Guest John Baker Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 23:06:51 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >In article <1183527376.705792.189030@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jul 4, 1:13 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1183519429.782828.230...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > 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. >> >> > The evidence of abiogenesis that is NOT backed up with evidence are the >> > lack of lab experiments that indicated these steps happened: >> > >> > > > > > STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) >> > > > > > STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual >> > > > > > reproduction) >> > > > > > STEP 3 Animal cell colony (with cells depending upon each other for >> > > > > > survival) >> > > > > > STEP 4 Multicelled animal (with cells differentiated according to >> > > > > > function) >> > >> > Please don't try to convince me that lab experiments that prove that >> > genetic materials can be created from non-genetic materials proves >> > evolution. >> >> It doesn't prove evolution. It proves abiogenesis. >> >> Tell me, Jason, at what point do you consider something alive? When >> is it dead? When is a plant alive? When is it dead? I can answer >> these questions, Jason, but I want to hear your answers first. > >I don't know about plants but know about animals since I was raised on a >farm. It was easy to tell the difference between live animals and dead >animals. Doctors and nurses in hospitals can easily determine if a person >has died because of the equipment that is used. > >> >> > In relation to my statement: >> > Yes, I believe that the theory of evolution explains the facts that are >> > backed up with evidence. I would add: Some aspects of macro-evolution >> > theory are NOT backed up with evidence. (see above--re: steps) >> >> You can't have it both ways, Jason: either the theory evolution is >> supported by facts or it isn't. The facts supporting the theory of >> eveolution are the _facts_ of evolution and, as you admit, we do >> indeed have evidence supporting them. > >I disagree. Some of the aspects of micro-evolution can proved to be true. >Some of the aspects of macro-evolution have not been proved to be true. > > >> >> > Yes, evidence supports creation science--fossil evidence. >> >> You're a liar and you know you are a liar: you still haven't produced >> a single fossil of your god. All the fossil evidence is evidence of >> evolution: the fossil evidence clearly shows that animals in the past >> were different from the animals we see today. Thus, the animals >> changed over time. It's that simple, Jason. >> >> > As discussed above--not all evidence supports evolution. >> >> This is your assertion. Show us evidence which doesn't support >> evolution. Better yet, show us evidence that supports creationism. >> You haven't done either. > >I explained my point above related to the steps. Steps? Oh, you mean your silly little strawman. Here's a free clue. Evolution doesn't proceed in a series of neat, easily categorized "steps", nor does it require a progression from less complex to more complex. In fact, there are many well documented examples of evolutionary lines becoming less complex over time. Your "steps" prove nothing other than your own profound lack of understanding of what evolution is and how it works. >> >> Martin > Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 In alt.atheism On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 21:51:53 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >Martin, >Is evolution a theory? Yes or No > Jason, Is gravity a theory? Yes or No. We can play this game until you admit to being 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" Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 00:30:20 -0700, cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote: - Refer: <C%Hii.427$bz7.113@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net> >Michael Gray wrote: >> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 03:15:25 GMT, cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote: >> - Refer: <hhEii.45116$5j1.39870@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net> >>> 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? >> >> I vote for "die". >> >> -- >When I worked in the mental hospitals I met people on anti psychotic >medications who missed the voices that told them what to do. He's not >psychotic, so he doesn't have to give up anything to function in >society. He has nothing to gain from the truth at this point. > >And yet he holds us all in thrall as we watch him repeat outrageous >lies, incessantly distort science, post repeated screeds from known >hypocrites, and ignore everything we say. > >Who is really the nut case? I understand what you are driving at, but he is like a mental train wreck that you just can't help staring at. -- Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 "cactus" <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote in message news:fwEii.45124$5j1.2231@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net... > 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. I've thought about that. Answering Jason is as bad as answering Jabbers. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 On 3 Jul., 22:44, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <bpal83taih71ub9kiiahs3238r7vhr1...