Guest Dan Drake Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 18:30:52 UTC, cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote: > > It is as crazy now to for creationism over evolution as it is to favor > luminiferous aether theory over modern relativity. > A theory, by the way, which has 50 years less gathering of evidence than evolution has. (But then, biology is harder than physics.) (There's my Fourth of July celebration: bringing on the fireworks.) -- Dan Drake dd@dandrake.com http://www.dandrake.com/ porlockjr.blogspot.com Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 In article <HLUii.8588$3a.5708@bignews9.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0407071323180001@66-52-22-86.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <xqSii.18083$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??? If college students spent all of the time having arguments arguing with professors, the professors would not have time to lecture. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 In article <FKUii.8587$3a.5834@bignews9.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0407071141550001@66-52-22-6.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <YYQii.17767$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. It's not a problem related to most professors but some professors are nut cases. One radio preacher told this story: The nut case professor asked all Christians in his class to raise their hands. He told the rest of the students to look at all of the students that had their hands raised. The professor stated: "These students love their little black books more than they love intellectual knowledge." Do you think that professsor would grade my written reports the same way that he would grade the written reports of students that were atheists? Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 In article <vhIsdqY67dTD-pn2-Spx19cLJ1yRd@M>, dd@dandrake.com wrote: > 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.) Don, Thanks for your post. I respect Galileo because he was able to think outside the box. He was a risk taker. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 In article <SIUii.8586$3a.698@bignews9.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "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. However, in a public debate--really great debaters learn to not lose their tempers. I believe that Dr. Gish tried to get the professors to lose their tempers and make fools of themselves. I exchanged posts with someone that told me he attended one of Dr. Gish's debates. The professor in that debate had attended one of Dr. Gish's other debates and took lots of notes. He had prepared remarks for every point that Dr. Gish made and never lost his temper. The poster told me that Dr. Gish lost that debate. Jason Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 13:44:56 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: - Refer: <f6gmao$2o5$1@news04.infoave.net> >Bob T. wrote: >> People who believe in a Flat Earth also think "outside the box". Most >> of the time when scientists think you're a crackpot, it's not because >> you're a misunderstood genius - it's because you're really a crackpot. > >"Just because you're not paranoid, it doesn't mean they really are out >to get you." (or something like that.) "Even paranoids have enemies" - M. Gray. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 17:41:18 GMT, cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote: - Refer: <2ZQii.8102$Rw1.1785@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> >Michael Gray wrote: >> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 00:30:20 -0700, cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote: >> - Refer: <C%Hii.427$bz7.113@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net> >>> Michael Gray wrote: >>>> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 03:15:25 GMT, cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote: >>>> - Refer: <hhEii.45116$5j1.39870@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net> >>>>> Robibnikoff wrote: >>>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> snipo >>>>>>> I see it different. I see evolutionists that that rush to court to stop >>>>>>> any school systems from teaching Intelligent Design. They do not want any >>>>>>> competition. >>>>>> Why do you keep telling this lie? >>>>> Probably because he can't handle the truth. Is it better for him to >>>>> live a lie or die of the truth? >>>> I vote for "die". >>>> >>>> -- >>> When I worked in the mental hospitals I met people on anti psychotic >>> medications who missed the voices that told them what to do. He's not >>> psychotic, so he doesn't have to give up anything to function in >>> society. He has nothing to gain from the truth at this point. >>> >>> And yet he holds us all in thrall as we watch him repeat outrageous >>> lies, incessantly distort science, post repeated screeds from known >>> hypocrites, and ignore everything we say. >>> >>> Who is really the nut case? >> >> I understand what you are driving at, but he is like a mental train >> wreck that you just can't help staring at. >> >> -- >He actually did learn something from that quack at the evolution debate >- he is using exactly the same tactics as Behe or whatever the guy's >name is. No wonder they never lose debates. > >It would be interesting if there were some psychopathology to observe - >plenty of posters have that in spades. But he goes on normally, except >for his deeply held beliefs. We are enthralled not by the "train wreck" >aspects, but by the fact that the train is running at all. Well observed. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 07:47:46 -0700, Charles & Mambo Duckman <duckman@gfy.slf> wrote: - Refer: <YsudnYpTa8-OLhbbnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@comcast.com> >Jason wrote: > > >> Martin, >> Is evolution a theory? Yes or No > >What's with these people and their "just a theory" bullshit? > >Can't you morons read a book or two, other than the Bible, Jason has never ever read even a tenth of the bible. -- Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 In alt.atheism On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 18:00:23 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >However, in a public debate--really great debaters learn to not lose their >tempers. I believe that Dr. Gish tried to get the professors to lose their >tempers and make fools of themselves. Do you know how Gish tries to do that? By lying his ass off. 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 David V. Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 Jason wrote: > > It's not a problem related to most professors but some > professors are nut cases. One radio preacher told this story: You dishonestly neglect the fact that the radio preacher made up the story and is actually the nut case. Are you ready to concede that evolution is a fact? -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest David V. Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 Jason wrote: > > However, in a public debate--really great debaters learn to > not lose their tempers. What you need to understand that arguing with fools like gish, and you, is not easy. You don't pay attention. > I believe..... Yes, we know you believe. Knowledge is much better than belief. By the way.... gish has lost every debate he's ever participated in. -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 Jason wrote: > It's not a problem related to most professors but some professors are nut > cases. One radio preacher told this story: The nut case professor asked > all Christians in his class to raise their hands. He told the rest of the > students to look at all of the students that had their hands raised. The > professor stated: "These students love their little black books more than > they love intellectual knowledge." > > Do you think that professsor would grade my written reports the same way > that he would grade the written reports of students that were atheists? You ask a silly question about a fictional professor the radio preacher made up to make his flock feel under attack. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 On Jul 5, 1:11 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > FishDontWalk.com > Ten Quick Reasons Creation Is A Better Explanation Than Evolution > Tuesday, July 03, 2007 > > The Top Ten Reasons Creation Is A Better Explanation Than Evolution > > 1) The Universe...How did it originate? > > The First and Second Law of Thermodynamics are great evidence for a > supernatural entity. The Universe is composed of matter and energy. Is the > Universe eternal? No. The Second Law of Thermodynamics teaches that matter > and energy are functions of time and that over time they decay. Since > matter and energy are functions of time, they can not be independent of > time (eternal). True. The second law of thermodynamics suggests that the universe had a beginning. So? > The overwhelming majority of scientists believe the Universe is not > eternal. If it is not eternal, it had a beginning. So? > Was this beginning natural? the First Law of Thermodynamics says it was > not. Matter and energy is neither created nor destroyed according to the > First law of Thermodynamics. Thus, an atheistic belief that the Universe > "poofed" from nothing by natural means is anti-science. It is blind faith. > Laws of Science show that belief in a supernatural entity is the best > explanation of how the universe began, since these Laws of Thermodynamics > falsify atheistic belief. Yes, but gravitational potential energy is negative so the total energy of the universe could add up to zero which means no net amount of energy was created. > 2) Life...How Did It Originate? > > Atheists think life originated by a natural process of chemicals mixing > with energy. They can believe this, but it is anti-science and a blind > faith belief. This is a lie. You are repeating a lie, Jason. In 1953, the Miller-Uley experiment showed that amino acids could form spontaneously from elements present in the "primorial soup". (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment ) Other experiments showed that bilipid membranes can form spontaneously. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_bilayer ) Sidney Fox's research showed that amino acids can spontaneously form protein chains. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_W._Fox ) Protein chains can then guide the formation of RNA chains just as RNA chains are known to guide the formation of protein chains. (See http://www.hhmi.org/news/lindquist2.html ). German scientists have already produced molecules in the laboratory that are capable of reproducing themselves and are therefore alive. (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/217054.stm ). Primative cells would have formed as a way to prevent the contents of the cell from drying out. (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stm ). The simplest cells would have been prokaryote cells (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote ) which would have been the ancestors of modern bacteria and archaea while more advanced eukaryotic cells (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryotic ) would have been the ancestors of modern animal, plant and fungis cells. Eukaryotic cells could have formed through a process known as viral eukaryogenesis (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_eukaryogenesis ) in which a virus forms an endosymbiosic relationship with a host prokaryote cell. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory ) Mitochondria and plastids are also believed to have arisen as a result of endosymbiosis, the evidence being that mitochondria and plastids share characteristics with bacteria cells, the only difference being that they cannot survive independent of the rest of the cell, but that's fine because human cells cannot survive independent of the rest of the body either. In both cases, the parts have evolved to depend on the whole. Where did DNA come from? One theory is that RNA came first. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#Evolution_of_DNA-based_metabolism ) This is called the "RNA World Hypothesis" (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis ) Unfortunately, there are no fossils of ancient viruses and bacteria so this part can't be proven. There are therefore several competing theories of abiogenesis. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life ) See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Major_Transitions_in_Evolution which has links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_multicellularity > The Law of Biogenesis states life only comes from life. There's no such scientific law. > This > law is the foundation of Biology. Since life did not originate from > non-life by natural means, teh best explanation is that it had a > supernatural origin. Believing in anything supernatural is anti-science by definition as science is only concerned with natural explanations. Indeed, you cannot test for anything supernatural: if you could then it would be considered a natural phenomenon which would then require a natural explanation. > 3) Design. A simple definition of design is something that was planned for. > > The human body has 60,000 miles of blood vessels in it. The smallest blood > vessels are so small, that only one red blood vessel at a time can pass > through it, after its nucleus has fallen off! Red blood cells lose their > nucleus so that they can be small enough to pass through your tiniest > capillaries. Piping systems do not happen by chance. Especially ones that > are this complex. This does not demonstrate design nor planning. > 4) Information. > > You started out as one tiny fertilized egg. Today you are 75 trillion > cells. But you are not the same cell over and over and over again. You > started as one cell, but now you have skin cells, hair cells, muscle > cells, bone cells, nerve cells, blood cells etc! You have over 200 > different cells in your body! One cell in your body is in your digestive > tract and all it appears to do is to make mucus! Isn't that cool? > > And not only do you have all of these cells.....they are in the right > place. You don't have bones cells on your eye ball, you don't hair cells > in your spine. You are a 75 trillion piece jig saw puzzle with all the > pieces in the right place. Jig saw puzzles don't get put together by > chance. Do you think you did? > > Think. You started out as one cell, but in that cell you contained all the > information required to make more cells and produce a living organism with > 75 trillion cells, over 200 different types of cells and 60,000 miles of > blood