Guest Ralph Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0307071423030001@66-52-22-78.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. Quite frankly Jason, you haven't shown me that you know much about the bible. Especially when it comes to how the bible was written. Quote
Guest David V. Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <duqdnZMbs7B3NBfbnZ2dnUVZ_qOpnZ2d@sti.net>, "David > V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> Jason wrote: >> >>> It's my opinion that if evolutionists honestly believed >>> that childen would laugh at creation science and would >>> understand that evolution made much more sense than >>> creation science--that they would not ever be concerned >>> when many school systems started teaching intelligent >>> design. >> >> Your opinion, as usual, is not based on reality. >> >> Creationism is not a science, it is a religious dogma. It >> has no place in public schools or in any science class. >> >> ID is not a science, it is a religious dogma. It has no >> place in public schools or in any science class. >> >> Is there some simpler way I can explain it so that you will >> understand? > > Dave, See my post to Bob. No. There are way too many postings in this thread. I'm not going to waste my time searching for your reply to someone else. Are you willing to concede that evolution is a fact? -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In article <H5qdnU_4BMCgXBfbnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <duqdnZMbs7B3NBfbnZ2dnUVZ_qOpnZ2d@sti.net>, "David > > V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Jason wrote: > >> > >>> It's my opinion that if evolutionists honestly believed > >>> that childen would laugh at creation science and would > >>> understand that evolution made much more sense than > >>> creation science--that they would not ever be concerned > >>> when many school systems started teaching intelligent > >>> design. > >> > >> Your opinion, as usual, is not based on reality. > >> > >> Creationism is not a science, it is a religious dogma. It > >> has no place in public schools or in any science class. > >> > >> ID is not a science, it is a religious dogma. It has no > >> place in public schools or in any science class. > >> > >> Is there some simpler way I can explain it so that you will > >> understand? > > > > Dave, See my post to Bob. > > No. There are way too many postings in this thread. I'm not going > to waste my time searching for your reply to someone else. > > Are you willing to concede that evolution is a fact? Hello, Please read the following report. If the lawyers that worked for the evolutionists in the Dover case really were concerned about children learning false information, they would file lawsuits against school systems that taught historical revisionism instead of historical facts. This is a report about historical revisionism: "What Are Some Examples of Historical Revisionism?" source: Probe Ministries website Dear Kerby, I have heard you discuss the topic of historical revisionism on radio. I told my son about this, and he doesn't believe it. Do you have some examples of how our history has been revised from the original? Many historians have wanted to secularize our founders. Take this quote from W.E. Woodward. He wrote that "The name of Jesus Christ is not mentioned even once in the vast collection of Washington's published letters."{1} Anyone who has read some of Washington's writing knows he mentions God and divine providence. But it isn't too difficult to also find times in which he mentions Jesus Christ. For example, when George Washington wrote to the Delaware Indian Chiefs (June 12, 1779) he said: "You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention."{2} Other examples are also available. For example, a well-worn, handwritten prayer book found among Washington's personal writings after his death had the name "Jesus Christ" used sixteen times. {3} Often historical revisionism is done by selective omission. Consider this famous quote from a book on American history by Kenneth Davis.{4} In 1775, Patrick Henry asked, "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" Davis then picks up the quote again with the final statement by Patrick Henry: "I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death." Technically the quote is correct, but what is missing is very important. The entire quote should read: "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death." Davis does the same thing when he cites the Mayflower Compact. "We whose names are under-written . . . do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine our selves together into a civil body politick, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid." Some important points are omitted. The section should read: "We whose names are under-written having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith and honor of our king and country, a voyage to the first colonie in the Northern parts of Virginia do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine our selves together into a civil body politick, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid." Some of the best documented cases of historical revision were provided by the work of Paul Vitz and funded by the U.S. Department of Education. He notes that "One social studies book has thirty pages on the Pilgrims, including the first Thanksgiving. But there is not one word (or image) that referred to religion as even a part of the Pilgrims' life." {6} Another textbook said that "Pilgrims are people who take long trips." They were described entirely without reference to religion. One reference said the Pilgrims "wanted to give thanks for all they had" but never mentioned that it was God to whom they wanted to give thanks.