Guest cactus Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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? > > I would agree with them. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 In article <YYQii.17767$p7.432@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "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. I understand your point. The professor (in my opinion) would probably feel justified in giving a lower grade for that reason. That is the main reason that I never told professors that I was a Christian. In one case, the professor found out that I was a Christian. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 In article <CqSdnbsIBKa8dRbbnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > > What is your opinion about teachers teaching historical revisionism > > instead of historical facts? > > When someone develops a time machine, we may have historical > facts. Till then, historical revisionism is all we have. > All you can do is pick who did the revising. We also have facts such as the Mayflower Compact and historical documents. Quote
Guest David V. Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 Jason wrote: > FishDontWalk.com > Ten Quick Lies Creation Is A Better Explanation Than Evolution It is insulting that you actually believe we are stupid enough to fall for that. -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest Mike Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1183429476.650037.52430@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> According to the 2005 American Community Survey >> (See > http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_S0101&-ds_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_) >> 16.6% of the American population is over sixty. By your own >> admission, these people never learned evolution is high school. The >> number of people who know the truth can only go up as people your age >> and older pass on. >> >> Martin > Key phrase here is "The number of people who know the truth can only go up as people your age and older pass on." > As long as the evolutionists are able to prevent the teaching of ID in > public high schools, you are correct. So Jason finally admits that evolution is the truth. However, if children in high school > were allowed to learn about Intelligent Design, the statistics would run > in our favor. Now he admits that if ID was taught, then the stats would run in his favor and NOT in the direction of "The number of people who know the truth can only go up." > The evolutionists don't want a competing theory to be taught since they > know the children would realize that ID makes more sense. Yes, children are highly suggestible and tend to "realize" the wrong thing when taught lies. If evolutionists > honestly believed the children would see it as a lie--they would not even > care whether or not ID was taught in the public schools. Yes, they realize sometimes when a lie is presented as being the truth, children start to believe it. That's why they won't teach it as being true. Glad to see you come to your senses, Jason. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 In article <f6gp3f$5q5$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <rtOdndKu0bu3oRTbnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." > > <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> \ Would you agree or disagee that the main reason they > >>> attacked Galileo was because they did not want any > >>> competition? > >> Is that the reason you attack evolution? > > > > No--I believe that both evolution and ID should be taught. It's my opinion > > (and I could be wrong) that if both evolution and ID was taught--that most > > of the children would agree that ID made more sense than evolution. > > Believe it or not, most of the advocates of ID support Natural Selection. > > They do not support common descent or abiogenesis. > > Do you want them to teach flat-earth and round-earth and let the kids > decide? How about "bad vapors" and "germ theory"? Or "earth-centered" vs > "sun centered"? You probably don't want those choices all offered, do > you? Then why offer a choice here between "crap" and fact? Even if you > think ID is the fact and evolution is the crap, why would you want crap > being taught? It makes no logical sense. > > (And I'm going to keep asking this every time you come up with this > "teach them both" nonsense.) I answered similar questions in other posts. In those cases, I would write letters to the members of the school board but would not hire a lawyer and take the school system to court. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 In article <1183573824.763624.316690@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Bob T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > On Jul 4, 11:00 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1183559976.899818.225...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Bob > > > > > > > > > > > > T." <b...@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. > > It has no relevance. From the Wikipedia article: > > "Until the 19th century, it was commonly believed that life frequently > arose from non-life under certain circumstances, a process known as > spontaneous generation. This belief was due to the common observation > that maggots or mould appeared to arise spontaneously when organic > matter was left exposed. It was later discovered that under all these > circumstances commonly observed, life only arises from life." > > The Law of Biogenesis says nothing about what happened three billion > years ago on a lifeless Earth. I believe that life arose by natural > abiogensis from non-living components. Many Christians believe that > God initiated life at that time. However it originated, the evidence > is overwhelming that the diversity of life on this planet today formed > gradually step by step through the process of evolution. > > - Bob T. Did you post the entire article or just an excerpt from the article? Do you believe or not believe the Law of Biogenesis? Do you agree or disagree with this statement? If the Law of Biogenesis is in effect today--it was also in effect three billion years ago on a lifeless Earth. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0407071104260001@66-52-22-6.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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? Evolution is both a fact and a theory. You have been shown this many, many times and have been directed to several web sites that explain. I guess the reason you keep lying like a running dog is that creationist Christians like to lie for Jesus. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0407071119420001@66-52-22-6.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <fzEii.45125$5j1.123@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>, > bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <0uyii.74$yD2.17@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:Jason-0207072312460001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >>> In article <1183442128.284710.224670@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, >> >>> Martin >> >>> <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> On Jul 3, 12:49 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >>>>> In article <1183429649.303081.290...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, >> >>>>> Martin >> >>>>> <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> On Jul 3, 9:34 am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>> In alt.atheism On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:29:16 -0700, >> >>>>>>> J...@nospam.com >> >>>>>>> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >>>>>>>> Teachers have been teaching evolution in the public schools for >> >>>>>>>> over 35 >> >>>>>>>> years. Have you wondered how successful those high school >> >>>>>>>> teachers >> >>>>>>>> have >> >>>>>>>> been? >> >>>>>>> They've also been teaching mathematics and that the Earth >> >>>>>>> is a >> >>>>>>> spheroid. >> >>>>>>>> Answer: Only 12% of Americans believe that humans evolved from >> >>>>>>>> other >> >>>>>>>> life-forms without any involvement from a god. >> >>>>>>>> source: National Geographic Nov/2004 page 6 >> >>>>>>>> It appears to me that more Americans agree with me than agree >> >>>>>>>> with >> >>>>>>>> the >> >>>>>>>> advocates of evolution. >> >>>>>>> So what? >> >>>>>>>> It also explains why evolutionists rush to court >> >>>>>>>> every time a school system wants to teach intelligent design. >> >>>>>>> No it doesn't. >> >>>>>>> Jason: would you support the teaching of "Flat-Earth >> >>>>>>> Theory" >> >>>>>>> in schools. Remember: it's a competing idea. It doesn't matter >> >>>>>>> how >> >>>>>>> many people believe it: IT'S A COMPETING IDEA. >> >>>>>> The flat Earth theory does get mentioned in schools and is >> >>>>>> followed >> >>>>>> by >> >>>>>> laughter. >> >>>>> If a school system tried to teach the Flat Earth Theory, I would >> >>>>> write >> >>>>> letters to each member of the school board and ask them to >> >>>>> reconsider >> >>>>> their decision. >> >>>> Explain why. Are you afraid that students might come to see that >> >>>> the >> >>>> flat Earth theory makes more sense? XD >> >>>> >> >>>> Martin >> >>> I see creation science and ID as the truth and see Flat Earth Theory >> >>> as a >> >>> lie. However, unlike the evolutionists, I would not rush to court. >> >>> Instead, I would write letters to the members of the school board. I >> >>> wish >> >>> that evolutionists would do that instead of rushing to court. >> >> Why would you wish that, Jason? If someone is breaking the law you > don't beg >> >> them to stop, you report them to the proper authorities. >> > >> > Teaching false information is not a violation of the >> > law--otherwise--all >> > history teachers that teach "historical revisionism" instead of >> > historical >> > facts would be arrested. >> > >> > >> Is this your best argument for teaching creationism in public school - >> that it's legal to lie? > > No, the reason is because the advocates of Intelligent Design believe it > is the means by which life came to be on this planet. You mean that they surmise this because of personal incredulity. It can't be science since there is no science in ID. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0407071122530001@66-52-22-6.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <f6gk8n$v9f$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <5euviqF3a5qs7U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >> > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> >> >> >> >> snipo >> >>> I see it different. I see evolutionists that that rush to court to >> >>> stop >> >>> any school systems from teaching Intelligent Design. They do not want >> >>> any >> >>> competition. >> >> Why do you keep telling this lie? >> > >> > It's my opinion that if evolutionists honestly believed that childen >> > would >> > laugh at creation science and would understand that evolution made much >> > more sense than creation science--that they would not ever be concerned >> > when many school systems started teaching intelligent design. That is >> > NOT >> > the case. >> >> 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. > > What is your opinion about teachers teaching historical revisionism > instead of historical facts? All history is revisionist history. Again, you've been told this several times. It is hard to believe that you would give up your integrity in a public forum. You're pitiful. Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <CqSdnbsIBKa8dRbbnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> >>> What is your opinion about teachers teaching historical revisionism >>> instead of historical facts? >> When someone develops a time machine, we may have historical >> facts. Till then, historical revisionism is all we have. >> All you can do is pick who did the revising. > > We also have facts such as the Mayflower Compact and historical documents. Individual documented historical facts are not an account of what happened and why it happened. Those facts do constrain the historical account, but your arguments about the history of life on Earth are an example of how cherry picking your facts can allow a completely erroneous account to be written. A good historian is one who tries to fit all available facts into a single account, so that it is the mostly constrained possible account, and therefore the least wrong. Larry Gonick is such a historian. Generally, it is the winners of conflicts who write the history for their own ends. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 <snip lies for brevity> ">> >> 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 So because false information is being taught in history we should allow all false information to be taught??? You're dumber than I thought. When you come up with a competing scientific theory for evolution it will be taught. Hint: creationism and ID are not scientific theories. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 "John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message news:snin83p848k27fakvaqutom7jcke6enfbc@4ax.com... > 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. I agree with that, I thought Loki troll in Jason's case because no one can be that obtuse. Jabbers does know more than Jason, even though that isn't saying much. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0407071018160001@66-52-22-6.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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 Finding anecdotal stories in an attempt to counter the weight of the majority is a futile effort at argumentation. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 In article <f6gpv4$6pc$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <1183429476.650037.52430@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> According to the 2005 American Community Survey > >> (See > > http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_S0101&-ds_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_) > >> 16.6% of the American population is over sixty. By your own > >> admission, these people never learned evolution is high school. The > >> number of people who know the truth can only go up as people your age > >> and older pass on. > >> > >> Martin > > > > Key phrase here is "The number of people who know the truth can only go > up as people your age and older pass on." > > > As long as the evolutionists are able to prevent the teaching of ID in > > public high schools, you are correct. > > So Jason finally admits that evolution is the truth. > > However, if children in high school > > were allowed to learn about Intelligent Design, the statistics would run > > in our favor. > > Now he admits that if ID was taught, then the stats would run in his > favor and NOT in the direction of "The number of people who know the > truth can only go up." > > > The evolutionists don't want a competing theory to be taught since they > > know the children would realize that ID makes more sense. > > Yes, children are highly suggestible and tend to "realize" the wrong > thing when taught lies. > > If evolutionists > > honestly believed the children would see it as a lie--they would not even > > care whether or not ID was taught in the public schools. > > Yes, they realize sometimes when a lie is presented as being the truth, > children start to believe it. That's why they won't teach it as being true. > > Glad to see you come to your senses, Jason. Have you done any research on brainwashing? If so, you would understand the real reason why evolutionists will rush to court to prevent any school system from teaching intelligent design. The evolutionists know that as long as public school systems NEVER teach intelligent design--that within 50 years---the vast majority of the people in America will be advocates of evolution. One young dictator was having lots of trouble with the adults rebelling against him. He made a speech and said something like this: "I am not concerned with the people that don't agree with my policies--the reason is because I have control over your children." The evolutionists have control over the children and will do whatever is necessary to maintain control over the children. That explains the real reason why they rush to court whenever any school system decides to teach intelligent design. They don't care about people like me. They don't care about the advocates of creation science or ID--The reason is because they have control of the children. Do you see my points? If not, read the book "1984" Jason Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0307072138060001@66-52-22-113.