vessels. > > Information comes from an information giver. Not from nothing, nor not by > chance. Nonsense. The information comes from DNA. > 5) Systems. > > Suppose you evolved 60,000 miles of blood vessels by chance. Will it do > you any good? No. You need blood, and a heart. > > Suppose you evolved blood and a heart and 60,000 miles of blood vessels by > chance. Will it do you any good? No. You need a nervous system, a skeletal > system, a digestive system, a respiratory system etc. But all of those > systems are useless without the circulatory system! Evolution is about diversity: we have worms and fish and frogs and mice and humans but we also have bacteria and indeed most of the life on Earth is in the form of bacteria. It is easy to believe that human life occured "by chance" when you consider the diversity of life on Earth. > > Creation believes in instant people. You can't wait around for a liver to > evolve. Creation believes a supernatural entity instantly made humans with > functioning hearts, livers, lungs, brains, kidneys, spleens, intestines > etc. This makes sense because they all need each other to function and to > keep the organism alive. Yes, creationism is about instant people which is why intelligent people realise that it is nonsense: we're supposed to believe that God took dust, added water and we got all the information necessary to describe a human being with all the systems in the right spots. The argument here presented by you, Jason, completely smashes this view. > 6) Sex. > > Which came first the chicken or the egg? Two chickens, a functional male > and functional female (please see chicken and egg article on this web > site). For the many animals that reproduce by sexual reproduction, they > need male equipment in part of the population and female equipment in the > other part of the population. Both systems are very complex and very > unique. Once again, creationists believe in "instant people." And that > includes instant males and instant females. Some bacteria are capable of exchanging genetic information. > My dad is my favorite philosopher. He once said, "You know why Adam and > Eve had to be adults? Because human babies are so helpless!" great point > dad! This is the danger of home schooling. > 7) Living Evidence. > > If the theory of evolution occurred, there had to be transitional forms. We are all transitional forms: we are all different from are parents and different from our children (if we have any). All fossils are transitional forms so long as their species continued to have offspring. When creationists talk about "transitional forms" they mean fish with lungs and legs, whales with legs and dinosaurs with wings and even feathers and apes who stood upright, all of which can be found in the fossil records by the way. > These transitional forms were the animals that were the "links" between > reptiles and birds, ape-men and humans etc. There would have had to be > millions of these transitional forms! But not one is alive today. Why not? Because they were "transitional" forms. If you refer to them as "transitional forms" today then would imply they were changing into something else. But that isn't how evolution works: man did not descend from modern day apes; man and modern day apes had a common ancestor. Natural selection is occuring all the time, selecting out the traits that are best suited to the environment but unless the environment changes then there is no impedous for major changes to occur. This is why major breakthroughs in evolution are associated with catastrophic geological events. > Either they never existed or they did exist and all vanished. They didn't simply vanish: they died naturally. But their descendents are the animals we see today. That is why they are refered to as "transitional forms" in the first place. > If they do > exist today where are they? If they don't exist today, that is powerful > evidence for Creation. Penguins and chickens are birds but they can't fly. Perhaps they are transitional forms changing into something other than a bird. Whales are mammals but they can't walk on land. Perhaps they are transitional forms changing into something other than a mammal. There are also fish alive today that have lungs: they live in Africa, South America and Australia. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish ) There is no evidence for creation. > If the theory of evolution is true, this should be true. You have an ape > in a cage at a zoo. You pay 50 bucks to look at the ape. If the theory of > evolution is true, there should be living organisms that get a 25 dollar > discount because the ape in the cage is a close relative. We are the apes close relatives. > 8) Fossil Evidence. > > There are trillions of fossils. yet, in my opinion (trying to be fair > here) no transitional forms. evolutionists will claim there are many, but > upon close scrutiny, each one can easily be classified as belonging to > animals alive today, or an organism that is not transitional, but simply > extinct (i.e. trilobites or dinosaurs). And yet there are dinosaurs which had wings and fish which had lungs and whales which had legs. There are fish with lungs today in fact. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pteradactyl > If the theory of evolution is true, there should be millions of > transitional forms. There are. Therefore evolution is true. > Lets suppose the theory of evolution is true. > Evolutionists believe reptiles are ancestral to birds. The fossil record > should have thousands of fossils of half legs/half wings; half scales half > feathers; half reptile feet/half bird feet etc. Yet none of these clear > transitional fossils exist. many quotes by Evolutionists support this > claim. There are out of date quotes from scientists which admit that the transitional forms had not yet been found. > 9) Genetics and Biochemistry. > > To quote my daughter when she was three and talking to a high school girl: > "Don't forget, crows make crows." > > She is right, and genetics supports her contention. Crow DNA can only make > a crow. If you mutate it, you might get a goofy crow, or a dead crow, or > an unchanged crow, but you won't get a different animal. Mutations make > lung cancer, they don't make lungs. Mutations can cause people to have bigger hearts, different shaped eyes, lighter skin, thinner lips, smaller noses, etc. etc. etc. If you believe the Biblical story of Adam and Eve and believe that all of mankind descended from only two people then you have to admit that there have been mutations that caused people to change and that some of these mutations were beneficial: the beneficial mutations were selected by natural selection. If creationists believe that these changes occured in only a few thousand years then why is it so hard to believe that all of liev evolved in four billion years? > 10) The Anthropic Principle. > > The earth has the proper temperature, the proper gravity, the proper > amount of oxygen, the proper mass ratio of the electron and proton, the > proper charge between electrons and protons etc. etc. etc. And if it didn't we wouldn't be here considering these questions. > The odds of an average protein getting the proper sequence by chance is > enormous. Let's look at the odds. Nonsense. Proteins form naturally. No creator was needed. And natural selection accounts for teh variety of proteins we see