{7} Historical revisionism is a sad fact of American education today. Students are not getting the whole story, and often references to religion and Christianity are left out. Kerby Anderson Probe Ministries Notes 1. W.E. Woodward, George Washington: The Image and the Man (New York: Boni and Liverlight, 1926), 142. 2. George Washington, The Writings of George Washington (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XV, 55. 3. Manuscript Prayer-Book Written by George Washington (Philadelphia, 1891). 4. Kenneth C. Davis, Don't Know Much About History (New York: Avon Books, 1990), 61. 5. Davis, 21. 6. Paul Vitz, Censorship: Evidence of Bias in Our Children's Textbooks (Michigan: Servant Books, 1986), 3. 7. Vitz, 18-19. Suggested Reading David Barton, Original Intent (Aledo, TX: WallBuilders Press, 1996), Chapter 16. Paul Vitz, Censorship: Evidence of Bias in Our Children's Textbooks (Michigan: Servant Books, 1986 About the Author Kerby Anderson is National Director of Probe Ministries International. He received his B.S. from Oregon State University, M.F.S. from Yale University, and M.A. from Georgetown University. He is the author of several books, including Genetic Engineering, Origin Science, Living Ethically in the 90s, Signs of Warning, Signs of Hope, Moral Dilemmas, and Christian Ethics in Plain Language. He also served as general editor for the Kregel Publications books Marriage, Family and Sexuality and Technology, Spirituality, & Social Trends. He is a nationally syndicated columnist whose editorials have appeared in the Dallas Morning News, the Miami Herald, the San Jose Mercury, and the Houston Post. He is the host of the "Probe" radio program, and frequently serves as host on "Point of View" (USA Radio Network). What is Probe? Probe Ministries is a non-profit ministry whose mission is to assist the church in renewing the minds of believers with a Christian worldview and to equip the church to engage the world for Christ. Probe fulfills this mission through our Mind Games conferences for youth and adults, our 3 1/2 minute daily radio program, and our extensive Web site at http://www.probe.org. Further information about Probe's materials and ministry may be obtained by contacting us at: Probe Ministries 1900 Firman Drive, Suite 100 Richardson, TX 75081 (972) 480-0240 FAX (972) 644-9664 info@probe.orgThis email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it http://www.probe.org Quote
Guest John Baker Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 09:00:51 -0400, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> > >snipo >> >> I see it different. I see evolutionists that that rush to court to stop >> any school systems from teaching Intelligent Design. They do not want any >> competition. > >Why do you keep telling this lie? Because he's a liar. Quote
Guest John Baker Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:44:14 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >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 And as you've been told before, liar, theories explain facts. If there were no fact of evolution, there'd be no need for a theory to explain it. Now stop lying. > Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Jason wrote: > I focused on the foxes (instead of the plants and animals) since I had > just found a reference to foxes in the Old Testament. "Foxes is a word used as a translation for some word in a text written in some other language and probably that earlier version was also a translation. You have no way of knowing what actual animal was being referred to in the original version. It might have been a badger, a beaver, a coyote or a rat, for all you know. Carl Linnaeus had not yet provided a logical classification scheme to these early writers, so you have no way of knowing what they were actually referring to. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/linnaeus.html Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 "John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message news:skil835d6m0nlpo4qga9ve95uh316ti0fo@4ax.com... > On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 09:00:51 -0400, "Robibnikoff" > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> >>"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> >> >>snipo >>> >>> I see it different. I see evolutionists that that rush to court to stop >>> any school systems from teaching Intelligent Design. They do not want >>> any >>> competition. >> >>Why do you keep telling this lie? > > > Because he's a liar. As he always says, 'good point' :-)) Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 In article <xe6dndU8od_CTRfbnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > > I focused on the foxes (instead of the plants and animals) since I had > > just found a reference to foxes in the Old Testament. > > "Foxes is a word used as a translation for some word in a > text written in some other language and probably that > earlier version was also a translation. You have no way of > knowing what actual animal was being referred to in the > original version. It might have been a badger, a beaver, a > coyote or a rat, for all you know. Carl Linnaeus had not > yet provided a logical classification scheme to these early > writers, so you have no way of knowing what they were > actually referring to. > http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/linnaeus.html You are correct. Fox is mentioned in the old testament so I found out the Hebrew word that was used. The word was shoo-awl' which means--a jackal (as a burrower):--fox. Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <xe6dndU8od_CTRfbnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> >>> I focused on the foxes (instead of the plants and animals) since I had >>> just found a reference to foxes in the Old Testament. >> "Foxes is a word used as a translation for some word in a >> text written in some other language and probably that >> earlier version was also a translation. You have no way of >> knowing what actual animal was being referred to in the >> original version. It might have been a badger, a beaver, a >> coyote or a rat, for all you know. Carl Linnaeus had not >> yet provided a logical classification scheme to these early >> writers, so you have no way of knowing what they were >> actually referring to. >> http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/linnaeus.html > > You are correct. Fox is mentioned in the old testament so I found out the > Hebrew word that was used. The word was shoo-awl' which means--a jackal > (as a burrower):--fox. Okay, how do you know that the modern jackal is any better translation than fox is? Nobody took a photo of the animal being discussed when the original words were first written down. About all you might say is that it was some burrowing animal. I pick rabbit! Regardless, this shows the Bible is useless as a source of evidence for or against evolution. So, does this mean that you are going to admit that because the English translator of the Bible you read, substituted the name of some modern animal for something he was translating, that you can't use that as evidence to show that a particular line of animals has not changed since old testament times? Or am I going to have to remind you of this again? If you find a skeleton, pelt, or tooth (or even a cave drawing) from 3000 years ago, you will have at least a bit of actual evidence of some actual animal (or observation of some animal) from that period. That is how biological history is revealed. Translated copies (several successive translations) of tribal mythology that was passed down for many generations by word of mouth before it was ever put into written form, is not something that can be used to compare modern animals to ancient ones. Quote
Guest John Baker Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:02:39 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >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. So you were one of those snot-nosed brats who thought he knew more than his professor, eh? <G> > Quote
Guest David V. Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <H5qdnU_4BMCgXBfbnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." > <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>Jason wrote: >> >>>In article <duqdnZMbs7B3NBfbnZ2dnUVZ_qOpnZ2d@sti.net>, "David >>>V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Jason wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>It's my opinion that if evolutionists honestly believed >>>>>that childen would laugh at creation science and would >>>>>understand that evolution made much more sense than >>>>>creation science--that they would not ever be concerned >>>>>when many school systems started teaching intelligent >>>>>design. >>>> >>>>Your opinion, as usual, is not based on reality. >>>> >>>>Creationism is not a science, it is a religious dogma. It >>>>has no place in public schools or in any science class. >>>> >>>>ID is not a science, it is a religious dogma. It has no >>>>place in public schools or in any science class. >>>> >>>>Is there some simpler way I can explain it so that you will >>>> understand? >>> >>>Dave, See my post to Bob. >> >>No. There are way too many postings in this thread. I'm not going >>to waste my time searching for your reply to someone else. >> >>Are you willing to concede that evolution is a fact? > > > Hello, > Please read the following report. If the lawyers..... Lawers do not decide science. Evolution is a fact. No lawyer can change that. -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest Bob T. Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 3, 1:37 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <4fyii.62$yD2...@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-0307071304140001@66-52-22-78.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > 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? > > > 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? Yes. > > 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. Why should any Christian, no matter how devout, believe that the first two chapters of the Bible are literal truth? Forgive an atheist from telling a Christian what's important, but it seems to me that the message of forgiveness via Jesus Christ is important, and the accuracy of the Genesis story is not important, in terms of being a true Christian. Genesis has a lot in common with the mythology of other ancient people. Why would you expect Bronze Age tribespeople to understand God's explanation of how He created them? - Bob T. > Jason- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 4, 1:35 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <5euviqF3a5qs...@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > > <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> > > > snipo > > > > I see it different. I see evolutionists that that rush to court to stop > > > any school systems from teaching Intelligent Design. They do not want any > > > competition. > > > Why do you keep telling this lie? > > It's my opinion that if evolutionists honestly believed that childen would > laugh at creation science and would understand that evolution made much > more sense than creation science--that they would not ever be concerned > when many school systems started teaching intelligent design. I'm sure they mention it. It just doesn't warrant a textbook any more than flat Earth theories do. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 4, 1:37 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <vtik83pmktiob0q44cc0pjsdocg4fd6...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > In alt.atheism On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:12:45 -0700, J...@nospam.com > > (Jason) let us all know that: > > > >In article <1183442128.284710.224...