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch snip > > >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. Of course you are. >Were the editors and writers of the article in > National Geographic being dishonest when they used the term "the theory of > evolution". No, they were telling the truth. I challenge you to google "theory of evolution". You will > receive lots of hits. Even my dictionary refers to evolution as a theory. > Jason- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest Therion Ware Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 06:53:02 -0500, walksalone@dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc wrote in message <4687978e$1$jnyxfnybar$mr2ice@news.datemas.de>: >In <g4qe83hk4731n9v4e377aaf58k8mfjh8uf@4ax.com>, on 07/01/07 > at 06:12 PM, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> said: >>On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 23:32:39 -0700, johac >><jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> - Refer: <jhachmann-8217FB.23323930062007@news.giganews.com> >In >>article <1183197258.119270.49160@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > Martin >>Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Jun 30, 2:29 pm, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> > In article <5ekj7bF398uh...@mid.individual.net>, >>>> > "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: >>>> > > "johac" <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>>> > >news:jhachmann-5CD649.15412328062007@news.giganews.com... >>>> > > > In article <5ehujiF385pl...@mid.individual.net>, >>>> > > > "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > >Snipped good reference to a good mythology site. > >>> it sounds like the Baal of the early OT was a different god. Possibly >>>related to Yaweh, but not the same. He might have been the son of El who >>>is sometimes identified with Yaweh. I don't think that Zeus got there >>>until the Greeks arrived, particularly after Alexander's conquest. > >>It is my opinion that the early tribes of Israel stole the Ba'al concept >>and fashioned their own god from it. > >I suspect that you may be in error, & that yahweh was in fact, indigenous >to the Sinai/Negev desert regions. If I can come on board, I will share my >info via PDF files, at least four of them, & let you see my hand so to >speak. > >>("walksalone" disagrees, so I am in the throes of preparing a referenced >>justification for my position.) > >Not so much disagree, the attributes of ba'al were slowly subsumed into >the yahweh myth, see Hosea for a final indicator that this was done >deliberately. And for a beginning, the story of Elijah and prophets of Baal! >Now, if you e-mail me, I might have something of interest to you, >something that may incite the desire to add to your library. If nothing >else, you will know some of my sources, which for a person with no formal >education, is not so bad. Got to add to it though. > >walksalone at spamstopper com will get here. > > >"Morality is simply the attitude we adopt towards people whom we do not >like." Oscar Wild > -- "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". attrib: Pauline R Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 On 3 Jul., 23:18, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <Byyii.77$yD2...@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-0107071917380001@66-52-22-111.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > Should Only Naturalistic Explanations > > > Be Allowed in Our Science Classrooms? > > > Of course. > > How could you have anything other than naturalistic explanations and still > > have science? The answer is that you can't. That my little fundie buddy, is > > exactly why creationism and all of its forms should not be in a science > > classroom. I couldn't have said it better myself. > > What's your opinion about teaching historical revisionism instead of > historical facts? That it is a rather transparent attempt on your part to distract attention from the argument being made. You just can't seem to help yourself. Quote
Guest David V. Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 Jason wrote: > > It's my opinion that many of the 500 or more Christians that > have Ph.D degrees are able to think outside the box which is > the reason they are Christians. And of course you got that backwards. They are stuck inside the christian box and, as with you, simply cannot understand, and adamantly refuse to understand, anything outside that small, dark, stultifying, box. > The advocates of evolution that are atheists have become the > "status quo" and the "norm" in many state colleges. You forget that most of those that understand and teach evolution are christian themselves. > Professors that are Christians are risk takers. They are even > willing to risk not getting tenure. They are the ones that are > able to think outside the box. The only risk they take is losing tenure, and they should lose tenure. They have no excuse for teaching religious dogma as if it were the truth. -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 On 4 Jul., 06:51, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1183516292.660200.152...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@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- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest Bob T. Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 On Jul 3, 10:13 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1183519429.782828.230...