today. No creator was necessary. > Imagine an alphabet with 20 letters. Suppose I made a word from this > alphabet that was 400 letters long, and asked you to guess the sequence of > letters that make up the word. What would be the odds that you would guess > it by chance? The odds would be one to 20 times 20 times 20 times > 20......400 times! It would be 1 to 20 to the 400th power. This is the > same as one to ten to the 520th power. That is a 1 followed by 520 zeros. > The odds are greater that you would win California super lotto 500 times > in a row than one protein sequence occurring by chance. We are not even > talking about a cell, much less an organ, much less a human body. > > In statistics, something that is 10 to the 50th is considered impossible. > Thus one protein by chance is highly impossible. Again, human beings account for a very small fraction of the variety of life that exists in the world. Most proteins that exist do not make up a human body and thsoe that do evolved with us. > Think of this for a second. If the odds against a protein sequence > happening by chance it 10 to the 520th power, the odds that it happened by > design is the inverse, 10 to the 520th power in favor of it. Those Where's the rest of the article, Jason? In any case, Jason, there's not a single reason to prefer creationism over evolution. You need to start thinking outside the box. Martin Quote
Guest Bob T. Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 On Jul 4, 12:09 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f6gpv4$6p...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <1183429476.650037.52...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> According to the 2005 American Community Survey > > >> (See > > http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-q...) > > > > > > > >> 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. Exactly right - because we don't want religious fanatics brainwashing our children with the lie of Creationism. > > 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. Since evolution is a scientific fact (as well as a theory, don't you know) I see that as a good thing. It would be wrong for public schools to EVER teach intelligent design because it is a lie told by liars to food the gullible. > > 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. You know, Jason, I have been very nice to you in our discussions. That's why it pisses me off so much when you tell these stupid lies. Even if creationism were not a lie, it should be obvious to you that we believe that evolution is a scientific fact. We want children to be taught scientific facts, not religious beliefs. There is no place for Christian mythology, or any other mythology, in science class. > 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. As I have explained before, there are two reasons why creationism must not be taught in public schools: 1) Creationism is a religious belief, not scientific knowledge. 2) "The science of intelligent design" is a lie told by liars to fool the gullible. > > Do you see my points? If not, read the book "1984" Yes, I have read it. You should read it again - you obiously did not understand it. Hint: Big Brother did not keep control of the population by teaching the children to be better scientific thinkers. He kept control of them by teaching them lies to accept on faith. - Bob T. > > Jason- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Quote
Guest Bob T. Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 On Jul 4, 1:17 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <omSii.18033$Qz4.9...@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-0307072151530001@66-52-22-113.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <1183516292.660200.152...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jul 4, 4:44 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> > In article <bpal83taih71ub9kiiahs3238r7vhr1...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > > > >> > <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > >> > > In alt.atheism On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 10:51:19 -0700, J...@nospam.com > > >> > > (Jason) let us all know that: > > > >> > > >In article <X46dnUEQvdYw_xfbnZ2dnUVZ_tOmn...@sti.net>, "David V." > > >> > > ><s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > > >> Martin wrote: > > >> > > >> > On Jul 3, 2:00 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > >> > > >> >> In article <MY2dnSWMf5V_ShTbnZ2dnUVZ_vjin...@sti.net>, > > >> > > >> >> "David V." > > > >> > > >> >> <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > > >> >>> Jason wrote: > > > >> > > >> >>>> If the cell colony had evolved into a multicelled life > > >> > > >> >>>> form--we all would have seen these words on the cover of > > >> > > >> >>>> National Geographic magazine: > > > >> > > >> >>>> EVOLUTION FINALLY PROVED TO BE A FACT > > > >> > > >> >>> Do you know why you'll never see those words? Evolution > > >> > > >> >>> has been proven as a fact for some time now. The only > > >> > > >> >>> objections are religious. > > > >> > > >> >> Evolution is a theory > > > >> > > >> >> but > > > >> > > >> >> On Jun 27, 2:34 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > >> > > >> >> We are in agreement--evolution is a theory. Yes, the theory > > >> > > >> >> explains the facts that are backed up with evidence. > > > >> > > >> Evolution is a fact. It happened, and is happening now. That is > > >> > > >> not a theory, that's a fact. The explanation of how evolution > > >> > > >> happened is a theory, but you have to remember that > > >> > > >> anti-evolutionists the word "theory" ALWAYS means a "guess". They > > >> > > >> purposely, and dishonestly, use the wrong meaning of the word. > > > >> > > >According to the Nov/2004 issue of National Geographic, evolution > > >> > > >is a theory. > > > >> > > So's gravity. > > > >> > > Why do you keep forgetting that? Why are you so dishonest? > > > >> > I am not being dishonest. Were the editors and writers of the article > > >> > in > > >> > National Geographic being dishonest when they used the term "the theory > > >> > of > > >> > evolution". I challenge you to google "theory of evolution". You will > > >> > receive lots of hits. Even my dictionary refers to evolution as a > > >> > theory. > > > >>http://users.ameritech.net/dennisreynolds1/GravitationalTheory.html > > > >> You are being dishonest. "Gravitational theory" gets 2,000,000 hits > > >> on google and is no small fraction of the hits that "Evolutionary > > >> theory" gets. > > > >> Martin > > > > Martin, > > > Is evolution a theory? Yes or No > > > 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. It is a fact and it is a theory. How many times do you need this explained? - Bob T. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 On Jul 5, 1:18 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1183560211.743558.231...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Bob > > T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > > On Jul 3, 10:42 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1183523134.928358.288...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 4, 12:23 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > In article > > <1183518696.251527.137...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 4, 8:50 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > In article <1183507567.422866.312...