Guest Martin Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 On Jul 4, 9:08 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > I was told by advisers to never have arguments with professors > since it could have an effect upon the final grades. Once again, you prove that you never got a proper education. Qualified professors WELCOME arguments, especially during class. It is MUCH more interesting than a dry lecture. Martin Quote
Guest cactus Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 Robibnikoff 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? Probably because he can't handle the truth. Is it better for him to live a lie or die of the truth? Quote
Guest cactus Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <5euviqF3a5qs7U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> >> >> snipo >>> I see it different. I see evolutionists that that rush to court to stop >>> any school systems from teaching Intelligent Design. They do not want any >>> competition. >> Why do you keep telling this lie? > > It's my opinion that if evolutionists honestly believed that childen would > laugh at creation science and would understand that evolution made much > more sense than creation science--that they would not ever be concerned > when many school systems started teaching intelligent design. That is NOT > the case. Instead, the evidence is that they are really worried that MANY > students would realize that creation science made much more sense than > macro evolution theory. In my opinion, that is the MAIN reason that they > rush to court to stop any school systems from teaching ID. The cover story > is that they are protecting children from learning false information > instead of science. The cover story is working well since several > different posters have told me the cover story. Who told you that "cover story," Jason? Quote
Guest cactus Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <5ev4bnF3amntfU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in >> >> snip >>> The good news is that we still have millions of species of plants and >>> animals. I wish that mosquitoes would become extinct. >> And gee, guess what would have happened to all the other species that eat >> them? > > Those species are not doing a good job eating mosquitoes. They had to > spray some areas to kill mosquitoes. > > The problem is that they breed like flies. Quote
Guest Martin Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 On Jul 4, 9:24 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1183505961.078603.48...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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." > > > > > > 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. > > Some of the aspects of abiogenesis are not backed up with evidence--does > that stop you from supporting abiogenesis? Which aspects of abiogenesis are not supported by evidence? Besides your version, I mean: your version is not supported by evidence as you still haven't been able to show us a fossil of your god. Will you at least admit that your statement yesterday "evidence supports creation science and does not support evolution" was a lie? Because your statement above from Jun 27th "the theory [of evolution] explains the facts that are backed up with evidence" directly contradicts it. Martin Quote
Guest cactus Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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 > > Theism has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is a fact. Get used to it. Face the truth. Quote
Guest cactus Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1183487227.346475.282000@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Bob > T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > > >>> The cover story >>> is that they are protecting children from learning false information >>> instead of science. The cover story is working well since several >>> different posters have told me the cover story. >> "Cover story" - wow, you are deluded. It's not a "cover story", it's >> the truth. We don't want religious fanatics teaching lies to our >> children in school. If you want to teach your children lies, you are >> welcome to do it at home or in private religious schools. >> >> - Bob T. > > Bob, > Please read the following report. If the lawyers that worked for the > evolutionists in the Dover case really were concerned about children > learning false information, they would file lawsuits against school > systems that taught historical revisionism instead of historical facts. > This is a report about historical revisionism: > > "What Are Some Examples of Historical Revisionism?" > > source: Probe Ministries website > > Dear Kerby, > > I have heard you discuss the topic of historical revisionism on radio. I > told my son about this, and he doesn't believe it. Do you have some > examples of how our history has been revised from the original? > > Many historians have wanted to secularize our founders. Take this quote > from W.E. Woodward. He wrote that "The name of Jesus Christ is not > mentioned even once in the vast collection of Washington's published > letters."{1} > > Anyone who has read some of Washington's writing knows he mentions God and > divine providence. But it isn't too difficult to also find times in which > he mentions Jesus Christ. For example, when George Washington wrote to the > Delaware Indian Chiefs (June 12, 1779) he said: "You do well to wish to > learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus > Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. > Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this wise > intention."{2} > > Other examples are also available. For example, a well-worn, handwritten > prayer book found among Washington's personal writings after his death had > the name "Jesus Christ" used sixteen times. {3} > > Often historical revisionism is done by selective omission. Consider this > famous quote from a book on American history by Kenneth Davis.