8080301@osu.edu>, James Burns > >> >>> <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote: > >> >> [...] > >> >>>> So, the ID folks want to establish a church in the US. > >> >>>> It doesn't matter to me if you want to deny it; that's > >> >>>> what it all comes down to when you peel the rhetoric off. > >> >>>> There's been a lot of discussion in this thread about how > >> >>>> ID is just wrong factually -- and it is -- but what I find > >> >>>> much more disturbing is what the lessons of history show, > >> >>>> over and over and over, when someone establishes or even > >> >>>> tries to establish a church. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> You, Jason, may well be willing to accept the human cost > >> >>>> involved; I don't know. (Tell me, Jason, how you would > >> >>>> feel about those deaths in the USSR if, instead of > >> >>>> Stalin, it had been led by Jerry Falwell, establishing > >> >>>> a Christian Empire? Would they have been worth the > >> >>>> outcome?) I strongly suspect, though, that the 68% > >> >>>> poll in Ohio did not talk about all this, though. > >> >>>> How much support does your ID crowd really have, > >> >>>> for, you know, the big picture <wink, wink>? > >> >>> I doubt that ID will ever be taught in the public schoools > >> >>> so you have nothing to fear. Even if ID was taught, all of > >> >>> the problems you discussed would probably not happen. I have > >> >>> never done any research related to the many adults that are > >> >>> graduates of Christian high schools. It's my guess that the > >> >>> vast majority of them are not guilty of any of those things > >> >>> that you mentioned in your post. > >> >> The efforts to get Intelligent Design into science classes > >> >> is only part of the fundamentalist Christan agenda: to > >> >> install their version of Christianity as the state religion > >> >> of the US. > >> >> > >> >> Another part is the "Christian Soldier" movement. When the > >> >> chaplain at the United States Air Force Academy complained > >> >> to her superiors that cadets were being pressured to become > >> >> "saved", that is, fundamentalist Christian, she was transferred > >> >> to Japan. She resigned shortly thereafter in protest. > >> >> Google "Capt. Melinda Morton". > >> >> > >> >> I find it very troubling that one religious group is working > >> >> to exclude other groups from the military. What are they > >> >> going to do with that control? > >> >> > >> >> The most blatant example I can think of, though, is the > >> >> fuss the Christian Right kicked up over the nomination > >> >> of Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court. The Democrats were > >> >> expected to complain, but the White House knew it could > >> >> push it through over their objections. What stopped her > >> >> nomination cold was Bush's own right wing saying she > >> >> wasn't far enough right wing for them. > >> >> > >> >> This was the personal lawyer of possibly the most > >> >> conservative President ever, but that wasn't enough for > >> >> them. I am reminded of the French Revolution, where > >> >> those who had originally sent to the guillotine whatever > >> >> nobility they could catch were later sent themselves > >> >> for not being revolutionary enough. > >> >> > >> >> The Christian Right are fools, though, (those who want > >> >> to make their religion the state religion -- I doubt it's > >> >> unanimous). The best way to kill a religion at its > >> >> roots is to force it down people's throats using the > >> >> power of the state. They are trading the long-term viability > >> >> of their religion /as religion/ (instead of public ceremonies) > >> >> for a very worldly display of political power. I think > >> >> Jesus had a few ripe things to say about people like that. > >> >> > >> >> Tell me, Jason, where you stand on the Christian Right > >> >> agenda to make fundamentalist Christianity the state religion > >> >> of the United States. Are you for it or against it? > >> >> I solemnly promise that a candid answer from you > >> >> could not possibly make me think any less of you. > >> >> > >> >> Jim Burns > >> > > >> > We have no desire to force people to become Christians. When the > >> > Muslims > >> > take over a country, they give people a choice: Become a Muslim or get > >> > your head chopped off. > >> > > >> > Christians don't do it that way. We present the message and if people > >> > such > >> > as yourself decide to not become Christians, we would not harm you or > >> > even > >> > threaten your life. > >> > >> But those who don't face discrimination, repeated exposure to your > >> religious dogma and occasionally social ostracism. > >> > >> Coercion is coercion. Don't think you are any better than Muslims. If > >> you had your way you would be no different. > >> > >> > > >> > The answer to your question is that we will never make fundamentialist > >> > Christianity the state religion. I would be against any effort to make > >> > it > >> > the state religion. Even when I lived in the Bible Belt and over 90% of > >> > the people were Christians--we did not try to make fundamentalist > >> > Christianity the Virginia State Religion. We did not even try to make > >> > it > >> > the official County Religion. > >> > >> Why not? Isn't that what