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > > Martin > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 4, 4:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Kerby Anderson is National Director of Probe Ministries > > > > > International. He > > > > > > > > > received his B.S. from Oregon State University, M.F.S. from Yale > > > > > > > > > University, and M.A. from Georgetown University. He is the > author of > > > > > > > > > several books, including Genetic Engineering, Origin > Science, Living > > > > > > > > > Ethically in the 90s, Signs of Warning, Signs of Hope, Moral > > > > > Dilemmas, and > > > > > > > > > Christian Ethics in Plain Language. He also served as general > > > editor for > > > > > > > > > the Kregel Publications books Marriage, Family and Sexuality and > > > > > > > > > Technology, Spirituality, & Social Trends. He is a nationally > > > syndicated > > > > > > > > > columnist whose editorials have appeared in the Dallas Morning > > > News, the > > > > > > > > > Miami Herald, the San Jose Mercury, and the Houston Post. He > > > is the host > > > > > > > > > of the "Probe" radio program, and frequently serves as host on > > > "Point of > > > > > > > > > View" (USA Radio Network). > > > > > > > > > > What is Probe? > > > > > > > > > > Probe Ministries is a non-profit ministry whose mission is to > > > assist the > > > > > > > > > church in renewing the minds of believers with a Christian > > > worldview and > > > > > > > > > to equip the church to engage the world for Christ. > > > > > > > > > Before we read your article, you must first give us a reason to > > > > > > > > believe a single word that this lying Christian bastard has > to say! > > > > > > > > Several posters told me that one of the reasons they did not want > > > > > > > Intelligent Design taught in the public schools is because they > > > don't want > > > > > > > teachers to teach lies and false information to students. > Kerby Anderson > > > > > > > provides evidence that lies and false information is already being > > > taught > > > > > > > to students in public schools. As of yet, no posters have > indicated that > > > > > > > they do not want historical revisionism taught to public school > > > students. > > > > > > > > I suggest that you visit this site. These experts in physics are not > > > > > > > Christians but are able to think outside the box. > > > > > > > > If you believe that Kerby is lying, check out the sources > > > mentioned in the > > > > > > > notes sections. > > > > > > > >http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/07/03/paul_davies/ > > > > > > > Jason, you're insane. Here's what the link says. "it's always a bad > > > > > > idea for people to decide what to believe on religious grounds and > > > > > > then to cherry-pick the scientific facts to fit" and "I want to stay > > > > > > away from a pre-existing cosmic magician who is there within time, for > > > > > > all eternity, and then brings the universe into being as part of a > > > > > > preconceived plan. I think that's just a naive, silly idea that > > > > > > doesn't fit the leanings of most theologians these days and doesn't > > > > > > fit the scientific facts." It in no way supports what you want us to > > > > > > believe. The title of the article is misleading. Once again, you've > > > > > > lead us to an article you didn't even bother to read yourself. > > > > > > Yes, I did read it. I stated in my above post that "these experts in > > > > > physics are not Christians but are able to think outside of the box." > > > > > You should have said that these experts in physics are able to think > > > > outside the box BECAUSE they are not Christians. > > > > > Martin > > > > It's my opinion that many of the 500 or more Christians that have Ph.D > > > degrees are able to think outside the box which is the reason they are > > > Christians. The advocates of evolution that are atheists have become the > > > "status quo" and the "norm" in many state colleges. Professors that are > > > Christians are risk takers. They are even willing to risk not getting > > > tenure. They are the ones that are able to think outside the box. > > > People who believe in a Flat Earth also think "outside the box". Most > > of the time when scientists think you're a crackpot, it's not because > > you're a misunderstood genius - it's because you're really a crackpot. > 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? The Christian, as always. Martin Quote
Guest Jim Burns Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 Michael Gray wrote: > On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 13:44:56 -0400, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >"Just because you're not paranoid, it doesn't mean they > >really are out to get you." (or something like that.) > > "Even paranoids have enemies" - M. Gray. Hah! That's what they want you to think. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 On Jul 5, 1:31 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <bsjm83tr7a70d5he8r35suvq5grq2po...@4ax.com>, John Baker > > > > > > <n...@bizniz.net> wrote: > > On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 20:14:33 -0700, Martin <phippsmar...@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. > > 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. If the truth was explained to this Christian and he still didn't get it then he deserved a low grade. Period. We don't hate Christians: we hate the ignorance and lies they espouse. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 On Jul 5, 1:41 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <BmHii.524$m%....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, b...@nonespam.com > wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <TBEii.45127$5j1.29...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>, > > > b...@nonespam.com wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > > >>> In article <H5qdnU_4BMCgXBfbnZ2dnUVZ_sqdn...@sti.net>, "David V." > > >>> <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>> Jason wrote: > > >>>>> In article <duqdnZMbs7B3NBfbnZ2dnUVZ_qOpn...@sti.net>, "David > > >>>>> V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>> Jason wrote: > > > >>>>>>> It's my opinion that if evolutionists honestly believed > > >>>>>>> that childen would laugh at creation science and would > > >>>>>>> understand that evolution made much more sense than > > >>>>>>> creation science--that they would not ever be concerned > > >>>>>>> when many school systems started teaching intelligent > > >>>>>>> design. > > >>>>>> Your opinion, as usual, is not based on reality. > > > >>>>>> Creationism is not a science, it is a religious dogma. It > > >>>>>> has no place in public schools or in any science class. > > > >>>>>> ID is not a science, it is a religious dogma. It has no > > >>>>>> place in public schools or in any science class. > > > >>>>>> Is there some simpler way I can explain it so that you will > > >>>>>> understand? > > >>>>> Dave, See my post to Bob. > > >>>> No. There are way too many postings in this thread. I'm not going > > >>>> to waste my time searching for your reply to someone else. > > > >>>> Are you willing to concede that evolution is a fact? > > >>> Hello, > > >>> Please read the following report. If the lawyers that worked for the > > >>> evolutionists in the Dover case really were concerned about children > > >>> learning false information, they would file lawsuits against school > > >>> systems that taught historical revisionism instead of historical facts. > > >>> This is a report about historical revisionism: > > > >>> "What Are Some Examples of Historical Revisionism?" > > > >>> source: Probe Ministries website > > > >>> Dear Kerby, > > > >>> I have heard you discuss the topic of historical revisionism on radio. I > > >>> told my son about this, and he doesn't believe it. Do you have some > > >>> examples of how our history has been revised from the original? > > > >>> Many historians have wanted to secularize our founders. Take this quote > > >>> from W.E. Woodward. He wrote that "The name of Jesus Christ is not > > >>> mentioned even once in the vast collection of Washington's published > > >>> letters."