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > ><phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jul 3, 12:49 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> > In article <1183429649.303081.290...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > Martin > > >> > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > On Jul 3, 9:34 am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > >> > > > In alt.atheism On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:29:16 -0700, J...@nospam.com > > >> > > > (Jason) let us all know that: > > > >> > > > >Teachers have been teaching evolution in the public schools > for over 35 > > >> > > > >years. Have you wondered how successful those high school > teachers have > > >> > > > >been? > > > >> > > > They've also been teaching mathematics and that the > Earth is a > > >> > > > spheroid. > > > >> > > > >Answer: Only 12% of Americans believe that humans evolved from other > > >> > > > >life-forms without any involvement from a god. > > >> > > > >source: National Geographic Nov/2004 page 6 > > > >> > > > >It appears to me that more Americans agree with me than agree > with the > > >> > > > >advocates of evolution. > > > >> > > > So what? > > > >> > > > > It also explains why evolutionists rush to court > > >> > > > >every time a school system wants to teach intelligent design. > > > >> > > > No it doesn't. > > > >> > > > Jason: would you support the teaching of "Flat-Earth Theory" > > >> > > > in schools. Remember: it's a competing idea. It doesn't matter how > > >> > > > many people believe it: IT'S A COMPETING IDEA. > > > >> > > The flat Earth theory does get mentioned in schools and is followed by > > >> > > laughter. > > > >> > If a school system tried to teach the Flat Earth Theory, I would write > > >> > letters to each member of the school board and ask them to reconsider > > >> > their decision. > > > >> Explain why. Are you afraid that students might come to see that the > > >> flat Earth theory makes more sense? XD > > > >I see creation science and ID as the truth and see Flat Earth Theory as a > > >lie. > > > Ah, so it's only YOUR PET IDEAS that should be given equal > > time. Hypocrite. > And you want your pet theory taught without giving equal time to > Intelligent Design--does that mean that you are also a hypocrite? You still haven't produced a fossil of your god, hypocrite. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 4, 1:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <pan.2007.07.03.17.04...@exit.com>, Frank Mayhar > > <f...@exit.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:02:39 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > The evolution section of the biology class was a waste of time. > > > Flunked, did you? > > I received an A grade. Grade inflation. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 4, 1:44 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. > > An alternative theory is that God created all of the transitional forms. But that's not a theory based on any facts nor backed up with evidence. > On Jun 27, 2:34 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > We are in agreement--evolution is a theory. Yes, the theory > explains the facts that are backed up with evidence. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 4, 1:47 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <A5idnfhzXpow_BfbnZ2dnUVZ_hWdn...@sti.net>, "David V." > > > > > > <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > "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 > > > Evolution is a fact. Get over it. > > > In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect > > fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from > > fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the > > creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense > > debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution > > is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their > > minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? > > Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an > > evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope > > was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific > > theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the > > world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific > > community to be as infallible as it once was." > > > Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and > > theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of > > increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are > > structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't > > go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. > > Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this > > century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending > > the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether > > they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet > > to be discovered. > > > Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't > > no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs > > of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises > > and achieve certainty only because they are not about the > > empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, > > though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a > > style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" > > can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be > > perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples > > might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit > > equal time in physics classrooms. > > > Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact > > and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have > > always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding > > the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. > > Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two > > great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of > > evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain > > the mechanism of evolution. > > > - Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, > > May 1981 > > Does Stephen Gould believe that evolution is an imperfect fact? Why don't you read what he says. You should understand it: you got an A in college biology, remember? XD Martin Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Bob T. wrote: > On Jul 3, 1:37 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> In article <4fyii.62$yD2...