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <GICdnXMpWYwPZBfbnZ2dnUVZ_oupnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> >> > John, >> > Thanks for your post. In this case, the translators could have used the >> > word fox or jackal or most any other animal that is a burrower. In most >> > cases, the context is used to determine the best animal to use. >> > >> > Yes, I agree that a 3000 year old skeleton would be superior to any >> > information from a book in regard to determining whether an animal (eg >> > fox) living in those times was similar or different than animals living >> > today. However, if there are no 3000 year old fox skeletons--the info. >> > from books such as the Old Testament is better than nothing. >> > Jason >> >> Not even close to useful to show that a particular line of >> animals has or has not evolved since 3000 years ago. (That >> was the point you were making with this reference.) If you >> find a word that was translated as fox for the King James >> Bible, but may have meant jackal but probably just meant >> some kind of borrowing animal, so you can't tell fox from >> muskrat from rabbit from chipmunk from groundhog from >> something else that has since gone extinct, that is not a >> reference to prove anything about comparative anatomy. >> >> Give it up. Its just silly. >> >> By the way, it is obvious that you have zero respect for >> people who actually spend their lives finding those 3000 >> year old (or whatever age) skeletons and fossils and >> evaluating how they are similar and different from what is >> living today. > > That is not true. I respect people that do that type of work. > I doubt that 3000 year old fox skeletons would be easy to find. You damn liar! Of course you don't respect them or their work! You call them liars every chance you get. How stupid can one person be? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0307072306510001@66-52-22-113.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. No Jason, the question was what evidence supports creationism. You do have evidence to support that religion, don't you? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0307072213360001@66-52-22-113.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1183519429.782828.230800@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@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) > > Yes, evidence supports creation science--fossil evidence. > As discussed above--not all evidence supports evolution. What fossil evidence supports creation science???????????????????? Be specific in your answer. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0307071824080001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1183505961.078603.48780@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@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." >> > >> > > > > Martin >> > >> > > > If the cell colony had evolved into a multicelled life form--we > all would >> > > > have seen these words on the cover of National Geographic magazine: >> > >> > > > EVOLUTION >> > > > FINALLY >> > > > PROVED >> > > > TO BE >> > > > A FACT >> > >> > > > Since the cell colony did not evolve into a multicelled life form, >> > > > this >> > > > story and similar stories will be ignored and explained away in >> > > > much the >> > > > same way that posters explained away this story. >> > >> > > I wish I had access to your bathroom mirror, so I could write >> > > "Evolution takes a long time" on it. Without that reminder, you seem >> > > to forget that obvious fact every day. >> > >> > > Cell colonies _did_ evolve into multi-celled life - humans, cats, >> > > walruses and lobsters are all the result of cell colonies evolving >> > > into multi-celled life. >> > >> > An alternative theory is that God created all of the transitional >> > forms. >> >> But that's not a theory based on any facts nor backed up with >> evidence. >> >> > On Jun 27, 2:34 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > We are in agreement--evolution is a theory. Yes, the theory >> > explains the facts that are backed up with evidence. >> >> Martin > > Some of the aspects of abiogenesis are not backed up with evidence--does > that stop you from supporting abiogenesis? We all know that abiogenesis occurred. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0307072150250001@66-52-22-113.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <AeydndR-J_x_ZhfbnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." > <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Martin Phipps wrote: >> > On Jul 4, 1:47 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > >> >> In article <A5idnfhzXpow_BfbnZ2dnUVZ_hWdn...@sti.net>, >> >> "David V." >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Jason wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> "David > V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>> Jason wrote: >> >> >> >>>>>> If the cell colony had evolved into a multicelled >> >>>>>> life form--we all would have seen these words on the >> >>>>>> cover of National Geographic magazine: >> >> >> >>>>>> EVOLUTION FINALLY PROVED TO BE A FACT >> >> >> >>>>> Do you know why you'll never see those words? >> >>>>> Evolution has been proven as a fact for some time now. >> >>>>> The only objections are religious. >> >> >> >>>> Evolution is a theory >> >> >> >>> Evolution is a fact. Get over it. >> >> >> >>> ...... >> >>> Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts >> >>> and theories are different things, not rungs in a >> >>> hierarchy of increasing certainty. ..... >> >> [snip for brevity] >> >>> - Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; >> >>> Discover, May 1981 >> >> >> >> Does Stephen Gould believe that evolution is an imperfect >> >> fact? >> > >> > >> > Why don't you read what he says. You should understand it: >> > you got an A in college biology, remember? XD >> >> I have absolutely no doubt that he read none of it and understood >> even less of it. > > I only read whatever the professor told us to read. Wow! A real whiz-bang student. I see that the adult Jason is nothing more that the child Jason. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0307072151530001@66-52-22-113.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1183516292.660200.152960@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jul 4, 4:44 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <bpal83taih71ub9kiiahs3238r7vhr1...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> > > In alt.atheism On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 10:51:19 -0700, J...