{1} > > > >>> Anyone who has read some of Washington's writing knows he mentions God and > > >>> divine providence. But it isn't too difficult to also find times in which > > >>> he mentions Jesus Christ. For example, when George Washington wrote to the > > >>> Delaware Indian Chiefs (June 12, 1779) he said: "You do well to wish to > > >>> learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus > > >>> Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. > > >>> Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this wise > > >>> intention."{2} > > > >>> Other examples are also available. For example, a well-worn, handwritten > > >>> prayer book found among Washington's personal writings after his death had > > >>> the name "Jesus Christ" used sixteen times. {3} > > > >>> Often historical revisionism is done by selective omission. Consider this > > >>> famous quote from a book on American history by Kenneth Davis.{4} In 1775, > > >>> Patrick Henry asked, "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased > > >>> at the price of chains and slavery?" Davis then picks up the quote again > > >>> with the final statement by Patrick Henry: "I know not what course others > > >>> may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death." > > > >>> Technically the quote is correct, but what is missing is very important. > > >>> The entire quote should read: "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be > > >>> purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I > > >>> know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or > > >>> give me death." > > > >>> Davis does the same thing when he cites the Mayflower Compact. "We whose > > >>> names are under-written . . . do by these presents solemnly and mutually > > >>> in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine our selves > > >>> together into a civil body politick, for our better ordering and > > >>> preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid." > > > >>> Some important points are omitted. The section should read: "We whose > > >>> names are under-written having undertaken, for the glory of God, and > > >>> advancement of the Christian faith and honor of our king and country, a > > >>> voyage to the first colonie in the Northern parts of Virginia do by these > > >>> presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one another, > > >>> covenant and combine our selves together into a civil body politick, for > > >>> our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends > > >>> aforesaid." > > > >>> Some of the best documented cases of historical revision were provided by > > >>> the work of Paul Vitz and funded by the U.S. Department of Education. He > > >>> notes that "One social studies book has thirty pages on the Pilgrims, > > >>> including the first Thanksgiving. But there is not one word (or image) > > >>> that referred to religion as even a part of the Pilgrims' life." {6} > > > >>> Another textbook said that "Pilgrims are people who take long trips." They > > >>> were described entirely without reference to religion. One reference said > > >>> the Pilgrims "wanted to give thanks for all they had" but never mentioned > > >>> that it was God to whom they wanted to give thanks.{7} > > > >>> Historical revisionism is a sad fact of American education today. Students > > >>> are not getting the whole story, and often references to religion and > > >>> Christianity are left out. > > > >>> Kerby Anderson > > >>> Probe Ministries > > > >>> Notes > > > >>> 1. W.E. Woodward, George Washington: The Image and the Man (New York: Boni > > >>> and Liverlight, 1926), 142. > > > >>> 2. George Washington, The Writings of George Washington (Washington, DC: > > >>> Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XV, 55. > > > >>> 3. Manuscript Prayer-Book Written by George Washington > > (Philadelphia, 1891). > > > > > > > > > >>> 4. Kenneth C. Davis, Don't Know Much About History (New York: Avon Books, > > >>> 1990), 61. > > > >>> 5. Davis, 21. > > > >>> 6. Paul Vitz, Censorship: Evidence of Bias in Our Children's Textbooks > > >>> (Michigan: Servant Books, 1986), 3. > > > >>> 7. Vitz, 18-19. > > > >>> Suggested Reading > > > >>> David Barton, Original Intent (Aledo, TX: WallBuilders Press, 1996), > > > Chapter 16. > > >>> Paul Vitz, Censorship: Evidence of Bias in Our Children's Textbooks > > >>> (Michigan: Servant Books, 1986 > > > >>> About the Author > > > >>> Kerby Anderson is National Director of Probe Ministries International. He > > >>> received his B.S. from Oregon State University, M.F.S. from Yale > > >>> University, and M.A. from Georgetown University. He is the author of > > >>> several books, including Genetic Engineering, Origin Science, Living > > >>> Ethically in the 90s, Signs of Warning, Signs of Hope, Moral Dilemmas, and > > >>> Christian Ethics in Plain Language. He also served as general editor for > > >>> the Kregel Publications books Marriage, Family and Sexuality and > > >>> Technology, Spirituality, & Social Trends. He is a nationally syndicated > > >>> columnist whose editorials have appeared in the Dallas Morning News, the > > >>> Miami Herald, the San Jose Mercury, and the Houston Post. He is the host > > >>> of the "Probe" radio program, and frequently serves as host on "Point of > > >>> View" (USA Radio Network). > > > >>> What is Probe? > > > >>> Probe Ministries is a non-profit ministry whose mission is to assist the > > >>> church in renewing the minds of believers with a Christian worldview and > > >>> to equip the church to engage the world for Christ. Probe fulfills this > > >>> mission through our Mind Games conferences for youth and adults, our 3 1/2 > > >>> minute daily radio program, and our extensive Web site atwww.probe.org. > > > >>> Further information about Probe's materials and ministry may be obtained > > >>> by contacting us at: > > > >>> Probe Ministries > > >>> 1900 Firman Drive, Suite 100 > > >>> Richardson, TX 75081 > > >>> (972) 480-0240 FAX (972) 644-9664 > > >>> i...