{4} In 1775, > Patrick Henry asked, "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased > at the price of chains and slavery?" Davis then picks up the quote again > with the final statement by Patrick Henry: "I know not what course others > may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death." > > Technically the quote is correct, but what is missing is very important. > The entire quote should read: "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be > purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I > know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or > give me death." > > Davis does the same thing when he cites the Mayflower Compact. "We whose > names are under-written . . . do by these presents solemnly and mutually > in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine our selves > together into a civil body politick, for our better ordering and > preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid." > > Some important points are omitted. The section should read: "We whose > names are under-written having undertaken, for the glory of God, and > advancement of the Christian faith and honor of our king and country, a > voyage to the first colonie in the Northern parts of Virginia do by these > presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one another, > covenant and combine our selves together into a civil body politick, for > our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends > aforesaid." > > Some of the best documented cases of historical revision were provided by > the work of Paul Vitz and funded by the U.S. Department of Education. He > notes that "One social studies book has thirty pages on the Pilgrims, > including the first Thanksgiving. But there is not one word (or image) > that referred to religion as even a part of the Pilgrims' life." {6} > > Another textbook said that "Pilgrims are people who take long trips." They > were described entirely without reference to religion. One reference said > the Pilgrims "wanted to give thanks for all they had" but never mentioned > that it was God to whom they wanted to give thanks.{7} > > Historical revisionism is a sad fact of American education today. Students > are not getting the whole story, and often references to religion and > Christianity are left out. > > > Kerby Anderson > Probe Ministries > > Notes > > 1. W.E. Woodward, George Washington: The Image and the Man (New York: Boni > and Liverlight, 1926), 142. > > 2. George Washington, The Writings of George Washington (Washington, DC: > Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XV, 55. > > 3. Manuscript Prayer-Book Written by George Washington (Philadelphia, 1891). > > 4. Kenneth C. Davis, Don't Know Much About History (New York: Avon Books, > 1990), 61. > > 5. Davis, 21. > > 6. Paul Vitz, Censorship: Evidence of Bias in Our Children's Textbooks > (Michigan: Servant Books, 1986), 3. > > 7. Vitz, 18-19. > > 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 > > Jason, you keep some very sleazy and dishonest company. This comes from http://positiveliberty.com/2006/08/kerby-anderson-engages-in-historical-revisionism.html _____________________________________________________________________________________________ while trying to give a lesson on historical revisionism. Reproducing a letter, he writes: Dear Kerby, I have heard you discuss the topic of historical revisionism on radio. I told my son about this, and he doesn Quote
Guest cactus Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 Ralph wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0307071035260001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> In article <5euviqF3a5qs7U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> >>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> >>> >>> snipo >>>> I see it different. I see evolutionists that that rush to court to stop >>>> any school systems from teaching Intelligent Design. They do not want >>>> any >>>> competition. >>> Why do you keep telling this lie? >> It's my opinion that if evolutionists honestly believed that childen would >> laugh at creation science and would understand that evolution made much >> more sense than creation science--that they would not ever be concerned >> when many school systems started teaching intelligent design. That is NOT >> the case. Instead, the evidence is that they are really worried that MANY >> students would realize that creation science made much more sense than >> macro evolution theory. In my opinion, that is the MAIN reason that they >> rush to court to stop any school systems from teaching ID. The cover story >> is that they are protecting children from learning false information >> instead of science. The cover story is working well since several >> different posters have told me the cover story. >> >> Jason > > Your opinion is wrong! How many times do you need to be told this and how > many times are you going to repeat your lie? > > He's not going to change. This is not a discussion, it's a polemical exchange. Even if he can't spell it, that's what he's doing. You will no more change his views than he yours. Isn't it getting tedious? How many times have we said exactly the same thing to him, and how many times has he repeated exactly what he said before? Maybe we're the stupid ones here. Quote
Guest cactus Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. > > Is this your best argument for teaching creationism in public school - that it's legal to lie? Quote
Guest cactus Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. > > Probably not; that pastor probably studied quite a bit in divinity school. You, OTOH appear to rely exclusively on what your preachers tell you. There is a difference between actual study and being spoon-fed little bits of biblical text. Quote
Guest cactus Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 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 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 > > Jason, didn't you post that earlier? Quote
