Evolution is Just Junk Science

July 4, 2007

In article <BmHii.524$m%.446@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com

wrote:

> Jason wrote:

> > 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.

> >

> Why did you post it again?

Several posters mentioned they did not want ID taught in schools since

they did not want false information taught to students. I pointed out

(with this post) that false information (historical revisionism) is

already being taught to their children. I continue to believe that the

cover story of the evolutionists is that they don't want ID taught because

it contains false information. The real reason is because they don't want

any competing theories to be taught. In addition, they are concerned that

the students would realize that intelligent design makes more sense than

macroevolution. The lawyers that represented the evolutionists in the

Dover case have not filed suit related to preventing historical

revisionism.

Jason

July 4, 2007

Ralph 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.

>

I've been thinking that for a while. The ball is in our court at this

point.

July 4, 2007

Bob T. wrote:

> 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.

>

He mentions it because he associates evolution with everything he

regards as evil. If he regarded child molestation as evil, he'd include

that too.

July 4, 2007

Charles & Mambo Duckman wrote:

> 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.

>

He's not illiterate - he's being polemical. We really have no idea what

he believes, just as no one really knows what a professional creationist

believes - we only know that they are riding a gravy train, be it

emotional as in Jason's case, or financial as with the ICR.

July 4, 2007

Bob T. wrote:

> 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.

"Just because you're not paranoid, it doesn't mean they really are out

to get you." (or something like that.)

July 4, 2007

Therion Ware wrote:

> 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.

>

Is that who he is? Dammit, we've all been fooled. No wonder he won't

respond to my questions about why he's here.

July 4, 2007

On Jul 4, 10:11 am, J...@nospam.com (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

>

> 1) The Universe...How did it originate?

>

> The First and Second Law of Thermodynamics are great evidence for a

> supernatural entity.

No, they aren't.

> 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.

You have heard of the Big Bang, have you not?

>

> Was this beginning natural? the First Law of Thermodynamics says it was not.

It says nothing of the sort.

> 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.

This is a pack of nonsense. I do not have high hopes for the other

nine points...

>

> 2) Life...How Did It Originate?

>

> Atheists think life originated by a natural process of chemicals mixing

> with energy.

This is the only true statement in this paragraph.

> They can believe this, but it is anti-science and a blind faith belief.

Lie.

> The Law of Biogenesis states life only comes from life. This

> law is the foundation of Biology.

Not exactly - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_biogenesis

> Since life did not originate from non-life by natural means, teh best explanation is that it had a

> supernatural origin.

If you assume your conclusion, it is easy to logically derive that

conclusion from your assumptions.

>

> 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.

Evolution is not chance.

>

> 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.

Nonsense - as I already pointed out, evolution is not "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.

There are animals on this planet that have simplified circulatory

systems, respiratory systems, etc. that provide clear examples of how

evolution has proceeded to produce more complex systems gradually over

time.

>

> 6) Sex.

>

> Which came first the chicken or the egg?

The egg - chickens are descended from dinosaurs, who laid eggs.

> 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.

We have many examples of asexual reproduction in the animal kingdom.

>

> 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!

Your dad is a Creationist moron.

>

> 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!

Yes, there were. We know a lot about them from the fossil evidence

they left behind. Anyone who claims that there are no transitional

forms is lying.

> 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.

We are all transitional forms between our ancestors and our

descendants. We do not see ourselves as transitional because we live

in the present. If we want to learn more about transitional forms, we

need only look at the fossil record, which contains zillions of them.

We have clear examples of creatures transitional between dinosaurs and

birds, and between land mammals and whales, etc. etc. etc.

>

> 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.

You are an ape, I am an ape, and the idiot who wrote this list is an

ape.

>

> 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).

Isn't lying a sin in your religion? This entire paragraph is a lie.

The biggest lie in this paragraph is the phrase "trying to be fair

here".

>

> If the theory of evolution is true, there should be millions of

> transitional forms.