@probe.orgThis email address is being protected from spam bots, you > > >>> need Javascript enabled to view it > > >>>http://www.probe.org > > > >> Jason, didn't you post that earlier? > > > > Yes--I found it on the Probe Ministries website. > > > Why did you post it again? > > Several posters mentioned they did not want ID taught in schools since > they did not want false information taught to students. I pointed out > (with this post) that false information (historical revisionism) is > already being taught to their children. I continue to believe that the > cover story of the evolutionists is that they don't want ID taught because > it contains false information. The real reason is because they don't want > any competing theories to be taught. In addition, they are concerned that > the students would realize that intelligent design makes more sense than > macroevolution. The lawyers that represented the evolutionists in the > Dover case have not filed suit related to preventing historical > revisionism. Please. Teaching children that Thanksgiving is a time when we are supposed to thank your imaginary god for our food is yet another violation of the separation of church and state. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 On Jul 5, 2:15 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1183531183.582163.63...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jul 4, 1:51 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1183525655.863148.80...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 4, 12:44 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > In article <1183517286.034292.161...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 4, 5:16 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > > 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_... > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > 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. > > > > > So? God doesn't exist. To claim that food comes from God is to teach > > > > false information. > > > > You may want to google Thanksgiving and find out about the first > > > Thanksgiving. Those people were thanking God for the food. > > > So? Those people were morons. Surely they remember growing the food > > themselves. Why then would they pretend the food came from some > > imaginary god? > However, if the settlers and Indians did give the THANKS to God during the > first Thanksgiving--that should be what is taught to children. > > In that case, it would be teaching a lie--if teachers told the class that > the reason it is called THANKSgiving is because it was a ceremony for the > settlers to THANK the Indians for their help. It is still taught in history class that the settlers were the pilgroms and that they were religious zealots fleeing persecution by other religious zealots back in England. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 On Jul 5, 2:04 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <YsudnYpTa8-OLhbbnZ2dnUVZ_i2dn...@comcast.com>, Charles & Mambo > > > > > > Duckman <duck...@gfy.slf> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > > Martin, > > > Is evolution a theory? Yes or No > > > What's with these people and their "just a theory" bullshit? > > > Can't you morons read a book or two, other than the Bible, and learn what a > > scientific theory is? > > > Evolution is "a theory" in the same way that electromagnetism is a theory, > > gravitational force is a theory, special relativity is a theory, etc. > > > To say that evolution is just a theory and therefore one does not have to > > believe in it is no different than jumping off a bridge because one does not > > "believe" in the gravitational theory. > > > Idiots grasp on a colloquial meaning of the word, than apply it to the > > scientific process and by this pathetic equivocation they think they proved > > their stupid superstition. > > > Fucking pathetic. > > > It is not a shame to be illiterate - it is a shame to stay illiterate. > > Various posters have told me that evolution is a fact. What would you tell > a person that told you that evolution was a fact? It is a fact and evolution theory explains how it works. Martin Quote
Guest John Baker Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 16:54:29 GMT, Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote: >On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 12:37:48 -0400, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> >wrote: > >>On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 09:04:51 -0400, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>"cactus" <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote in message >>>news:fwEii.45124$5j1.2231@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net... >>>> Ralph wrote: >>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:Jason-0307071035260001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>>>> In article <5euviqF3a5qs7U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >>>>>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> snipo >>>>>>>> I see it different. I see evolutionists that that rush to court to >>>>>>>> stop >>>>>>>> any school systems from teaching Intelligent Design. They do not want >>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>> competition. >>>>>>> Why do you keep telling this lie? >>>>>> It's my opinion that if evolutionists honestly believed that childen >>>>>> would >>>>>> laugh at creation science and would understand that evolution made much >>>>>> more sense than creation science--that they would not ever be concerned >>>>>> when many school systems started teaching intelligent design. That is >>>>>> NOT >>>>>> the case. Instead, the evidence is that they are really worried that >>>>>> MANY >>>>>> students would realize that creation science made much more sense than >>>>>> macro evolution theory. In my opinion, that is the MAIN reason that they >>>>>> rush to court to stop any school systems from teaching ID. The cover >>>>>> story >>>>>> is that they are protecting children from learning false information >>>>>> instead of science. The cover story is working well since several >>>>>> different posters have told me the cover story. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jason >>>>> >>>>> Your opinion is wrong! How many times do you need to be told this and how >>>>> many times are you going to repeat your lie? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> He's not going to change. This is not a discussion, it's a polemical >>>> exchange. Even if he can't spell it, that's what he's doing. You will no >>>> more change his views than he yours. >>>> >>>> Isn't it getting tedious? How many times have we said exactly the same >>>> thing to him, and how many times has he repeated exactly what he said >>>> before? >>>> >>>> Maybe we're the stupid ones here. >>> >>>I've thought about that. Answering Jason is as bad as answering Jabbers. >> >> >>The only difference is Jason insults you in a less direct manner. >> >>And to be honest, unless Jason is just trolling, Jabbers, ignorant as >>he is, has a better understanding of science than Jason. > >Erm, no. At least not precisely. > >Jason (I presume this is Gastrich) is attempting to practice a form of >"debate judo" and is using aa as a means to improve his debate style. I don't know who this 'Jason' is, but it isn't Gasbag. Quote