Guest cactus Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1183507567.422866.312360@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> 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 > > Martin, > Several posters told me that one of the reasons they did not want > Intelligent Design taught in the public schools is because they don't want > teachers to teach lies and false information to students. Kerby Anderson > provides evidence that lies and false information is already being taught > to students in public schools. As of yet, no posters have indicated that > they do not want historical revisionism taught to public school students. > > I suggest that you visit this site. These experts in physics are not > Christians but are able to think outside the box. > > If you believe that Kerby is lying, check out the sources mentioned in the > notes sections. > > http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/07/03/paul_davies/ > > jason > > Anthropic Principle Quote
Guest cactus Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <x8udnX0VSPaRRBfbnZ2dnUVZ_tmknZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > >> 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. > > John, > Thanks for your post. In this case, the translators could have used the > word fox or jackal or most any other animal that is a burrower. In most > cases, the context is used to determine the best animal to use. > > Yes, I agree that a 3000 year old skeleton would be superior to any > information from a book in regard to determining whether an animal (eg > fox) living in those times was similar or different than animals living > today. However, if there are no 3000 year old fox skeletons--the info. > from books such as the Old Testament is better than nothing. > Jason > > Why do you believe that? Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 In article <1183518696.251527.137420@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 4, 8:50 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1183507567.422866.312...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > 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! > > > Several posters told me that one of the reasons they did not want > > Intelligent Design taught in the public schools is because they don't want > > teachers to teach lies and false information to students. Kerby Anderson > > provides evidence that lies and false information is already being taught > > to students in public schools. As of yet, no posters have indicated that > > they do not want historical revisionism taught to public school students. > > > > I suggest that you visit this site. These experts in physics are not > > Christians but are able to think outside the box. > > > > If you believe that Kerby is lying, check out the sources mentioned in the > > notes sections. > > > > http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/07/03/paul_davies/ > > Jason, you're insane. Here's what the link says. "it's always a bad > idea for people to decide what to believe on religious grounds and > then to cherry-pick the scientific facts to fit" and "I want to stay > away from a pre-existing cosmic magician who is there within time, for > all eternity, and then brings the universe into being as part of a > preconceived plan. I think that's just a naive, silly idea that > doesn't fit the leanings of most theologians these days and doesn't > fit the scientific facts." It in no way supports what you want us to > believe. The title of the article is misleading. Once again, you've > lead us to an article you didn't even bother to read yourself. > > Martin Martin, Yes, I did read it. I stated in my above post that "these experts in physics are not Christians but are able to think outside of the box." Jason Quote
Guest Martin Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 On Jul 4, 12:23 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1183518696.251527.137...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jul 4, 8:50 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1183507567.422866.312...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > 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! > > > > Several posters told me that one of the reasons they did not want > > > Intelligent Design taught in the public schools is because they don't want > > > teachers to teach lies and false information to students. Kerby Anderson > > > provides evidence that lies and false information is already being taught > > > to students in public schools. As of yet, no posters have indicated that > > > they do not want historical revisionism taught to public school students. > > > > I suggest that you visit this site. These experts in physics are not > > > Christians but are able to think outside the box. > > > > If you believe that Kerby is lying, check out the sources mentioned in the > > > notes sections. > > > >http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/07/03/paul_davies/ > > > Jason, you're insane. Here's what the link says. "it's always a bad > > idea for people to decide what to believe on religious grounds and > > then to cherry-pick the scientific facts to fit" and "I want to stay > > away from a pre-existing cosmic magician who is there within time, for > > all eternity, and then brings the universe into being as part of a > > preconceived plan. I think that's just a naive, silly idea that > > doesn't fit the leanings of most theologians these days and doesn't > > fit the scientific facts." It in no way supports what you want us to > > believe. The title of the article is misleading. Once again, you've > > lead us to an article you didn't even bother to read yourself. > Yes, I did read it. I stated in my above post that "these experts in > physics are not Christians but are able to think outside of the box." You should have said that these experts in physics are able to think outside the box BECAUSE they are not Christians. