Guest Frank Mayhar Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 23:36:02 +0000, Martin Phipps wrote: > On Jul 4, 1:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> In article <pan.2007.07.03.17.04...@exit.com>, Frank Mayhar >> >> <f...@exit.com> wrote: >> > On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:02:39 -0700, Jason wrote: >> > > The evolution section of the biology class was a waste of time. >> >> > Flunked, did you? >> >> I received an A grade. > > Grade inflation. Imagination. -- Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/ Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/ http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/ http://www.zazzle.com/fmayhar Quote
Guest Frank Mayhar Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 09:48:40 +0930, Michael Gray wrote: > On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 13:05:48 -0700, Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com> wrote: > - Refer: <pan.2007.07.03.20.05.44@exit.com> >>On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 10:39:11 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >>> In article <pan.2007.07.03.17.04.58@exit.com>, Frank Mayhar >>> <frank@exit.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:02:39 -0700, Jason wrote: >>>> > The evolution section of the biology class was a waste of time. >>>> >>>> Flunked, did you? >>> >>> I received an A grade. >> >>Suuure you did. > > What would YOU do if you had the misfortune to be assigned to educate > Jason? > If it were me, I'd make damn sure that I did not allow him to repeat a > year in my class! Yeah, but you can do that without giving him an A. A C- or D+ would do fine, most places. Me, I would just flunk him. Next time, the same. And I would make sure my colleagues were aware of the situation. -- Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/ Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/ http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/ http://www.zazzle.com/fmayhar Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 In article <omSii.18033$Qz4.9004@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "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. Thanks--if anyone else claims that evolution is a FACT, please let them know that "Of course evolution is a theory. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 In article <LiSii.17989$Qz4.16697@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "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? I have told you about the two books that discuss the fossil and bone evidence that supports creation science. There is no way that I can include all of the information in those two book in a post. Upon request, I'll post the titles of the books and the names of the article. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 In article <xqSii.18083$Qz4.15279@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "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. I did learn to think but I did not discuss my opinions with professors. Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 In alt.atheism On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 13:17:40 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >Thanks--if anyone else claims that evolution is a FACT, please let them >know that "Of course evolution is a theory. > And, of course, a fact. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 In article <pan.2007.07.04.19.50.02@exit.com>, Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com> wrote: > On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 09:48:40 +0930, Michael Gray wrote: > > > On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 13:05:48 -0700, Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com> wrote: > > - Refer: <pan.2007.07.03.20.05.44@exit.com> > >>On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 10:39:11 -0700, Jason wrote: > >> > >>> In article <pan.2007.07.03.17.04.58@exit.com>, Frank Mayhar > >>> <frank@exit.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:02:39 -0700, Jason wrote: > >>>> > The evolution section of the biology class was a waste of time. > >>>> > >>>> Flunked, did you? > >>> > >>> I received an A grade. > >> > >>Suuure you did. > > > > What would YOU do if you had the misfortune to be assigned to educate > > Jason? > > If it were me, I'd make damn sure that I did not allow him to repeat a > > year in my class! > > Yeah, but you can do that without giving him an A. A C- or D+ would do > fine, most places. > > Me, I would just flunk him. Next time, the same. And I would make sure > my colleagues were aware of the situation. Now you understand why advisers tell students to not have arguments with teachers or professors. I kept my opinions to myself when I was a student. The only exception was when I had an argument with a professor in his office. That professor was in charge of a evolution vs. creation seminar. Grades were not involved related to the seminar. That same professor later had a debate with Dr. Gish. I enjoyed watching Dr. Gish win that debate. That professor became so upset that he made a fool of himself in front of over 200 people. He was shouting like a little kid. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 In article <TkSii.18013$Qz4.7132@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "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. The advocates of creation science know that God created life. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 In article <fnSii.18043$Qz4.2278@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0307072144280001@66-52-22-113.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <1183517286.034292.161280@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jul 4, 5:16 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > In article <0uyii.74$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? I done a google search for "historical revisionism". I found that information at one of sites that I visited. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0307071820050001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1183505253.284337.23600@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, "Bob > T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > >> On Jul 3, 1:37 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <4fyii.62$yD2...