you guys want to do? > >> > >> > > >> > You have much more to fear from Muslims than you have to fear from > >> > Christians. > >> > >> Except that Christians are local, and Muslims are far away. The ones > >> that are nearby are generally accepting of others because they know what > >> it is like to be a minority faith. > >> > >> On your next vacation, I advise you to visit one of the Muslim > >> > Countries to learn the dangers of a religion controlling the > >> > government. I > >> > heard the testimony of a man that had a job in a Muslim country. He > >> > once > >> > visited the area of the city where public punishments were done. He was > >> > shocked when he saw thieves getting at least one hand chopped off. He > >> > even > >> > saw them chop off the head of a man that had been found guilty of > >> > murder. > >> > The crowd was clapping after each of those punishments or murders were > >> > performed. > >> > > >> > You will never see that sort of thing done by Christians. > >> > >> They just don't have the power yet. If they did, they would hang lots > >> of people they didn't like. > > > > We had the power in the small county that I once lived in. As far as I > > know, there were only Christians living in that small Virginia County > > located in the Blue Ridge Mountains. One person was murdered in that town. > > We did not hang him or harm him in any way. The police arrested him. The > > court room was full. I wanted to attend but my parents would not take me. > > After the trial, he was placed in prison. I have seen Western movies where > > they surrounded the court house and hanged the murderer. We did not do > > that. > > I would imagine that the murderer claimed to be a Christian. Not any > atheists in small Virginia towns. There are many murders mentioned in the Bible. Yes the murderer in that case was a Christian. I don't remember the details of that case. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In article <lkyii.65$yD2.18@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0207072259270001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <1183440863.989670.291880@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jul 3, 9:10 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > In article <SOqdnYaYk-z25RTbnZ2dnUVZ_hudn...@comcast.com>, John > >> > Popelish > >> > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > >> > > Jason wrote: > >> > > > In article <1183401575.719720.76...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > >> > > > "Bob > >> > > > T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > >> > > (snip) > >> > > >> You are looking at that backwards because the horse is a present > >> > > >> day > >> > > >> animal. You should instead ask whether there is evidence that a > >> > > >> creature that was not a horse evolved into a horse. The answer > >> > > >> is: > >> > > >> yes, there is plenty of evidence that a small fox-like mammal > >> > > >> evolved > >> > > >> into the modern horse: > >> > > >> > > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse > >> > > >> > > > Good point--however, we don't find evidence of foxes evolving into > >> > > > other > >> > > > animals that are NOT FOXES today. > >> > > (snip) > >> > > >> > > How can you know what something is evolving into from a look > >> > > at it only at a single point in time? If you could jump to > >> > > a a few thousand years into the future, you might not > >> > > recognize some of the offspring of today's foxes. Since we > >> > > don't have a time machine to examine the future, the only > >> > > way we can observe lines changing over time is to review the > >> > > record of Earth's history. > >> > > >> > We can look back in history one thousand or more years and find out > >> > that > >> > foxes were mentioned. > >> > >> But were they the same as the foxes we see today? For many > >> domesticated plants and animals the answer is NO. > >> > >> Martin > > > > How would you know for sure whether or not foxes were the same or > > different over 1000 years ago? I saw a picture of a mosquito in a magazine > > that was preserved in hard resin. The mosquitoe was over 1000 years old > > but looked just like a mosquito living today. The foxes mentioned the Old > > Testament may have been identical to the foxes living today. > > Perhaps foxes weren't the same. I noticed that he said for many domesticated > plants and animals. You, as a rabid creationist, couldn't read for > comprehension, and jumped to an erroneous conclusion. I focused on the foxes (instead of the plants and animals) since I had just found a reference to foxes in the Old Testament. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0107071537170001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <4687FFEC.D670BAD6@osu.edu>, Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> > wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > >> > In article <468286BD.8080301@osu.edu>, James Burns >> > <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote: >> [...] >> > > So, the ID folks want to establish a church in the US. >> > > It doesn't matter to me if you want to deny it; that's >> > > what it all comes down to when you peel the rhetoric off. >> > > There's been a lot of discussion in this thread about how >> > > ID is just wrong factually -- and it is -- but what I find >> > > much more disturbing is what the lessons of history show, >> > > over and over and over, when someone establishes or even >> > > tries to establish a church. >> > > >> > > You, Jason, may well be willing to accept the human cost >> > > involved; I don't know. (Tell me, Jason, how you would >> > > feel about those deaths in the USSR if, instead of >> > > Stalin, it had been led by Jerry Falwell, establishing >> > > a Christian Empire? Would they have been worth the >> > > outcome?) I strongly suspect, though, that the 68% >> > > poll in Ohio did not talk about all this, though. >> > > How much support does your ID crowd really have, >> > > for, you know, the big picture <wink, wink>? >> >> > I doubt that ID will ever be taught in the public schoools >> > so you have nothing to fear. Even if ID was taught, all of >> > the problems you discussed would probably not happen. I have >> > never done any research related to the many adults that are >> > graduates of Christian high schools. It's my guess that the >> > vast majority of them are not guilty of any of those things >> > that you mentioned in your post. >> >> The efforts to get Intelligent Design into science classes >> is only part of the fundamentalist Christan agenda: to >> install their version of Christianity as the state religion >> of the US. >> >> Another part is the "Christian Soldier" movement. When the >> chaplain at the United States Air Force Academy complained >> to her superiors that cadets were being pressured to become >> "saved", that is, fundamentalist Christian, she was transferred >> to Japan. She resigned shortly thereafter in protest. >> Google "Capt. Melinda Morton". >> >> I find it very troubling that one religious group is working >> to exclude other groups from the military. What are they >> going to do with that control? >> >> The most blatant example I can think of, though, is the >> fuss the Christian Right kicked up over the nomination >> of Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court. The Democrats were >> expected to complain, but the White House knew it could >> push it through over their objections. What stopped her >> nomination cold was Bush's own right wing saying she >> wasn't far enough right wing for them. >> >> This was the personal lawyer of possibly the most >> conservative President ever, but that wasn't enough for >> them. I am reminded of the French Revolution, where >> those who had originally sent to the guillotine whatever >> nobility they could catch were later sent themselves >> for not being revolutionary enough. >> >> The Christian Right are fools, though, (those who want >> to make their religion the state religion -- I doubt it's >> unanimous). The best way to kill a religion at its >> roots is to force it down people's throats using the >> power of the state. They are trading the long-term viability >> of their religion /as religion/ (instead of public ceremonies) >> for a very worldly display of political power. I think >> Jesus had a few ripe things to say about people like that. >> >> Tell me, Jason, where you stand on the Christian Right >> agenda to make fundamentalist Christianity the state religion >> of the United States. Are you for it or against it? >> I solemnly promise that a candid answer from you >> could not possibly make me think any less of you. >> >> Jim Burns > > We have no desire to force people to become Christians. When the Muslims > take over a country, they give people a choice: Become a Muslim or get > your head chopped off. > > Christians don't do it that way. We present the message and if people such > as yourself decide to not become Christians, we would not harm you or even > threaten your life. > > The answer to your question is that we will never make fundamentialist > Christianity the state religion. I would be against any effort to make it > the state religion. Even when I lived in the Bible Belt and over 90% of > the people were Christians--we did not try to make fundamentalist > Christianity the Virginia State Religion. We did not even try to make it > the official County Religion. > > You have much more to fear from Muslims than you have to fear from > Christians. On your next vacation, I advise you to visit one of the Muslim > Countries to learn the dangers of a religion controlling the government. I > heard the testimony of a man that had a job in a Muslim country. He once > visited the area of the city where public punishments were done. He was > shocked when he saw thieves getting at least one hand chopped off. He even > saw them chop off the head of a man that had been found guilty of murder. > The crowd was clapping after each of those punishments or murders were > performed. > > You will never see that sort of thing done by Christians. > > Jason Jason, when I first moved into this state we lived in a hotel for a few weeks while our house was being purchased. On Sunday morning we went down to the hotel coffee shop to have breakfast. My Dad ordered a cup of coffee and the waitress said she couldn't serve it to him. People all around us were drinking coffee and when Dad asked why he was told that they couldn't serve a cup of coffee without a food order. So Dad ordered some dry toast. This was a remnant of the many blue laws that covered the South. Today there are still vestiges of these laws in all of the Southern states. The Christians would go as far as necessary to enforce the application of their beliefs. If you don't think they would do such atrocious things you need to read about the Salem witch trials. Christians are really scary people and as Sam Harris has said, religion will kill us all. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0307071325340001@66-52-22-78.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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: <snip bullshit> Note the red herring that Jason throws out. He is, to us his own favorite word, 'famous' for doing that. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0307071344140001@66-52-22-78.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <bpal83taih71ub9kiiahs3238r7vhr1d4q@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> 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" > > I am not being dishonest. Were the editors and writers of the article in > National Geographic being dishonest when they used the term "the theory of > evolution". I challenge you to google "theory of evolution". You will > receive lots of hits. Even my dictionary refers to evolution as a theory. > Jason Yes Jason, and you Google evolution theory fact and tell me what you get :-))))). Here is a really good article: http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0307071337440001@66-52-22-78.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <4fyii.62$yD2.51@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "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. > > Thanks for your post. Are you stating that those people that support > Theistic evolution do not believe that God created mankind but instead > believe that God created cells that eventually evolved into mankind? > > If so, they should just say they support evolution and leave God out of it > since their beliefs conflict with the first two chapters of the Bible. > Jason That's what they believe, Jason, and they pretty much leave out the first two chapters of Genesis. You see Jason, there are people who don't think the bible should be read literally. you usually call these folks, educated people :-). Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In article <enyii.67$yD2.40@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0207071806470001@66-52-22-17.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > 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? > > Jason > > Jason, I'm interested in how you look at the evidence for horse evolution > and believe that it supports creation science. Please do not avoid the > question, change it to something you can answer or alter it in any form. How > is the horse evolution sequence evidence for creation science? Please be > specific in your answer. I read about horse evolution in the article entitled, "Was Darwin Wrong" that was published in the Nov/2004 issue of National Geographic. The person that wrote the article mentioned that horse evolution, bacteria evolution, and fruit fly evolution was evidence that supports evolution. He went into detail and even discussed a summary of major experiments that had been done in relation to bacteria and fruit flies. He also went into detail in relation to horse evolution. In all of the cases, the evidence supported creation science. reason: the fruit fly species that was created was still a fruit fly. The bacteria that had evolved into a different type of bacteria was still bacteria. The advocates of creation science call it adaption but it is identical to micro-evolution. Your question was about horse evolution so I will focus on that issue: The Bible indicates that God created mankind; some plants and some animals. The Bible does not provide a detailed list of all of the animals and plants that God created so the most that we can do is make guesses as to what sort of animals that God created. The best way to make the guesses is to take close looks at the animals that we have today. We have horses, so the question is: what sort of horse creature did God create? Fortunately, the research that has been done on horses helps the advocates of creation science to make an educated guess related to the type of horse-like creature that God created: It was probably a horse-like creature called Hyracotherium or the ancestor(s) of the Hyracotherium. It's my opinion that God created all of the so-called transitional forms. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In article <0uyii.74$yD2.17@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0207072312460001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <1183442128.284710.224670@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jul 3, 12:49 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > In article <1183429649.303081.290...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > >> > Martin > >> > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > > On Jul 3, 9:34 am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> > > > In alt.atheism On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:29:16 -0700, J...