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 In article <tlEii.45118$5j1.3755@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <5euviqF3a5qs7U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> > >> > >> snipo > >>> I see it different. I see evolutionists that that rush to court to stop > >>> any school systems from teaching Intelligent Design. They do not want any > >>> competition. > >> Why do you keep telling this lie? > > > > It's my opinion that if evolutionists honestly believed that childen would > > laugh at creation science and would understand that evolution made much > > more sense than creation science--that they would not ever be concerned > > when many school systems started teaching intelligent design. That is NOT > > the case. Instead, the evidence is that they are really worried that MANY > > students would realize that creation science made much more sense than > > macro evolution theory. In my opinion, that is the MAIN reason that they > > rush to court to stop any school systems from teaching ID. The cover story > > is that they are protecting children from learning false information > > instead of science. The cover story is working well since several > > different posters have told me the cover story. > > Who told you that "cover story," Jason? Several different posters have told me that Intelligent Design should not be taught in the public school system. The main reason was because they did not want students taught false information--just evolution. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 In article <468AF442.5000606@worldnet.att.net>, John Siegel <JohnASiegel@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > David V. 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? > > I still have a hard time beieving that Jason is a fact and not a pretender. > > I wonder what he would say about the evidence for ongoing evolution of > humans? I have seen no evidence of that. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 In article <TBEii.45127$5j1.29318@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > 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 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 > > > > > Jason, didn't you post that earlier? Yes--I found it on the Probe Ministries website. Quote
Guest cactus Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <tlEii.45118$5j1.3755@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>, > bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <5euviqF3a5qs7U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >>> >>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> >>>> >>>> snipo >>>>> I see it different. I see evolutionists that that rush to court to stop >>>>> any school systems from teaching Intelligent Design. They do not want any >>>>> competition. >>>> Why do you keep telling this lie? >>> It's my opinion that if evolutionists honestly believed that childen would >>> laugh at creation science and would understand that evolution made much >>> more sense than creation science--that they would not ever be concerned >>> when many school systems started teaching intelligent design. That is NOT >>> the case. Instead, the evidence is that they are really worried that MANY >>> students would realize that creation science made much more sense than >>> macro evolution theory. In my opinion, that is the MAIN reason that they >>> rush to court to stop any school systems from teaching ID. The cover story >>> is that they are protecting children from learning false information >>> instead of science. The cover story is working well since several >>> different posters have told me the cover story. >> Who told you that "cover story," Jason? > > Several different posters have told me that Intelligent Design should not > be taught in the public school system. The main reason was because they > did not want students taught false information--just evolution. > > I am probably one of those posters. And that is right - I don't want students taught lies at my expense. And creationism is a lie. So is its running dog, "intelligent design." Why are you here Jason? Do you have a purpose in your posts? Most people who get called stupid and liars stop long before, yet you keep going? Why, Jason? Quote
Guest David V. Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 Jason wrote: > \ Several different posters have told me that Intelligent > Design should not be taught in the public school system. The > main reason was because they did not want students taught > false information--just evolution. Partially true. ID is false information, it is religious dogma and according to our laws it has no place in public schools. -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 In article <GICdnXMpWYwPZBfbnZ2dnUVZ_oupnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > > John, > > Thanks for your post. In this case, the translators could have used the > > word fox or jackal or most any other animal that is a burrower. In most > > cases, the context is used to determine the best animal to use. > > > > Yes, I agree that a 3000 year old skeleton would be superior to any > > information from a book in regard to determining whether an animal (eg > > fox) living in those times was similar or different than animals living > > today. However, if there are no 3000 year old fox skeletons--the info. > > from books such as the Old Testament is better than nothing. > > Jason > > Not even close to useful to show that a particular line of > animals has or has not evolved since 3000 years ago. (That > was the point you were making with this reference.) If you > find a word that was translated as fox for the King James > Bible, but may have meant jackal but probably just meant > some kind of borrowing animal, so you can't tell fox from > muskrat from rabbit from chipmunk from groundhog from > something else that has since gone extinct, that is not a > reference to prove anything about comparative anatomy. > > Give it up. Its just silly. > > By the way, it is obvious that you have zero respect for > people who actually spend their lives finding those 3000 > year old (or whatever age) skeletons and fossils and > evaluating how they are similar and different from what is > living today. That is not true. I respect people that do that type of work. I doubt that 3000 year old fox skeletons would be easy to find. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 In article <1183517286.034292.161280@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 4, 5:16 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <0uyii.74$yD2...@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > >news:Jason-0207072312460001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > In article <1183442128.284710.224...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> On Jul 3, 12:49 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > >> > In article <1183429649.303081.290...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > > >> > Martin > > > >> > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > > On Jul 3, 9:34 am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > In alt.atheism On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:29:16 -0700, J...@nospam.com > > > >> > > > (Jason) let us all know that: > > > > > >> > > > >Teachers have been teaching evolution in the public schools for > > > >> > > > >over 35 > > > >> > > > >years. Have you wondered how successful those high school teachers > > > >> > > > >have > > > >> > > > >been? > > > > > >> > > > They've also been teaching mathematics and that the Earth > > > >> > > > is a > > > >> > > > spheroid. > > > > > >> > > > >Answer: Only 12% of Americans believe that humans evolved from > > > >> > > > >other > > > >> > > > >life-forms without any involvement from a god. > > > >> > > > >source: National Geographic Nov/2004 page 6 > > > > > >> > > > >It appears to me that more Americans agree with me than agree with > > > >> > > > >the > > > >> > > > >advocates of evolution. > > > > > >> > > > So what? > > > > > >> > > > > It also explains why evolutionists rush to court > > > >> > > > >every time a school system wants to teach intelligent design. > > > > > >> > > > No it doesn't. > > > > > >> > > > Jason: would you support the teaching of "Flat-Earth > > > >> > > > Theory" > > > >> > > > in schools. Remember: it's a competing idea. It doesn't matter how > > > >> > > > many people believe it: IT'S A COMPETING IDEA. > > > > > >> > > The flat Earth theory does get mentioned in schools and is followed > > > >> > > by > > > >> > > laughter. > > > > > >> > If a school system tried to teach the Flat Earth Theory, I would write > > > >> > letters to each member of the school board and ask them to reconsider > > > >> > their decision. > > > > > >> Explain why. Are you afraid that students might come to see that the > > > >> flat Earth theory makes more sense? XD > > > > > I see creation science and ID as the truth and see Flat Earth Theory as a > > > > lie. However, unlike the evolutionists, I would not rush to court. > > > > Instead, I would write letters to the members of the school board. I wish > > > > that evolutionists would do that instead of rushing to court. > > > > > 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. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#Laws_against_Holocaust_denial > > "Holocaust denial is illegal in a number of European countries. Many > countries also have broader laws against libel or inciting racial > hatred, as do a number of countries that do not specifically have laws > against Holocaust denial, such as Canada and the United Kingdom. The > Council of Europe's 2003 Additional Protocol to the Convention on > Cyber Crime, concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and > xenophobic nature committed through computer systems includes an > article 6 titled Denial, gross minimisation, approval or justification > of genocide or crimes against humanity, though this does not have the > status of law." > > Martin I doubt that teachers in America are teaching false information about the Holocaust. However, they are teaching false information about such things as Thanksgiving. "Thanking God" is no longer mentioned when the teachers discuss Thanksgiving with children. jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 In article <NmEii.45119$5j1.42002@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <5ev4bnF3amntfU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in > >> > >> snip > >>> The good news is that we still have millions of species of plants and > >>> animals. I wish that mosquitoes would become extinct. > >> And gee, guess what would have happened to all the other species that eat > >> them? > > > > Those species are not doing a good job eating mosquitoes. They had to > > spray some areas to kill mosquitoes. > > > > > The problem is that they breed like flies. They also carry diseases. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 In article <AeydndR-J_x_ZhfbnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > Martin Phipps wrote: > > 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. > >> > >>> ...... > >>> 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. ..... > >> [snip for brevity] > >>> - 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 > > I have absolutely no doubt that he read none of it and understood > even less of it. I only read whatever the professor told us to read. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 In article <1183516292.660200.152960@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 4, 4:44 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <bpal83taih71ub9kiiahs3238r7vhr1...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > > > > > > > > > > > > <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > > In alt.atheism On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 10:51:19 -0700, J...@nospam.com > > > (Jason) let us all know that: > > > > > >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. > > > > > So's gravity. > > > > > Why do you keep forgetting that? Why are you so dishonest? > > > > 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. > > http://users.ameritech.net/dennisreynolds1/GravitationalTheory.html > > You are being dishonest. "Gravitational theory" gets 2,000,000 hits > on google and is no small fraction of the hits that "Evolutionary > theory" gets. > > Martin Martin, Is evolution a theory? Yes or No 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.