@nospam.com >> > > (Jason) let us all know that: >> > >> > > >In article <X46dnUEQvdYw_xfbnZ2dnUVZ_tOmn...@sti.net>, "David V." >> > > ><s...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > >> Martin wrote: >> > > >> > On Jul 3, 2:00 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > >> > > >> >> In article <MY2dnSWMf5V_ShTbnZ2dnUVZ_vjin...@sti.net>, >> > > >> >> "David V." >> > >> > > >> >> <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > >> >>> Jason wrote: >> > >> > > >> >>>> If the cell colony had evolved into a multicelled life >> > > >> >>>> form--we all would have seen these words on the cover of >> > > >> >>>> National Geographic magazine: >> > >> > > >> >>>> EVOLUTION FINALLY PROVED TO BE A FACT >> > >> > > >> >>> Do you know why you'll never see those words? Evolution >> > > >> >>> has been proven as a fact for some time now. The only >> > > >> >>> objections are religious. >> > >> > > >> >> Evolution is a theory >> > >> > > >> >> but >> > >> > > >> >> On Jun 27, 2:34 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > >> > > >> >> We are in agreement--evolution is a theory. Yes, the theory >> > > >> >> explains the facts that are backed up with evidence. >> > >> > > >> Evolution is a fact. It happened, and is happening now. That is >> > > >> not a theory, that's a fact. The explanation of how evolution >> > > >> happened is a theory, but you have to remember that >> > > >> anti-evolutionists the word "theory" ALWAYS means a "guess". They >> > > >> purposely, and dishonestly, use the wrong meaning of the word. >> > >> > > >According to the Nov/2004 issue of National Geographic, evolution >> > > >is a theory. >> > >> > > So's gravity. >> > >> > > Why do you keep forgetting that? Why are you so dishonest? >> > >> > I am not being dishonest. Were the editors and writers of the article >> > in >> > National Geographic being dishonest when they used the term "the theory >> > of >> > evolution". I challenge you to google "theory of evolution". You will >> > receive lots of hits. Even my dictionary refers to evolution as a >> > theory. >> >> http://users.ameritech.net/dennisreynolds1/GravitationalTheory.html >> >> You are being dishonest. "Gravitational theory" gets 2,000,000 hits >> on google and is no small fraction of the hits that "Evolutionary >> theory" gets. >> >> Martin > > Martin, > Is evolution a theory? Yes or No Of course evolution is a theory. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0307072144280001@66-52-22-113.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1183517286.034292.161280@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jul 4, 5:16 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <0uyii.74$yD2...@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> > >news:Jason-0207072312460001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > > > In article > <1183442128.284710.224...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > >> On Jul 3, 12:49 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > >> > In article >> > > >> > <1183429649.303081.290...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, >> > > >> > Martin >> > > >> > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > On Jul 3, 9:34 am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> >> > > >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > In alt.atheism On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:29:16 -0700, > J...@nospam.com >> > > >> > > > (Jason) let us all know that: >> > >> > > >> > > > >Teachers have been teaching evolution in the public schools >> > > >> > > > >for >> > > >> > > > >over 35 >> > > >> > > > >years. Have you wondered how successful those high school > teachers >> > > >> > > > >have >> > > >> > > > >been? >> > >> > > >> > > > They've also been teaching mathematics and that the >> > > >> > > > Earth >> > > >> > > > is a >> > > >> > > > spheroid. >> > >> > > >> > > > >Answer: Only 12% of Americans believe that humans evolved >> > > >> > > > >from >> > > >> > > > >other >> > > >> > > > >life-forms without any involvement from a god. >> > > >> > > > >source: National Geographic Nov/2004 page 6 >> > >> > > >> > > > >It appears to me that more Americans agree with me than > agree with >> > > >> > > > >the >> > > >> > > > >advocates of evolution. >> > >> > > >> > > > So what? >> > >> > > >> > > > > It also explains why evolutionists rush to court >> > > >> > > > >every time a school system wants to teach intelligent >> > > >> > > > >design. >> > >> > > >> > > > No it doesn't. >> > >> > > >> > > > Jason: would you support the teaching of "Flat-Earth >> > > >> > > > Theory" >> > > >> > > > in schools. Remember: it's a competing idea. It doesn't > matter how >> > > >> > > > many people believe it: IT'S A COMPETING IDEA. >> > >> > > >> > > The flat Earth theory does get mentioned in schools and is >> > > >> > > followed >> > > >> > > by >> > > >> > > laughter. >> > >> > > >> > If a school system tried to teach the Flat Earth Theory, I > would write >> > > >> > letters to each member of the school board and ask them to >> > > >> > reconsider >> > > >> > their decision. >> > >> > > >> Explain why. Are you afraid that students might come to see that >> > > >> the >> > > >> flat Earth theory makes more sense? XD >> >> > > > I see creation science and ID as the truth and see Flat Earth > Theory as a >> > > > lie. However, unlike the evolutionists, I would not rush to court. >> > > > Instead, I would write letters to the members of the school board. > I wish >> > > > that evolutionists would do that instead of rushing to court. >> > >> > > Why would you wish that, Jason? If someone is breaking the law you > don't beg >> > > them to stop, you report them to the proper authorities. >> > >> > Teaching false information is not a violation of the >> > law--otherwise--all >> > history teachers that teach "historical revisionism" instead of >> > historical >> > facts would be arrested. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#Laws_against_Holocaust_denial >> >> "Holocaust denial is illegal in a number of European countries. Many >> countries also have broader laws against libel or inciting racial >> hatred, as do a number of countries that do not specifically have laws >> against Holocaust denial, such as Canada and the United Kingdom. The >> Council of Europe's 2003 Additional Protocol to the Convention on >> Cyber Crime, concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and >> xenophobic nature committed through computer systems includes an >> article 6 titled Denial, gross minimisation, approval or justification >> of genocide or crimes against humanity, though this does not have the >> status of law." >> >> Martin > > I doubt that teachers in America are teaching false information about the > Holocaust. However, they are teaching false information about such things > as Thanksgiving. "Thanking God" is no longer mentioned when the teachers > discuss Thanksgiving with children. > jason How do you know this? Are you a student? What evidence supports this BS statement? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 <snip for brevity> ">> > > You should have said that these experts in physics are able to think >> > > outside the box BECAUSE they are not Christians. >> >> > 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. >> >> Jason, Christian is another word for moron. The Christians in Utah >> even describe themselves as Mor(m)ons. >> >> Martin > > Martin, > I challenge you to walk into a Mormon church and call them morons. They are morons, so are creationists. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0307072242070001@66-52-22-113.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1183523134.928358.288480@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@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. Reading this garbage makes it evident why no one respects your opinion. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0307071808070001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <gaml83tsmduop5lfbcrprqhun5qna8odls@4ax.com>, John Baker > <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: > >> On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:02:39 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >In article <mdmj83phkn2ick9iivtuffc3tff4s430ti@4ax.com>, John Baker >> ><nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: >> > >> >> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 00:45:20 -0000, Martin Phipps >> >> <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Jul 3, 1:45 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> In article > <1183367570.892102.301...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> >> >> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> > On Jul 2, 12:17 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> > > In article <rPGdnUEMCJsZ5BXbnZ2dnUVZ_h_in...@comcast.com>, John >> >Popelish >> >> >> > > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: >> >> >> > > > Jason wrote: >> >> >> > > > > In article <DtidnbMBPbT77hXbnZ2dnUVZ_t3in...@sti.net>, > "David V." >> >> >> > > > > <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >> Jason wrote: >> >> >> > > > >>> Question for group: Martin told me that single animal >> >> >> > > > >>> cells >> >> >> > > > >>> evolved into animal cell colonies. If that is true, how >> >> >> > > > >>> do you >> >> >> > > > >>> explain this: >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >>> Single-celled Transformers: Marine Phytoplankton Changes >> >> >> > > > >>> Form >> >> >> > > > >>> To Protect Itself >> >> >> > > > >> It's called evolution, something you refuse to understand. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > or reverse evolution >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > What is your working definition of "reverse evolution"? >> >> >> >> >> >> > > an example: >> >> >> > > cell colony reverse evolving into single cells >> >> >> >> >> >> > > This is the list that Martin posted--please notice that (as per >> >evolution) >> >> >> > > a single cell evolving into a cell colony. The article that I >> >> >> > > posted >> >> >> > > provided evidence of a cell colony reverse evolving into > single cells. >> >> >> >> >> >> > Not at all, Jason. That's like saying that a frog de-evolves >> >> >> > back >> >> >> > into a fish every time it goes for a swim. >> >> > >> >> >> In order for evolution to happen the way that you stated it >> >> >> happened, a >> >> >> cell colony would have to remain a cell colony before the next step >> >> >> of >> >> >> evolution would take place--true or false? >> >> > >> >> >False. Evolution is about diversity, not upward progress. You >> >> >learned nothing in your biology class in college. >> >> >> >> I seriously doubt that Jason actually went to college. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >Martin >> > >> >The evolution section of the biology class was a waste of time. >> >> >> So you were one of those snot-nosed brats who thought he knew more >> than his professor, eh? <G> >> >> >> >> > > > No, I just wanted to study hard and pass. I never argued with that > professor. I was told by advisers to never have arguments with professors > since it could have an effect upon the final grades. I did argue with one > professor but it was related to a seminar that did not involve grades. The > title of the seminar was Evolution versus Creation. That was the same > professor that later debated Dr. Gish. > Jason That's what you did Jason. you studied hard and passed. It is too bad that you didn't learn how to think when you went to school. 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.