@nospam.com > >> > > > (Jason) let us all know that: > >> > > >> > > > >Teachers have been teaching evolution in the public schools for > >> > > > >over 35 > >> > > > >years. Have you wondered how successful those high school teachers > >> > > > >have > >> > > > >been? > >> > > >> > > > They've also been teaching mathematics and that the Earth > >> > > > is a > >> > > > spheroid. > >> > > >> > > > >Answer: Only 12% of Americans believe that humans evolved from > >> > > > >other > >> > > > >life-forms without any involvement from a god. > >> > > > >source: National Geographic Nov/2004 page 6 > >> > > >> > > > >It appears to me that more Americans agree with me than agree with > >> > > > >the > >> > > > >advocates of evolution. > >> > > >> > > > So what? > >> > > >> > > > > It also explains why evolutionists rush to court > >> > > > >every time a school system wants to teach intelligent design. > >> > > >> > > > No it doesn't. > >> > > >> > > > Jason: would you support the teaching of "Flat-Earth > >> > > > Theory" > >> > > > in schools. Remember: it's a competing idea. It doesn't matter how > >> > > > many people believe it: IT'S A COMPETING IDEA. > >> > > >> > > The flat Earth theory does get mentioned in schools and is followed > >> > > by > >> > > laughter. > >> > >> > If a school system tried to teach the Flat Earth Theory, I would write > >> > letters to each member of the school board and ask them to reconsider > >> > their decision. > >> > >> Explain why. Are you afraid that students might come to see that the > >> flat Earth theory makes more sense? XD > >> > >> Martin > > > > I see creation science and ID as the truth and see Flat Earth Theory as a > > lie. However, unlike the evolutionists, I would not rush to court. > > Instead, I would write letters to the members of the school board. I wish > > that evolutionists would do that instead of rushing to court. > > Why would you wish that, Jason? If someone is breaking the law you don't beg > them to stop, you report them to the proper authorities. Teaching false information is not a violation of the law--otherwise--all history teachers that teach "historical revisionism" instead of historical facts would be arrested. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In article <Byyii.77$yD2.66@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0107071917380001@66-52-22-111.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > > > Should Only Naturalistic Explanations > > Be Allowed in Our Science Classrooms? > > Of course. > How could you have anything other than naturalistic explanations and still > have science? The answer is that you can't. That my little fundie buddy, is > exactly why creationism and all of its forms should not be in a science > classroom. I couldn't have said it better myself. What's your opinion about teaching historical revisionism instead of historical facts? Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In article <NOyii.90$yD2.20@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0307071337440001@66-52-22-78.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <4fyii.62$yD2.51@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> "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. > > > > Thanks for your post. Are you stating that those people that support > > Theistic evolution do not believe that God created mankind but instead > > believe that God created cells that eventually evolved into mankind? > > > > If so, they should just say they support evolution and leave God out of it > > since their beliefs conflict with the first two chapters of the Bible. > > Jason > > That's what they believe, Jason, and they pretty much leave out the first > two chapters of Genesis. You see Jason, there are people who don't think the > bible should be read literally. you usually call these folks, educated > people :-). I call them liberal Christians. There is a church in my town that has liberal Christians. They support macro-evolution and abortion. I probably know more about the Bible than the pastor of that church. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In article <sGyii.82$yD2.73@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0107071537170001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <4687FFEC.D670BAD6@osu.edu>, Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> > > wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >> > > >> > In article <468286BD.8080301@osu.edu>, James Burns > >> > <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote: > >> [...] > >> > > So, the ID folks want to establish a church in the US. > >> > > It doesn't matter to me if you want to deny it; that's > >> > > what it all comes down to when you peel the rhetoric off. > >> > > There's been a lot of discussion in this thread about how > >> > > ID is just wrong factually -- and it is -- but what I find > >> > > much more disturbing is what the lessons of history show, > >> > > over and over and over, when someone establishes or even > >> > > tries to establish a church. > >> > > > >> > > You, Jason, may well be willing to accept the human cost > >> > > involved; I don't know. (Tell me, Jason, how you would > >> > > feel about those deaths in the USSR if, instead of > >> > > Stalin, it had been led by Jerry Falwell, establishing > >> > > a Christian Empire? Would they have