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > 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 > > Martin, > The evidence of abiogenesis that is NOT backed up with evidence are the > lack of lab experiments that indicated these steps happened: > > > > > > STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) > > > > > STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual > > > > > reproduction) > > > > > STEP 3 Animal cell colony (with cells depending upon each other for > > > > > survival) > > > > > STEP 4 Multicelled animal (with cells differentiated according to > > > > > function) > > Please don't try to convince me that lab experiments that prove that > genetic materials can be created from non-genetic materials proves > evolution. > > In relation to my statement: > Yes, I believe that the theory of evolution explains the facts that are > backed up with evidence. I would add: Some aspects of macro-evolution > theory are NOT backed up with evidence. (see above--re: steps) You are absolutely wrong about that. I don't know what you think the above "steps" mean, but there is no scientific doubt about the _fact_ of evolution. See this link, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html, that Dave just posted. > > Yes, evidence supports creation science--fossil evidence. No, the fossil evidence confirms evolution and contradicts creationism. > As discussed above--not all evidence supports evolution. Yes, all the evidence does indeed support evolution. I have no idea what you think those steps mean, but they don't mean what you think they mean. - Bob T. > > - Show quoted text - Quote
Guest Bob T. Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 On Jul 3, 10:29 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <HAEii.45126$5j1.3...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>, > > > > > > > > b...@nonespam.com wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <NOyii.90$yD2...@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > >>news:Jason-0307071337440001@66-52-22-78.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > >>> 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? > > > >>> 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. > > Liberal preachers make be think of this verse: > > 11 Tim 4:2-3 > Preach the gospel...for the time will come when Christians will not endure > sound doctrine but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will > accumulate for themselves teachers [and preachers] in accordance to their > own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth... > > Many of the members of that liberal church believe in macro-evolution and > abortion--even during the third trimester. And Stalin did not believe in evolution. Why do you mention abortion in this discussion? It is no more relevant than communism. - Bob T. Quote
Guest Bob T. Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 On Jul 3, 10:42 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1183523134.928358.288...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > 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 > > It's my opinion that many of the 500 or more Christians that have Ph.D > degrees are able to think outside the box which is the reason they are > Christians. The advocates of evolution that are atheists have become the > "status quo" and the "norm" in many state colleges. Professors that are > Christians are risk takers. They are even willing to risk not getting > tenure. They are the ones that are able to think outside the box. People who believe in a Flat Earth also think "outside the box". Most of the time when scientists think you're a crackpot, it's not because you're a misunderstood genius - it's because you're really a crackpot. - Bob T. Quote
Guest Charles & Mambo Duckman Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 Jason wrote: > Martin, > Is evolution a theory? Yes or No What's with these people and their "just a theory" bullshit? Can't you morons read a book or two, other than the Bible, and learn what a scientific theory is? Evolution is "a theory" in the same way that electromagnetism is a theory, gravitational force is a theory, special relativity is a theory, etc. To say that evolution is just a theory and therefore one does not have to believe in it is no different than jumping off a bridge because one does not "believe" in the gravitational theory. Idiots grasp on a colloquial meaning of the word, than apply it to the scientific process and by this pathetic equivocation they think they proved their stupid superstition. Fucking pathetic. It is not a shame to be illiterate - it is a shame to stay illiterate. -- Come down off the cross We can use the wood Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House Quote
Guest John Baker Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 14:16:16 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (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. And every Sunday school "teacher" would be in prison. > Quote
Guest John Baker Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 09:04:51 -0400, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >"cactus" <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote in message >news:fwEii.45124$5j1.2231@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net... >> 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. > >I've thought about that. Answering Jason is as bad as answering Jabbers. The only difference is Jason insults you in a less direct manner. And to be honest, unless Jason is just trolling, Jabbers, ignorant as he is, has a better understanding of science than Jason. > Quote