@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> > >news:Jason-0307071304140001@66-52-22-78.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > > > In article <1183487937.178514.180...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >> > > > "Bob >> > > > T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote: >> > >> > > >> On Jul 3, 10:44 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > >> > In article >> > > >> > <1183472999.969640.255...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, >> > > >> > "Bob >> > >> > > >> > T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > On Jul 2, 9:37 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > >> > > > In article >> > > > <1183427713.076508.130...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> > >> > > >> > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > > > On Jul 3, 4:44 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > > > > evidence supports creation science and does not support >> > > >> > > > > > evolution. >> > > >> > If the >> > > >> > > > > > the cell colony had evolved into a multicelled life > form--that >> > > >> > would have >> > > >> > > > > > supported evolution theory. >> > >> > > >> > > > > Nice to see you admit that. >> > >> > > >> > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_multicellularity >> > >> > > >> > > > > "The advantage of the Colonial Theory hypothesis is that >> > > >> > > > > it has >> > > >> > > > > been >> > > >> > > > > seen to occur independently numerous times (in 16 >> > > >> > > > > different >> > > >> > > > > protoctistan phyla). For instance, Dictyostelium is an >> > > >> > > > > amoeba >> > > >> > > > > which >> > > >> > > > > groups together during times of food shortage, forming a >> > > >> > > > > colony >> > > >> > > > > that >> > > >> > > > > moves as one to a new location. Some of these amoeba then > become >> > > >> > > > > slightly differentiated from each other. Other examples of >> > > >> > > > > colonial >> > > >> > > > > organisation in protozoa are Eudorina and Volvox (the >> > > >> > > > > latter of >> > > >> > > > > which >> > > >> > > > > consist around 10,000 cells, only about 25-35 which > reproduce - 8 >> > > >> > > > > asexually and around 15-25 sexually). It can often be hard >> > > >> > > > > to >> > > >> > > > > tell, >> > > >> > > > > however, what is a colonial protist and what is a >> > > >> > > > > multicellular >> > > >> > > > > organism in its own right. >> > >> > > >> > > > > "Most scientists accept that is by the Colonial theory >> > > >> > > > > that >> > > >> > > > > Multicellular organisms evolved." >> > >> > > >> > > > > Martin >> > >> > > >> > > > If the cell colony had evolved into a multicelled life >> > > >> > > > form--we >> > > > all would >> > > >> > > > have seen these words on the cover of National Geographic > magazine: >> > >> > > >> > > > EVOLUTION >> > > >> > > > FINALLY >> > > >> > > > PROVED >> > > >> > > > TO BE >> > > >> > > > A FACT >> > >> > > >> > > > Since the cell colony did not evolve into a multicelled > life form, >> > > >> > > > this >> > > >> > > > story and similar stories will be ignored and explained away >> > > >> > > > in >> > > >> > > > much the >> > > >> > > > same way that posters explained away this story. >> > >> > > >> > > I wish I had access to your bathroom mirror, so I could write >> > > >> > > "Evolution takes a long time" on it. Without that reminder, > you seem >> > > >> > > to forget that obvious fact every day. >> > >> > > >> > > Cell colonies _did_ evolve into multi-celled life - humans, >> > > >> > > cats, >> > > >> > > walruses and lobsters are all the result of cell colonies >> > > >> > > evolving >> > > >> > > into multi-celled life. >> > >> > > >> > > - Bob T. >> > >> > > >> > An alternative theory is that God created all of the >> > > >> > transitional >> > > >> > forms. >> > >> > > >> That is the basic theory of theistic evolution that I have >> > > >> presented >> > > >> to you several times. The physical evidence for evolution in the >> > > >> history of life on this planet is overwhelming. We know that >> > > >> humans >> > > >> share a common ancestor with chimpanzees a few millions years ago. >> > > >> The genetic evidence, the physical evidence of our bodies, and the >> > > >> fossil evidence all agree that humans are members of the ape >> > > >> family. >> > > >> However, science cannot deny the possibility that God has been >> > > >> carefully nurturing the primates encouraging the development of >> > > >> creatures that have true intelligence. In this view, Adam and Eve >> > > >> represent our first "truly human" ancestors, the ones who first >> > > >> became >> > > >> aware of God. >> > >> > > >> There is no need to deny God or Jesus to accept evolution as the >> > > >> well- >> > > >> founded scientific fast that it is. All you have to do is realize >> > > >> that the Bible was written by fallible people who lived thousands >> > > >> of >> > > >> years ago. Of course they didn't understand how God created us. >> > > >> If >> > > >> He had explained that He created us through genetics they would >> > > >> not >> > > >> have understood a word of it. >> > >> > > >> Worldwide, a majority of educated Christians believe in something >> > > >> like >> > > >> the theory of "theistic evolution" that I have outlined above. >> > > >> Unlike >> > > >> you, most Christians see fit to deny the physical evidence in >> > > >> order to >> > > >> believe in God. They assume that God is a mystery, and that they >> > > >> will >> > > >> never really understand His ways. They do, however, assume that >> > > >> the >> > > >> physical evidence is honest - that the evidence of millions of >> > > >> fossils >> > > >> agree with the geological and genetic evidence shows that we >> > > >> humans >> > > >> evolved naturally over a very long time from single-celled >> > > >> creatures. >> > > >> They feel no need to read Genesis literally, and they do not doubt >> > > >> their faith in Jesus. >> > >> > > >> - Bob T. >> > >> > > > Bob, >> > > > Thanks for your post. Yes, many Christians believe in thestic > evolution. I >> > > > visited a Christian website and found out that some of the > Christians now >> > > > use the terms macro-evolution and micro-evolution. They accept and > support >> > > > micro-evolution