@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> >> >> >> >> >> <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >>> news:Jason-0307071304140001@66-52-22-78.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>> 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? >>>> 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? > > Yes. >> 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. > > Why should any Christian, no matter how devout, believe that the first > two chapters of the Bible are literal truth? Forgive an atheist from > telling a Christian what's important, but it seems to me that the > message of forgiveness via Jesus Christ is important, and the accuracy > of the Genesis story is not important, in terms of being a true > Christian. Genesis has a lot in common with the mythology of other > ancient people. Why would you expect Bronze Age tribespeople to > understand God's explanation of how He created them? Raises hand and waves it around. Ask me! Ask me! Genesis sets up the assumptions that man kind is permanently cursed for the sin of their ancestors, Adam and Eve. Breaking this curse is the only reason that Jesus is supposed to have existed. We only need redemption because we all deserve eternal punishment because of a sin somebody else committed. I'm not claiming it makes sense, but this is why Jesus worshipers are so inclined to resist anything indicates the genesis account of the origin of mankind anything less than literal truth. Without the curse from garden of Eden, we have no real need for this Jesus character. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 4, 1:51 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <X46dnUEQvdYw_xfbnZ2dnUVZ_tOmn...@sti.net>, "David V." > <s...@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. Yes, a theory which explains the facts that is backed up with evidence. As you said, we are in agreement. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Jul 4, 4:04 am, 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. > 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? Again, you should read what he actually said. How did you get through college at all while being illiterate? Martin Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 22:47:35 -0700, cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote: >Jason wrote: >> 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. They did, for a few centuries - it was called lynching. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 15:37:17 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >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. The various Inquisitions say that you're wrong. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 On Jul 4, 4:23 am, "Bob T." <b...@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. The problem is that Jason's faith is so weak that he can't take the chance of actually listening to what scientists have to say. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 On Jul 4, 4:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Kerby Anderson is National Director of Probe Ministries International. He > received his B.S. from Oregon State University, M.F.S. from Yale > University, and M.A. from Georgetown University. He is the author of > several books, including Genetic Engineering, Origin Science, Living > Ethically in the 90s, Signs of Warning, Signs of Hope, Moral Dilemmas, and > Christian Ethics in Plain Language. He also served as general editor for > the Kregel Publications books Marriage, Family and Sexuality and > Technology, Spirituality, & Social Trends. He is a nationally syndicated > columnist whose editorials have appeared in the Dallas Morning News, the > Miami Herald, the San Jose Mercury, and the Houston Post. He is the host > of the "Probe" radio program, and frequently serves as host on "Point of > View" (USA Radio Network). > > What is Probe? > > Probe Ministries is a non-profit ministry whose mission is to assist the > church in renewing the minds of believers with a Christian worldview and > to equip the church to engage the world for Christ. Before we read your article, you must first give us a reason to believe a single word that this lying Christian bastard has to say! Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 On Jul 4, 4:27 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <duqdnZMbs7B3NBfbnZ2dnUVZ_qOpn...@sti.net>, "David V." > <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > > It's my opinion that if evolutionists honestly believed that > > > childen would laugh at creation science and would understand > > > that evolution made much more sense than creation > > > science--that they would not ever be concerned when many > > > school systems started teaching intelligent design. > > > Your opinion, as usual, is not based on reality. > > > Creationism is not a science, it is a religious dogma. It has no > > place in public schools or in any science class. > > > ID is not a science, it is a religious dogma. It has no place in > > public schools or in any science class. > > > Is there some simpler way I can explain it so that you will > > understand? > > Dave, > See my post to Bob. > Jason Translation: "I'm too pig headed to understand a single word you say." Martin Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.