There are.

> 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 of these examples exist, along with dinosaurs that had feathers.

> many quotes by Evolutionists support this claim.

Liar.

>

> 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."

Three-year-olds are wrong about a lot of things.

>

> 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.

This write understands nothing about either genetics or mutations.

>

> 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.

It's a good thing that evolution does not function "by chance".

>

> 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.

The chance of this writer being an idiot and a liar is 100%.

- Bob T.

July 4, 2007

In article <1183531106.791035.58130@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 4, 2:06 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <1183527376.705792.189...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> >

> > <phippsmar...@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.

>

> You still haven't answered the question, Jason. When is something

> alive?

>

> > > > 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.

>

> Which ones?

>

> > > > 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.

>

> No response, 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.

>

> You never explain anything, Jason: you just duck every question you

> are asked. What criteria do you sue to determine if something is

> alive, Jason? (Remember, you have often claimed that you would read

> about the experiment proving abiogenesis.) What evidence do you have

> Jason that suggests that "macro-evolution" never happened? What

> fossil evidence supports creationism? Do you have a fossil of your

> god? You never answer a single question put to you, Jason. Any

> college professor who gave you an A for biology had to be a fraud!

>

> Martin

I have already answered most of these questions. I have pointed out that

lab experiments have not proved that life could be formed from non-life.

You may want to post the Wikipedia article related to the "Law of

Biogenesis".

I have told you about the two books that contain information about the

fossil and bones. There is no way that I could repeat all of that

information from those two books in a post.

I have not seen evidence indicating that macro-evolution happened. I have

seen evidence that micro-evolution happened.

The biology professor that gave me an A did not require us to write

reports or answer essay questions. They were multiple choice questions and

true-false questions. It was a huge class--over 150 students. He probably

gave those sorts of tests so as to make the tests easier to grade by

student workers. All of the professors had student workers (on

scholarship) working for them.

Jason

July 4, 2007

On Jul 4, 10:41 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <BmHii.524$m%....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, b...@nonespam.com

> wrote:

>

> > Jason wrote:

> > > In article <TBEii.45127$5j1.29...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>,

> > > b...@nonespam.com wrote:

>

> > >> Jason wrote:

> > >>> In article <H5qdnU_4BMCgXBfbnZ2dnUVZ_sqdn...@sti.net>, "David V."

> > >>> <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

> > >>>> Jason wrote:

> > >>>>> In article <duqdnZMbs7B3NBfbnZ2dnUVZ_qOpn...@sti.net>, "David

> > >>>>> V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

> > >>>>>> Jason wrote:

>

> > >>>>>>> It's my opinion that if evolutionists honestly believed

> > >>>>>>> that childen would laugh at creation science and would

> > >>>>>>> understand that evolution made much more sense than

> > >>>>>>> creation science--that they would not ever be concerned

> > >>>>>>> when many school systems started teaching intelligent

> > >>>>>>> design.

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

>

> > >>>>>> Creationism is not a science, it is a religious dogma. It

> > >>>>>> has no place in public schools or in any science class.

>

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

> > >>>>>> place in public schools or in any science class.

>

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

> > >>>>>> understand?

> > >>>>> Dave, See my post to Bob.

> > >>>> 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 atwww.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

> > >>> i...@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.

>

> > Why did you post it again?

>

> Several posters mentioned they did not want ID taught in schools since

> they did not want false information taught to students. I pointed out

> (with this post) that false information (historical revisionism) is

> already being taught to their children. I continue to believe that the

> cover story of the evolutionists is that they don't want ID taught because

> it contains false information. The real reason is because they don't want

> any competing theories to be taught.

Stop lying.

> In addition, they are concerned that

> the students would realize that intelligent design makes more sense than

> macroevolution.

Another lie. Isn't that a sin in your religion?

> The lawyers that represented the evolutionists in the

> Dover case have not filed suit related to preventing historical

> revisionism.