Guest Therion Ware Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 12:37:48 -0400, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: >On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 09:04:51 -0400, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >>"cactus" <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote in message >>news:fwEii.45124$5j1.2231@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net... >>> 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. >> >>I've thought about that. Answering Jason is as bad as answering Jabbers. > > >The only difference is Jason insults you in a less direct manner. > >And to be honest, unless Jason is just trolling, Jabbers, ignorant as >he is, has a better understanding of science than Jason. Erm, no. At least not precisely. Jason (I presume this is Gastrich) is attempting to practice a form of "debate judo" and is using aa as a means to improve his debate style. Quote
Guest Mike Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 johac wrote: > In article <f8kg83l3f4q3elcsp12ts8fk3tsn3qa0vb@4ax.com>, > Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 09:34:56 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> >> wrote: >> - Refer: <f68ai0$fd8$2@news04.infoave.net> >>> Michael Gray wrote: >>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 23:20:45 -0700, johac >>>> <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>> Aha! So you are in league with the Devil! >>>> Little League. >>>> Satan's on first. >>> WHO's on first. Did the great saints Abbott and Costello teach you ANYTHING? >>> >>> sheesh >> Jason's on third. >> (Well, its the same as "I don't know") >> > And "I don't care". Jason; the poster child for ignorant apathetics worldwide. Quote
Guest Mike 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. Correct, that's not the case. Why? Because children are suggestible and can't always tell the difference between fact and "fiction presented as fact." That's why we don't teach them that "the earth is flat" is a viable theory, nor to we teach them that "man never went to the moon" could possibly be true. We do teach them what's supported by evidence, however. 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. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! In my opinion, that is the MAIN reason that they > rush to court to stop any school systems from teaching ID. The cover story > is that they are protecting children from learning false information > instead of science. The cover story is working well since several > different posters have told me the cover story. > > Jason > > Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 FishDontWalk.com Ten Quick Reasons Creation Is A Better Explanation Than Evolution Tuesday, July 03, 2007 The Top Ten Reasons Creation Is A Better Explanation Than Evolution 1) The Universe...How did it originate? The First and Second Law of Thermodynamics are great evidence for a supernatural entity. The Universe is composed of matter and energy. Is the Universe eternal? No. The Second Law of Thermodynamics teaches that matter and energy are functions of time and that over time they decay. Since matter and energy are functions of time, they can not be independent of time (eternal). The overwhelming majority of scientists believe the Universe is not eternal. If it is not eternal, it had a beginning. Was this beginning natural? the First Law of Thermodynamics says it was not. Matter and energy is neither created nor destroyed according to the First law of Thermodynamics. Thus, an atheistic belief that the Universe "poofed" from nothing by natural means is anti-science. It is blind faith. Laws of Science show that belief in a supernatural entity is the best explanation of how the universe began, since these Laws of Thermodynamics falsify atheistic belief. 2) Life...How Did It Originate? Atheists think life originated by a natural process of chemicals mixing with energy. They can believe this, but it is anti-science and a blind faith belief. The Law of Biogenesis states life only comes from life. This law is the foundation of Biology. Since life did not originate from non-life by natural means, teh best explanation is that it had a supernatural origin. 3) Design. A simple definition of design is something that was planned for. The human body has 60,000 miles of blood vessels in it. The smallest blood vessels are so small, that only one red blood vessel at a time can pass through it, after its nucleus has fallen off! Red blood cells lose their nucleus so that they can be small enough to pass through your tiniest capillaries. Piping systems do not happen by chance. Especially ones that are this complex. 4) Information. You started out as one tiny fertilized egg. Today you are 75 trillion cells. But you are not the same cell over and over and over again. You started as one cell, but now you have skin cells, hair cells, muscle cells, bone cells, nerve cells, blood cells etc! You have over 200 different cells in your body! One cell in your body is in your digestive tract and all it appears to do is to make mucus! Isn't that cool? And not only do you have all of these cells.....they are in the right place. You don't have bones cells on your eye ball, you don't hair cells in your spine. You are a 75 trillion piece jig saw puzzle with all the pieces in the right place. Jig saw puzzles don't get put together by chance. Do you think you did? Think. You started out as one cell, but in that cell you contained all the information required to make more cells and produce a living organism with 75 trillion cells, over 200 different types of cells and 60,000 miles of blood vessels. Information comes from an information giver. Not from nothing, nor not by chance. 