and do not support macro-evolution. Is it your >> > > > opinion >> > > > that micro-evolution is similar to theistic evolution? >> > > > Jason >> > >> > > Not at all Jason. Theistic evolution is evolution, period. Macro and >> > > micro >> > > are not separate in TE. I don't know how limited your research is but >> > > you >> > > need to go back to Google. >> > >> > Thanks for your post. Are you stating that those people that support >> > Theistic evolution do not believe that God created mankind but instead >> > believe that God created cells that eventually evolved into mankind? >> >> Yes. >> > >> > If so, they should just say they support evolution and leave God out of >> > it >> > since their beliefs conflict with the first two chapters of the Bible. >> >> Why should any Christian, no matter how devout, believe that the first >> two chapters of the Bible are literal truth? Forgive an atheist from >> telling a Christian what's important, but it seems to me that the >> message of forgiveness via Jesus Christ is important, and the accuracy >> of the Genesis story is not important, in terms of being a true >> Christian. Genesis has a lot in common with the mythology of other >> ancient people. Why would you expect Bronze Age tribespeople to >> understand God's explanation of how He created them? >> >> - Bob T. > > Bob, > The first two chapters in the Bible are about the only information in the > entire Bible related to how life came to be on this planet. I was taught > that information many years ago. I believed it in those days and I still > believe it. The first two chapters in the bible are pure mythology. > The terms macroevolution and microevolution are used by lots > of people today. By lots of creationists. It isn't in common usage by those who understand science. > I have no problems supporting microevolution. The > advocates of creation science use the term "adaption". It's my opinion > that microevolution and adaption mean the same thing. We already know what your opinion is worth. >Yes, the message of > forgiveness via Jesus Christ is more important. However, creation is also > important. I know two people that spent their adult lives related to > telling Christians the importance of creation science. They realized the > importance of creation science. Yeah, keep the folks in line. Don't let anyone think that the bible is not inerrant in every word it contains. What a bunch of pure BS! Quote
Guest David V. Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 Don Kresch wrote: > In alt.atheism On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 13:17:40 -0700, > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: > > >> Thanks--if anyone else claims that evolution is a FACT, >> please let them know that "Of course evolution is a theory. >> > > And, of course, a fact. Jason just can't do it. It is a mental impossibility for him to admit that evolution is a fact. It is something that is so far beyond his comprehension that he can't even admit that he is wrong. -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0407071335190001@66-52-22-86.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <fnSii.18043$Qz4.2278@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "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? > > I done a google search for "historical revisionism". I found that > information at one of sites that I visited. Your biggest problem is accepting the word of every creationist site you visit as true. When I read a science article I always check it for reasonableness. Years ago I paid good money for a book that turned out to be a collection of some idiots musings. Didn't make that mistake again. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0407071147370001@66-52-22-6.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <f6gp3f$5q5$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <rtOdndKu0bu3oRTbnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." >> > <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> >>> \ Would you agree or disagee that the main reason they >> >>> attacked Galileo was because they did not want any >> >>> competition? >> >> Is that the reason you attack evolution? >> > >> > No--I believe that both evolution and ID should be taught. It's my >> > opinion >> > (and I could be wrong) that if both evolution and ID was taught--that >> > most >> > of the children would agree that ID made more sense than evolution. >> > Believe it or not, most of the advocates of ID support Natural >> > Selection. >> > They do not support common descent or abiogenesis. >> >> Do you want them to teach flat-earth and round-earth and let the kids >> decide? How about "bad vapors" and "germ theory"? Or "earth-centered" vs >> "sun centered"? You probably don't want those choices all offered, do >> you? Then why offer a choice here between "crap" and fact? Even if you >> think ID is the fact and evolution is the crap, why would you want crap >> being taught? It makes no logical sense. >> >> (And I'm going to keep asking this every time you come up with this >> "teach them both" nonsense.) > > I answered similar questions in other posts. In those cases, I would write > letters to the members of the school board but would not hire a lawyer and > take the school system to court. Then you would be wrong!!! Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0407071317410001@66-52-22-86.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <omSii.18033$Qz4.9004@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "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. > > Thanks--if anyone else claims that evolution is a FACT, please let them > know that "Of course evolution is a theory. You dishonest little bastard! My post right before this one indicated that evolution is both a fact and a theory! Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0407071321180001@66-52-22-86.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <LiSii.17989$Qz4.16697@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "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? > > I have told you about the two books that discuss the fossil and bone > evidence that supports creation science. There is no way that I can > include all of the information in those two book in a post. Upon request, > I'll post the titles of the books and the names of the article. > Jason Let me see if I can recap it for you, you little prick. You don't have the first idea of what was said in those books and you couldn't support or deny what was there. I guess that means you are a dishonest little prick. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0407071153300001@66-52-22-6.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. Why would anyone go to the time and trouble of answering any of your little red herring questions. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0407071331480001@66-52-22-86.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <TkSii.18013$Qz4.7132@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "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. > > The advocates of creation science know that God created life. My grandson knows that the tooth fairy came to see him. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0407071329350001@66-52-22-86.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <pan.2007.07.04.19.50.02@exit.com>, Frank Mayhar > <frank@exit.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 09:48:40 +0930, Michael Gray wrote: >> >> > On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 13:05:48 -0700, Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com> wrote: >> > - Refer: <pan.2007.07.03.20.05.44@exit.com> >> >>On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 10:39:11 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >>> In article <pan.2007.07.03.17.04.58@exit.com>, Frank Mayhar >> >>> <frank@exit.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:02:39 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >>>> > The evolution section of the biology class was a waste of time. >> >>>> >> >>>> Flunked, did you? >> >>> >> >>> I received an A grade. >> >> >> >>Suuure you did. >> > >> > What would YOU do if you had the misfortune to be assigned to educate >> > Jason? >> > If it were me, I'd make damn sure that I did not allow him to repeat a >> > year in my class! >> >> Yeah, but you can do that without giving him an A. A C- or D+ would do >> fine, most places. >> >> Me, I would just flunk him. Next time, the same. And I would make sure >> my colleagues were aware of the situation. > > Now you understand why advisers tell students to not have arguments with > teachers or professors. I kept my opinions to myself when I was a student. > The only exception was when I had an argument with a professor in his > office. That professor was in charge of a evolution vs. creation seminar. > Grades were not involved related to the seminar. That same professor later > had a debate with Dr. Gish. I enjoyed watching Dr. Gish win that debate. > That professor became so upset that he made a fool of himself in front of > over 200 people. He was shouting like a little kid. > Jason Gish is just like you, Jason, arrogant and ignorant. It is easy to shout at fools like both of you. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0407071141550001@66-52-22-6.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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 Jason, millions and millions of Christians go to college and obtain degrees. Most of the students in colleges are Christians! How can you justify making such a stupid statement. Don't answer it Jason, it was only a rhetorical question. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0407071323180001@66-52-22-86.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <xqSii.18083$Qz4.15279@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "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. > > I did learn to think but I did not discuss my opinions with professors. You ignorant buffoon! How could you learn without any dialogue between you and your professors??? Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 Jason wrote: > I have told you about the two books that discuss the fossil and bone > evidence that supports creation science. There is no way that I can > include all of the information in those two book in a post. Upon request, > I'll post the titles of the books and the names of the article. No need to include all the information from any book. Just select an example or two of some specific evidence that you think (or the author thinks) supports creation better than it supports evolution, so we can discuss something specific. Quote
Guest John Baker Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 15:07:35 -0400, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >"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. I'm still not 100% convinced he isn't a Loki. >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-0407071209380001@66-52-22-6.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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 johac Posted July 4, 2007 Posted July 4, 2007 In article <0pim83lvq8drkqn060g37b431pvdr4a6us@4ax.com>, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 21:56:43 -0700, johac > <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: > - Refer: <jhachmann-74069F.21564303072007@news.giganews.com> > >In article <fkqj839i35na20kpnjciqcp9g9qs9remb4@4ax.com>, > > Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 16:53:01 -0700, johac > >> <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> - Refer: <jhachmann-21B2BC.16530102072007@news.giganews.com> > >> >In article <ekug83930fco6pkfvk4si6229p4fbvp851@4ax.com>, > >> > Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 17:51:12 -0700, johac > >> >> <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >> - Refer: <jhachmann-C65536.17511201072007@news.giganews.com> > >> >> >In article <2bqe839of0oeet6j5bn5ahckfapuln9dnm@4ax.com>, > >> >> > Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 23:23:27 -0700, johac > >> >> >> <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >> >> - Refer: <jhachmann-9C667C.23232730062007@news.giganews.com> > >> >> >> >In article <q3dc83183vrussfbg4n0uk217oqfrss1uu@4ax.com>, > >> >> >> > Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 23:29:32 -0700, johac > >> >> >> >> <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >> >> >> - Refer: <jhachmann-D5E3F6.23293229062007@news.giganews.com> > >> >> >> >> >In article <5ekj7bF398uh2U1@mid.individual.net>, > >> >> >> >> > "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> "johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > >> >> >> >> >> news:jhachmann-5CD649.15412328062007@news.giganews.com... > >> >> >> >> >> > In article <5ehujiF385pl0U1@mid.individual.net>, > >> >> >> >> >> > "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> "johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > >> >> >> >> >> >> news:jhachmann-5CB182.16175027062007@news.giganews.com... > >> >> >> >> >> >> > In article <5efchvF36n37vU1@mid.individual.net>, > >> >> >> >> >> >> > "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> news:1vj3835t86vajghq9n05jc1n7qdhe7ntud@4ax.com... > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 15:58:27 -0700, johac > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > - Refer: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > <jhachmann-2EB388.15582726062007@news.giganews.com> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>In article > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >><Jason-2506071038350001@66-52-22-83.lsan.pw-dia.impulse > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>.ne > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>t>, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> In article <5ea5jrF383thsU1@mid.individual.net>, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> "Robibnikoff" > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > snip > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > > If they read their Bibles, they will know all > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > > about > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > > the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > > true > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > > God. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > What makes your god the "true" one? > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Books have been written on that subject. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>I read books on Greek mythology. Does that mean that > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Zeus > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>is > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>true > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>god? > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Of course. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > The non-existent Zeus can kick the non-existent YHWH's > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > butt > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > any > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > time! > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> True, but as a long-time fan of Norse mythology, I think > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Odin > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> could > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> give > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Zeus a run for his money > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > I don't know. Maybe we could get all the gods in an arena > >> >> >> >> >> >> > and > >> >> >> >> >> >> > let > >> >> >> >> >> >> > them > >> >> >> >> >> >> > fight it out to see who's the toughest non-existent > >> >> >> >> >> >> > being. > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Sort > >> >> >> >> >> >> > of > >> >> >> >> >> >> > a > >> >> >> >> >> >> > divine bum fight. :-) > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> LOL! Diety Death Match? Who knows how to do claymation? > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > LOL! I wish I knew how! I'd love to put something like that > >> >> >> >> >> > on > >> >> >> >> >> > YouTube. > >> >> >> >> >> > :-) > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> That would be hilarious > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >Heh! Heh! Tag team. Yaweh and Baal vs. Zeus and The FSM. :-) > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> With Xena & Hera for spice! > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >And Aphrodite (in her nightie) and Astarte! > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Let's Party! > >> >> >> > >> >> >> ding ding > >> >> >> > >> >> >> "Round Won" > >> >> > > >> >> >Can I get in on round two, or better round threesome? > >> >> > >> >> Just how round do you prefer your Godesses? > >> > > >> >Not too round, but a little 'meat' is OK. > >> > >> Are you prepared to make sacrifices for love? > > > >Uh. Depends on what I'm sacrificing. > > Jason. Yeah. He's a virgin. He'll do. > > -- -- John #1782 "We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides." - Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order. Quote
Guest Dan Drake Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 17:18:15 UTC, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > 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? PMFBI, but Neither of them was a crackpot. Scheiner was a pretty unpleasant fellow, if you ask me; others say Galileo was one (but they're wrong). (Don't take my opinions too seriously here; I'm sure you won't.) At the start of their conflict was a dispute about priority in observing sunspots, in which Galileo probably had the better case -- but as we now know, neither of them was first . It turned into a life-long feud, in which Scheiner may (some people believe so) have worked to turn the Church against Galileo -- in which case he'd be a whole lot worse than a mere crackpot. But a priority fight and going almost mad with rage at the adversary (as Scheiner did when he heard someone praise Galileo's Dialogue) doesn't necessarily make you a crackpot. Defending geocentrism was incorrect, and was a weak position already by 1633; but it wasn't crackpot. Defending geocentrism now: crackpot. It's a matter of evidence, and how strong it is, and how well tested by time and criticism. Calling an opponent of evolution a crackpot today is an assertion that the time for that stuff is long past, given what has been learned in 148 years. A correct assertion, too. (It could also be ignorance of the evidence, of course, but anyone who claims expert knowledge of the evidence can't use that excuse.) -- Dan Drake dd@dandrake.com http://www.dandrake.com/ porlockjr.blogspot.com 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.