Nor have they filed suit to stop McDonalds from serving coffee that is

too hot. Could it be that evolutionary scientists have no interest in

either historical revisionism or scalding coffee? It could.

- Bob T.

> Jason- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

July 4, 2007

In article <1183559976.899818.225530@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Bob

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

> 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 -

Please explain the Law of Biogenesis in relation to macro-evolution versus

creation science.

July 4, 2007

cactus wrote:

> Jason wrote:

>> In article <TBEii.45127$5j1.29318@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>,

>> bm1@nonespam.com wrote:

>>> Jason, didn't you post that earlier?

>>

>> Yes--I found it on the Probe Ministries website.

>>

> Why did you post it again?

Jason's motto: "If you can't sway them with actual facts, overwhelm them

with repeated bullshit."

July 4, 2007

In article <YsudnYpTa8-OLhbbnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@comcast.com>, Charles & Mambo

Duckman <duckman@gfy.slf> wrote:

> 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.

Various posters have told me that evolution is a fact. What would you tell

a person that told you that evolution was a fact?

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.

It's more like staring at the sun. It's very painful and you know it'll

cause permanent harm over the long run but yet you can't tear yourself away.

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

>

> 1) The Universe...How did it originate?

<snip>

We don't know. We may eventually arrive at a scientific explanation.

However, those who cannot tolerate uncertainty and have to have their

answers immediately will seize anything that makes them feel comfortable.

<snip>

>

> The overwhelming majority of scientists believe the Universe is not

> eternal. If it is not eternal, it had a beginning.

That isn't true. It might have started at some time and go on forever,

just as a line segment might.

>

<snip>

> 2) Life...How Did It Originate?

>

We don't know. We may eventually arrive at a scientific explanation.

However, those who cannot tolerate uncertainty and have to have their

answers immediately will seize anything that makes them feel comfortable.

<snip>

>

> 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.

Invalid. Argument from incredulity.

>

> 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?

<snip>

>

> Information comes from an information giver. Not from nothing, nor not by

> chance.

Invalid. Argument from incredulity.

>

> 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.

>

> 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.

Invalid. Argument from incredulity.

>

> 6) Sex.

>

<snip>

Both systems are very complex and very

> unique. Once again, creationists believe in "instant people." And that

> includes instant males and instant females.

Argument from incedulity

>

> 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!

This is a classic case of a false premise implying anything can be a

true statement. Or better, it's vacuously true. Think about it.

>

> 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.

Intermediate forms are being found. If you read the scientific

literature rather than wallowing in your deliberate ignorance you would

know that.

<snip>

>

> 8) Fossil Evidence.

>

> There are trillions of fossils. yet, in my opinion (trying to be fair

> here)

You are not being fair. Once again you lie for your dogma.

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).

Why don't you write a scientifically valid pa

>

> If the theory of evolution is true, there should be millions of

> transitional forms.

We are finding them Jason. You should read the scientific literature and

respond to that, rather than speaking from ignorance.

Lets suppose the theory of evolution is true.

Sure, because it is.

> 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.

Evolution is not necessarily a continuous process. In any case there are

many primitive and vestigial forms found in the fossil record. How can

anyone deliberately choose this abysmal depth of ignorance?

>

> 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's a philosopher like your Dad. I had no idea you were a crow.

> 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.

Or you get a crow with a slightly different immune system, or a crow

with some other minor feature that may or may not have an impact on its

ability to reproduce.

But since you don't believe in biochemistry or physiology, you will

never know.

Mutations make

> lung cancer, they don't make lungs.

That is about as preposterous as the rest of your belief system. It's a

polemical lie. Mutations are about as likely to decrease the odds of

lung cancer (or its severity) as anything else.

>

> 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.

As usual, you distort science. The anthropic principle says only that

the universe has to be right for life to exist. Regardless of the odds,

it happened. So the probability of life in the universe is 1.0 because

it happened. You are a classic demonstration that the probablity of

intelligent life is somewhat less.