5) Systems. Suppose you evolved 60,000 miles of blood vessels by chance. Will it do you any good? No. You need blood, and a heart. Suppose you evolved blood and a heart and 60,000 miles of blood vessels by chance. Will it do you any good? No. You need a nervous system, a skeletal system, a digestive system, a respiratory system etc. But all of those systems are useless without the circulatory system! Creation believes in instant people. You can't wait around for a liver to evolve. Creation believes a supernatural entity instantly made humans with functioning hearts, livers, lungs, brains, kidneys, spleens, intestines etc. This makes sense because they all need each other to function and to keep the organism alive. 6) Sex. Which came first the chicken or the egg? Two chickens, a functional male and functional female (please see chicken and egg article on this web site). For the many animals that reproduce by sexual reproduction, they need male equipment in part of the population and female equipment in the other part of the population. Both systems are very complex and very unique. Once again, creationists believe in "instant people." And that includes instant males and instant females. My dad is my favorite philosopher. He once said, "You know why Adam and Eve had to be adults? Because human babies are so helpless!" great point dad! 7) Living Evidence. If the theory of evolution occurred, there had to be transitional forms. These transitional forms were the animals that were the "links" between reptiles and birds, ape-men and humans etc. There would have had to be millions of these transitional forms! But not one is alive today. Why not? Either they never existed or they did exist and all vanished. If they do exist today where are they? If they don't exist today, that is powerful evidence for Creation. If the theory of evolution is true, this should be true. You have an ape in a cage at a zoo. You pay 50 bucks to look at the ape. If the theory of evolution is true, there should be living organisms that get a 25 dollar discount because the ape in the cage is a close relative. 8) Fossil Evidence. There are trillions of fossils. yet, in my opinion (trying to be fair here) no transitional forms. evolutionists will claim there are many, but upon close scrutiny, each one can easily be classified as belonging to animals alive today, or an organism that is not transitional, but simply extinct (i.e. trilobites or dinosaurs). If the theory of evolution is true, there should be millions of transitional forms. Lets suppose the theory of evolution is true. Evolutionists believe reptiles are ancestral to birds. The fossil record should have thousands of fossils of half legs/half wings; half scales half feathers; half reptile feet/half bird feet etc. Yet none of these clear transitional fossils exist. many quotes by Evolutionists support this claim. 9) Genetics and Biochemistry. To quote my daughter when she was three and talking to a high school girl: "Don't forget, crows make crows." She is right, and genetics supports her contention. Crow DNA can only make a crow. If you mutate it, you might get a goofy crow, or a dead crow, or an unchanged crow, but you won't get a different animal. Mutations make lung cancer, they don't make lungs. 10) The Anthropic Principle. The earth has the proper temperature, the proper gravity, the proper amount of oxygen, the proper mass ratio of the electron and proton, the proper charge between electrons and protons etc. etc. etc. The odds of an average protein getting the proper sequence by chance is enormous. Let's look at the odds. Imagine an alphabet with 20 letters. Suppose I made a word from this alphabet that was 400 letters long, and asked you to guess the sequence of letters that make up the word. What would be the odds that you would guess it by chance? The odds would be one to 20 times 20 times 20 times 20......400 times! It would be 1 to 20 to the 400th power. This is the same as one to ten to the 520th power. That is a 1 followed by 520 zeros. The odds are greater that you would win California super lotto 500 times in a row than one protein sequence occurring by chance. We are not even talking about a cell, much less an organ, much less a human body. In statistics, something that is 10 to the 50th is considered impossible. Thus one protein by chance is highly impossible. Think of this for a second. If the odds against a protein sequence happening by chance it 10 to the 520th power, the odds that it happened by design is the inverse, 10 to the 520th power in favor of it. Those Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 In alt.atheism On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 10:11:16 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >FishDontWalk.com >Ten Quick Reasons Creation Is A Better Explanation Than Evolution None of them are valid. >Tuesday, July 03, 2007 > >The Top Ten Reasons Creation Is A Better Explanation Than Evolution > >1) The Universe...How did it originate? > >The First and Second Law of Thermodynamics Prevent god from creating the universe. >2) Life...How Did It Originate? Since god must be alive, god must have been created. >3) Design. Begged question. How can you tell design without something not-designed to compare it to? >4) Information. Metaphor. >5) Systems. Same as above. >6) Sex. Where did god come from? >7) Living Evidence. > >If the theory of evolution occurred, there had to be transitional forms. There are. >8) Fossil Evidence. > >There are trillions of fossils. yet, in my opinion (trying to be fair >here) no transitional forms. This person is utterly wrong. >9) Genetics and Biochemistry. > Prove evolution. >10) The Anthropic Principle. Confuses cause and effect. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 In article <1183560211.743558.231580@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Bob T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > On Jul 3, 10:42 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1183523134.928358.288...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > 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 > > > > It's my opinion that many of the 500 or more Christians that have Ph.D > > degrees are able to think outside the box which is the reason they are > > Christians. The advocates of evolution that are atheists have become the > > "status quo" and the "norm" in many state colleges. Professors that are > > Christians are risk takers. They are even willing to risk not getting > > tenure. They are the ones that are able to think outside the box. > > People who believe in a Flat Earth also think "outside the box". Most > of the time when scientists think you're a crackpot, it's not because > you're a misunderstood genius - it's because you're really a crackpot. > > - Bob T. Bob, A Jesuit astronomer named C. Scheiner lived during the same century that Galileo lived. He wrote a book where he attacked Galileo. Who was the crackpot--Galileo or Scheiner? Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 In article <bsjm83tr7a70d5he8r35suvq5grq2po7p4@4ax.com>, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: > On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 20:14:33 -0700, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > >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. > > And often allows them to make a point much more effectively. > > > > > >Martin Not always--Let' say that the professor is an athiest that is like some of the members of this newsgroup in that he has some sort of deep hatred for Christians. Such a professor may enjoy having an argument with that Christian in class in order to better make his points. However, if written reports are required, it's very likely that the professor would give that Christian a lower grade than he deserved on the written reports. Jason Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 Jason wrote: > FishDontWalk.com > Ten Quick Reasons Creation Is A Better Explanation Than Evolution > Tuesday, July 03, 2007 > > The Top Ten Reasons Creation Is A Better Explanation Than Evolution (snip) If this essay impresses you, you might pick one point at a time and put it on the table for discussion, starting out with what you find persuasive about it. Of course, doing it this way, you risk learning something that contradicts what you think you already know. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0407071031060001@66-52-22-6.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <bsjm83tr7a70d5he8r35suvq5grq2po7p4@4ax.com>, John Baker > <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: > >> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 20:14:33 -0700, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >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. >> >> And often allows them to make a point much more effectively. >> >> >> > >> >Martin > > Not always--Let' say that the professor is an athiest that is like some of > the members of this newsgroup in that he has some sort of deep hatred for > Christians. Such a professor may enjoy having an argument with that > Christian in class in order to better make his points. However, if written > reports are required, it's very likely that the professor would give that > Christian a lower grade than he deserved on the written reports. > Jason If his report comes anywhere close to the approach you've taken here I'm not sure that he could deserve a lower grade than what the professor might give him. Quote
Guest cactus Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 Michael Gray wrote: > On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 00:30:20 -0700, cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote: > - Refer: <C%Hii.427$bz7.113@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net> >> Michael Gray wrote: >>> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 03:15:25 GMT, cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote: >>> - Refer: <hhEii.45116$5j1.39870@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net> >>>> 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? >>> I vote for "die". >>> >>> -- >> When I worked in the mental hospitals I met people on anti psychotic >> medications who missed the voices that told them what to do. He's not >> psychotic, so he doesn't have to give up anything to function in >> society. He has nothing to gain from the truth at this point. >> >> And yet he holds us all in thrall as we watch him repeat outrageous >> lies, incessantly distort science, post repeated screeds from known >> hypocrites, and ignore everything we say. >> >> Who is really the nut case? > > I understand what you are driving at, but he is like a mental train > wreck that you just can't help staring at. > > -- He actually did learn something from that quack at the evolution debate - he is using exactly the same tactics as Behe or whatever the guy's name is. No wonder they never lose debates. It would be interesting if there were some psychopathology to observe - plenty of posters have that in spades. But he goes on normally, except for his deeply held beliefs. We are enthralled not by the "train wreck" aspects, but by the fact that the train is running at all. 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.