been worth the > >> > > outcome?) I strongly suspect, though, that the 68% > >> > > poll in Ohio did not talk about all this, though. > >> > > How much support does your ID crowd really have, > >> > > for, you know, the big picture <wink, wink>? > >> > >> > I doubt that ID will ever be taught in the public schoools > >> > so you have nothing to fear. Even if ID was taught, all of > >> > the problems you discussed would probably not happen. I have > >> > never done any research related to the many adults that are > >> > graduates of Christian high schools. It's my guess that the > >> > vast majority of them are not guilty of any of those things > >> > that you mentioned in your post. > >> > >> The efforts to get Intelligent Design into science classes > >> is only part of the fundamentalist Christan agenda: to > >> install their version of Christianity as the state religion > >> of the US. > >> > >> Another part is the "Christian Soldier" movement. When the > >> chaplain at the United States Air Force Academy complained > >> to her superiors that cadets were being pressured to become > >> "saved", that is, fundamentalist Christian, she was transferred > >> to Japan. She resigned shortly thereafter in protest. > >> Google "Capt. Melinda Morton". > >> > >> I find it very troubling that one religious group is working > >> to exclude other groups from the military. What are they > >> going to do with that control? > >> > >> The most blatant example I can think of, though, is the > >> fuss the Christian Right kicked up over the nomination > >> of Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court. The Democrats were > >> expected to complain, but the White House knew it could > >> push it through over their objections. What stopped her > >> nomination cold was Bush's own right wing saying she > >> wasn't far enough right wing for them. > >> > >> This was the personal lawyer of possibly the most > >> conservative President ever, but that wasn't enough for > >> them. I am reminded of the French Revolution, where > >> those who had originally sent to the guillotine whatever > >> nobility they could catch were later sent themselves > >> for not being revolutionary enough. > >> > >> The Christian Right are fools, though, (those who want > >> to make their religion the state religion -- I doubt it's > >> unanimous). The best way to kill a religion at its > >> roots is to force it down people's throats using the > >> power of the state. They are trading the long-term viability > >> of their religion /as religion/ (instead of public ceremonies) > >> for a very worldly display of political power. I think > >> Jesus had a few ripe things to say about people like that. > >> > >> Tell me, Jason, where you stand on the Christian Right > >> agenda to make fundamentalist Christianity the state religion > >> of the United States. Are you for it or against it? > >> I solemnly promise that a candid answer from you > >> could not possibly make me think any less of you. > >> > >> Jim Burns > > > > We have no desire to force people to become Christians. When the Muslims > > take over a country, they give people a choice: Become a Muslim or get > > your head chopped off. > > > > Christians don't do it that way. We present the message and if people such > > as yourself decide to not become Christians, we would not harm you or even > > threaten your life. > > > > The answer to your question is that we will never make fundamentialist > > Christianity the state religion. I would be against any effort to make it > > the state religion. Even when I lived in the Bible Belt and over 90% of > > the people were Christians--we did not try to make fundamentalist > > Christianity the Virginia State Religion. We did not even try to make it > > the official County Religion. > > > > You have much more to fear from Muslims than you have to fear from > > Christians. On your next vacation, I advise you to visit one of the Muslim > > Countries to learn the dangers of a religion controlling the government. I > > heard the testimony of a man that had a job in a Muslim country. He once > > visited the area of the city where public punishments were done. He was > > shocked when he saw thieves getting at least one hand chopped off. He even > > saw them chop off the head of a man that had been found guilty of murder. > > The crowd was clapping after each of those punishments or murders were > > performed. > > > > You will never see that sort of thing done by Christians. > > > > Jason > > Jason, when I first moved into this state we lived in a hotel for a few > weeks while our house was being purchased. On Sunday morning we went down to > the hotel coffee shop to have breakfast. My Dad ordered a cup of coffee and > the waitress said she couldn't serve it to him. People all around us were > drinking coffee and when Dad asked why he was told that they couldn't serve > a cup of coffee without a food order. So Dad ordered some dry toast. > > This was a remnant of the many blue laws that covered the South. Today there > are still vestiges of these laws in all of the Southern states. The > Christians would go as far as necessary to enforce the application of their > beliefs. If you don't think they would do such atrocious things you need to > read about the Salem witch trials. Christians are really scary people and as > Sam Harris has said, religion will kill us all. Most of those laws have been eliminated. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0307071424500001@66-52-22-78.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <sGyii.82$yD2.73@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-0107071537170001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <4687FFEC.D670BAD6@osu.edu>, Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> > >> >> > In article <468286BD.8080301@osu.edu>, James Burns >> >> > <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> > > So, the ID folks want to establish a church in the US. >> >> > > It doesn't matter to me if you want to deny it; that's >> >> > > what it all comes down to when you peel the rhetoric off. >> >> > > There's been a lot of discussion in this thread about how >> >> > > ID is just wrong factually -- and it is -- but what I find >> >> > > much more disturbing is what the lessons of history show, >> >> > > over and over and over, when someone establishes or even >> >> > > tries to establish a church. >> >> > > >> >> > > You, Jason, may well be willing to accept the human cost >> >> > > involved; I don't know. (Tell me, Jason, how you would >> >> > > feel about those deaths in the USSR if, instead of >> >> > > Stalin, it had been led by Jerry Falwell, establishing >> >> > > a Christian Empire? Would they have been worth the >> >> > > outcome?) I strongly suspect, though, that the 68% >> >> > > poll in Ohio did not talk about all this, though. >> >> > > How much support does your ID crowd really have, >> >> > > for, you know, the big picture <wink, wink>? >> >> >> >> > I doubt that ID will ever be taught in the public schoools >> >> > so you have nothing to fear. Even if ID was taught, all of >> >> > the problems you discussed would probably not happen. I have >> >> > never done any research related to the many adults that are >> >> > graduates of Christian high schools. It's my guess that the >> >> > vast majority of them are not guilty of any of those things >> >> > that you mentioned in your post. >> >> >> >> The efforts to get Intelligent Design into science classes >> >> is only part of the fundamentalist Christan agenda: to >> >> install their version of Christianity as the state religion >> >> of the US. >> >> >> >> Another part is the "Christian Soldier" movement. When the >> >> chaplain at the United States Air Force Academy complained >> >> to her superiors that cadets were being pressured to become >> >> "saved", that is, fundamentalist Christian, she was transferred >> >> to Japan. She resigned shortly thereafter in protest. >> >> Google "Capt. Melinda Morton". >> >> >> >> I find it very troubling that one religious group is working >> >> to exclude other groups from the military. What are they >> >> going to do with that control? >> >> >> >> The most blatant example I can think of, though, is the >> >> fuss the Christian Right kicked up over the nomination >> >> of Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court. The Democrats were >> >> expected to complain, but the White House knew it could >> >> push it through over their objections. What stopped her >> >> nomination cold was Bush's own right wing saying she >> >> wasn't far enough right wing for them. >> >> >> >> This was the personal lawyer of possibly the most >> >> conservative President ever, but that wasn't enough for >> >> them. I am reminded of the French Revolution, where >> >> those who had originally sent to the guillotine whatever >> >> nobility they could catch were later sent themselves >> >> for not being revolutionary enough. >> >> >> >> The Christian Right are fools, though, (those who want >> >> to make their religion the state religion -- I doubt it's >> >> unanimous). The best way to kill a religion at its >> >> roots is to force it down people's throats using the >> >> power of the state. They are trading the long-term viability >> >> of their religion /as religion/ (instead of public ceremonies) >> >> for a very worldly display of political power. I think >> >> Jesus had a few ripe things to say about people like that. >> >> >> >> Tell me, Jason, where you stand on the Christian Right >> >> agenda to make fundamentalist Christianity the state religion >> >> of the United States. Are you for it or against it? >> >> I solemnly promise that a candid answer from you >> >> could not possibly make me think any less of you. >> >> >> >> Jim Burns >> > >> > We have no desire to force people to become Christians. When the >> > Muslims >> > take over a country, they give people a choice: Become a Muslim or get >> > your head chopped off. >> > >> > Christians don't do it that way. We present the message and if people >> > such >> > as yourself decide to not become Christians, we would not harm you or >> > even >> > threaten your life. >> > >> > The answer to your question is that we will never make fundamentialist >> > Christianity the state religion. I would be against any effort to make >> > it >> > the state religion. Even when I lived in the Bible Belt and over 90% of >> > the people were Christians--we did not try to make fundamentalist >> > Christianity the Virginia State Religion. We did not even try