Guest John Baker Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 19:24:30 -0700, "Bob T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote: >On Jul 4, 1:17 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> In article <omSii.18033$Qz4.9...@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> >> >> >> >> >> <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >news:Jason-0307072151530001@66-52-22-113.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > > In article <1183516292.660200.152...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > >> On Jul 4, 4:44 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > >> > In article <bpal83taih71ub9kiiahs3238r7vhr1...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch >> >> > >> > <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> > >> > > In alt.atheism On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 10:51:19 -0700, J...@nospam.com >> > >> > > (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> > >> > > >In article <X46dnUEQvdYw_xfbnZ2dnUVZ_tOmn...@sti.net>, "David V." >> > >> > > ><s...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> > > >> Martin wrote: >> > >> > > >> > On Jul 3, 2:00 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > >> > > >> >> In article <MY2dnSWMf5V_ShTbnZ2dnUVZ_vjin...@sti.net>, >> > >> > > >> >> "David V." >> >> > >> > > >> >> <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> > > >> >>> Jason wrote: >> >> > >> > > >> >>>> If the cell colony had evolved into a multicelled life >> > >> > > >> >>>> form--we all would have seen these words on the cover of >> > >> > > >> >>>> National Geographic magazine: >> >> > >> > > >> >>>> EVOLUTION FINALLY PROVED TO BE A FACT >> >> > >> > > >> >>> Do you know why you'll never see those words? Evolution >> > >> > > >> >>> has been proven as a fact for some time now. The only >> > >> > > >> >>> objections are religious. >> >> > >> > > >> >> Evolution is a theory >> >> > >> > > >> >> but >> >> > >> > > >> >> On Jun 27, 2:34 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > >> > > >> >> We are in agreement--evolution is a theory. Yes, the theory >> > >> > > >> >> explains the facts that are backed up with evidence. >> >> > >> > > >> Evolution is a fact. It happened, and is happening now. That is >> > >> > > >> not a theory, that's a fact. The explanation of how evolution >> > >> > > >> happened is a theory, but you have to remember that >> > >> > > >> anti-evolutionists the word "theory" ALWAYS means a "guess". They >> > >> > > >> purposely, and dishonestly, use the wrong meaning of the word. >> >> > >> > > >According to the Nov/2004 issue of National Geographic, evolution >> > >> > > >is a theory. >> >> > >> > > So's gravity. >> >> > >> > > Why do you keep forgetting that? Why are you so dishonest? >> >> > >> > I am not being dishonest. Were the editors and writers of the article >> > >> > in >> > >> > National Geographic being dishonest when they used the term "the theory >> > >> > of >> > >> > evolution". I challenge you to google "theory of evolution". You will >> > >> > receive lots of hits. Even my dictionary refers to evolution as a >> > >> > theory. >> >> > >>http://users.ameritech.net/dennisreynolds1/GravitationalTheory.html >> >> > >> You are being dishonest. "Gravitational theory" gets 2,000,000 hits >> > >> on google and is no small fraction of the hits that "Evolutionary >> > >> theory" gets. >> >> > >> Martin >> >> > > Martin, >> > > Is evolution a theory? Yes or No >> >> > 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. > >It is a fact and it is a theory. How many times do you need this >explained? It wouldn't matter how many times you explained it. Jason understands the idea perfectly well. He's just a deliberate liar. > >- Bob T. Quote
Guest Frank Mayhar Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 13:29:34 -0700, Jason wrote: > 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. Sure. And I suppose you lied in class, as well. Right? You're a hypocrite, too, but I suppose that's no surprise. I would flunk you for your performance, not your opinions. >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. Gish? "Win?" Gish has never fairly "won" a debate in his life. Except perhaps in the minds of idiots such as yourself. > 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. Better, perhaps, than making a fool of yourself in front of uncounted thousands, as _you_ are doing. -- 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 Therion Ware Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 17:45:53 GMT, cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote: >Therion Ware wrote: >> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 12:37:48 -0400, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 09:04:51 -0400, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> "cactus" <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote in message >>>> news:fwEii.45124$5j1.2231@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net... >>>>> Ralph wrote: >>>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:Jason-0307071035260001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>>>>> In article <5euviqF3a5qs7U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >>>>>>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> snipo >>>>>>>>> I see it different. I see evolutionists that that rush to court to >>>>>>>>> stop >>>>>>>>> any school systems from teaching Intelligent Design. They do not want >>>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>>> competition. >>>>>>>> Why do you keep telling this lie? >>>>>>> It's my opinion that if evolutionists honestly believed that childen >>>>>>> would >>>>>>> laugh at creation science and would understand that evolution made much >>>>>>> more sense than creation science--that they would not ever be concerned >>>>>>> when many school systems started teaching intelligent design. That is >>>>>>> NOT >>>>>>> the case. Instead, the evidence is that they are really worried that >>>>>>> MANY >>>>>>> students would realize that creation science made much more sense than >>>>>>> macro evolution theory. In my opinion, that is the MAIN reason that they >>>>>>> rush to court to stop any school systems from teaching ID. The cover >>>>>>> story >>>>>>> is that they are protecting children from learning false information >>>>>>> instead of science. The cover story is working well since several >>>>>>> different posters have told me the cover story. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jason >>>>>> Your opinion is wrong! How many times do you need to be told this and how >>>>>> many times are you going to repeat your lie? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> He's not going to change. This is not a discussion, it's a polemical >>>>> exchange. Even if he can't spell it, that's what he's doing. You will no >>>>> more change his views than he yours. >>>>> >>>>> Isn't it getting tedious? How many times have we said exactly the same >>>>> thing to him, and how many times has he repeated exactly what he said >>>>> before? >>>>> >>>>> Maybe we're the stupid ones here. >>>> I've thought about that. Answering Jason is as bad as answering Jabbers. >>> >>> The only difference is Jason insults you in a less direct manner. >>> >>> And to be honest, unless Jason is just trolling, Jabbers, ignorant as >>> he is, has a better understanding of science than Jason. >> >> Erm, no. At least not precisely. >> >> Jason (I presume this is Gastrich) is attempting to practice a form of >> "debate judo" and is using aa as a means to improve his debate style. >> >Is that who he is? Dunno for a fact, but the location, obsessions and style are suggestive, IMO. >Dammit, we've all been fooled. No wonder he won't >respond to my questions about why he's here. 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.