to make >> > it >> > the official County Religion. >> > >> > You have much more to fear from Muslims than you have to fear from >> > Christians. On your next vacation, I advise you to visit one of the >> > Muslim >> > Countries to learn the dangers of a religion controlling the >> > government. I >> > heard the testimony of a man that had a job in a Muslim country. He >> > once >> > visited the area of the city where public punishments were done. He was >> > shocked when he saw thieves getting at least one hand chopped off. He >> > even >> > saw them chop off the head of a man that had been found guilty of >> > murder. >> > The crowd was clapping after each of those punishments or murders were >> > performed. >> > >> > You will never see that sort of thing done by Christians. >> > >> > Jason >> >> Jason, when I first moved into this state we lived in a hotel for a few >> weeks while our house was being purchased. On Sunday morning we went down >> to >> the hotel coffee shop to have breakfast. My Dad ordered a cup of coffee >> and >> the waitress said she couldn't serve it to him. People all around us were >> drinking coffee and when Dad asked why he was told that they couldn't >> serve >> a cup of coffee without a food order. So Dad ordered some dry toast. >> >> This was a remnant of the many blue laws that covered the South. Today >> there >> are still vestiges of these laws in all of the Southern states. The >> Christians would go as far as necessary to enforce the application of >> their >> beliefs. If you don't think they would do such atrocious things you need >> to >> read about the Salem witch trials. Christians are really scary people and >> as >> Sam Harris has said, religion will kill us all. > > Most of those laws have been eliminated. Most of them have been because ignorant fundamentalism was overcome by more moderate religious forces. There is an undercurrent in fundamentalist Christianity that exists today and it must be curtailed. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0307071416170001@66-52-22-78.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <0uyii.74$yD2.17@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-0207072312460001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <1183442128.284710.224670@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, >> > Martin >> > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Jul 3, 12:49 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > In article <1183429649.303081.290...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, >> >> > Martin >> >> > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > On Jul 3, 9:34 am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> >> > > > In alt.atheism On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:29:16 -0700, >> >> > > > J...@nospam.com >> >> > > > (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> > >> >> > > > >Teachers have been teaching evolution in the public schools for >> >> > > > >over 35 >> >> > > > >years. Have you wondered how successful those high school >> >> > > > >teachers >> >> > > > >have >> >> > > > >been? >> >> > >> >> > > > They've also been teaching mathematics and that the >> >> > > > Earth >> >> > > > is a >> >> > > > spheroid. >> >> > >> >> > > > >Answer: Only 12% of Americans believe that humans evolved from >> >> > > > >other >> >> > > > >life-forms without any involvement from a god. >> >> > > > >source: National Geographic Nov/2004 page 6 >> >> > >> >> > > > >It appears to me that more Americans agree with me than agree >> >> > > > >with >> >> > > > >the >> >> > > > >advocates of evolution. >> >> > >> >> > > > So what? >> >> > >> >> > > > > It also explains why evolutionists rush to court >> >> > > > >every time a school system wants to teach intelligent design. >> >> > >> >> > > > No it doesn't. >> >> > >> >> > > > Jason: would you support the teaching of "Flat-Earth >> >> > > > Theory" >> >> > > > in schools. Remember: it's a competing idea. It doesn't matter >> >> > > > how >> >> > > > many people believe it: IT'S A COMPETING IDEA. >> >> > >> >> > > The flat Earth theory does get mentioned in schools and is >> >> > > followed >> >> > > by >> >> > > laughter. >> >> >> >> > If a school system tried to teach the Flat Earth Theory, I would >> >> > write >> >> > letters to each member of the school board and ask them to >> >> > reconsider >> >> > their decision. >> >> >> >> Explain why. Are you afraid that students might come to see that the >> >> flat Earth theory makes more sense? XD >> >> >> >> Martin >> > >> > I see creation science and ID as the truth and see Flat Earth Theory as >> > a >> > lie. However, unlike the evolutionists, I would not rush to court. >> > Instead, I would write letters to the members of the school board. I >> > wish >> > that evolutionists would do that instead of rushing to court. >> >> Why would you wish that, Jason? If someone is breaking the law you don't >> beg >> them to stop, you report them to the proper authorities. > > Teaching false information is not a violation of the law--otherwise--all > history teachers that teach "historical revisionism" instead of historical > facts would be arrested. History has been revised just like the bible has. 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.