Guest Therion Ware Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 23:29:06 -0400, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: >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. You may be right. The discursive style seems familiar though. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 On Jul 5, 2:41 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <YYQii.17767$p7....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-0407071031060001@66-52-22-6.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > 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. > > > >> >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. I would give extra credit to a Christian who actually got a clue in a class of mine. I would feel as though we had really accomplished something. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 On Jul 5, 2:53 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > Do you believe or not believe the Law of Biogenesis? There is no such law on the books today: all we can say is that life does NOT spontaneously generate today. Nor does your god ever create life. Nor has your god ever created life. Life generated, presumably over millions of years, as a result of chemical reactions that occured approximately four billion years ago. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 On Jul 5, 3:09 am, 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. > > > 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? Have you? Jason, do you realize how easy it is for people to come to believe things that are wrong? Look at the Tonight Show Jay Walking segment and you'll see people like you who never got a proper education. These are people we laugh at. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 On Jul 5, 3:09 am, 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. > > 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. That's where you are wrong, Jason. I do care about you. I pity you so much. I can't imagine what it would be like to be so ignorant. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 On Jul 5, 3:12 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:Jason-0307072306510001@66-52-22-113.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > > > > In article <1183527376.705792.189...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> On Jul 4, 1:13 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > In article <1183519429.782828.230...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > >> > Martin > >> > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > > On Jul 4, 9:24 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > > > In article <1183505961.078603.48...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > Martin > > >> > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > > > > On Jul 4, 1:44 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > > > > > In article > > <1183472999.969640.255...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, "Bob > >> > > > > > T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > >> > > > > > > On Jul 2, 9:37 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > > > > > > > In article > > >> > > > <1183427713.076508.130...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > >> > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 4:44 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > > evidence supports creation science and does not support > >> > evolution. > >> > > > > > If the > >> > > > > > > > > > the cell colony had evolved into a multicelled life > > form--that > >> > > > > > would have > >> > > > > > > > > > supported evolution theory. > > >> > > > > > > > > Nice to see you admit that. > > >> > > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_multicellularity > > >> > > > > > > > > "The advantage of the Colonial Theory hypothesis is that > >> > > > > > > > > it > >> > has been > >> > > > > > > > > seen to occur independently numerous times (in 16 > >> > > > > > > > > different > >> > > > > > > > > protoctistan phyla). For instance, Dictyostelium is an > >> > amoeba which > >> > > > > > > > > groups together during times of food shortage, forming a > >> > colony that > >> > > > > > > > > moves as one to a new location. Some of these amoeba > > then become > >> > > > > > > > > slightly differentiated from each other. Other examples > >> > > > > > > > > of > >> > colonial > >> > > > > > > > > organisation in protozoa are Eudorina and Volvox (the > >> > > > > > > > > latter > >> > of which > >> > > > > > > > > consist around 10,000 cells, only about 25-35 which > > reproduce - 8 > >> > > > > > > > > asexually and around 15-25 sexually). It can often be > >> > > > > > > > > hard > >> > to tell, > >> > > > > > > > > however, what is a colonial protist and what is a > > multicellular > >> > > > > > > > > organism in its own right. > > >> > > > > > > > > "Most scientists accept that is by the Colonial theory > >> > > > > > > > > that > >> > > > > > > > > Multicellular organisms evolved." > > >> > > > > > > > If the cell colony had evolved into a multicelled life > >> > > > > > > > form--we > >> > > > all would > >> > > > > > > > have seen these words on the cover of National Geographic > > magazine: > > >> > > > > > > > EVOLUTION > >> > > > > > > > FINALLY > >> > > > > > > > PROVED > >> > > > > > > > TO BE > >> > > > > > > > A FACT > > >> > > > > > > > Since the cell colony did not evolve into a multicelled > >> > > > > > > > life > >> > form, this > >> > > > > > > > story and similar stories will be ignored and explained > >> > > > > > > > away > >> > in much the > >> > > > > > > > same way that posters explained away this story. > > >> > > > > > > I wish I had access to your bathroom mirror, so I could write > >> > > > > > > "Evolution takes a long time" on it. Without that reminder, > > you seem > >> > > > > > > to forget that obvious fact every day. > > >> > > > > > > Cell colonies _did_ evolve into multi-celled life - humans, > >> > > > > > > cats, > >> > > > > > > walruses and lobsters are all the result of cell colonies > >> > > > > > > evolving > >> > > > > > > into multi-celled life. > > >> > > > > > An alternative theory is that God created all of the > > transitional forms. > > >> > > > > But that's not a theory based on any facts nor backed up with > >> > > > > evidence. > > >> > > > > > On Jun 27, 2:34 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > > > > > We are in agreement--evolution is a theory. Yes, the theory > >> > > > > > explains the facts that are backed up with evidence. > > >> > > > Some of the aspects of abiogenesis are not backed up with > >> > > > evidence--does > >> > > > that stop you from supporting abiogenesis? > > >> > > Which aspects of abiogenesis are not supported by evidence? Besides > >> > > your version, I mean: your version is not supported by evidence as > >> > > you > >> > > still haven't been able to show us a fossil of your god. > > >> > > Will you at least admit that your statement yesterday "evidence > >> > > supports creation science and does not support evolution" was a lie? > >> > > Because your statement above from Jun 27th "the theory [of evolution] > >> > > explains the facts that are backed up with evidence" directly > >> > > contradicts it. > > >> > The evidence of abiogenesis that is NOT backed up with evidence are the > >> > lack of lab experiments that indicated these steps happened: > > >> > > > > > STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) > >> > > > > > STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual > >> > > > > > reproduction) > >> > > > > > STEP 3 Animal cell colony (with cells depending upon each other > >> > > > > > for > >> > > > > > survival) > >> > > > > > STEP 4 Multicelled animal (with cells differentiated according > >> > > > > > to > >> > > > > > function) > > >> > Please don't try to convince me that lab experiments that prove that > >> > genetic materials can be created from non-genetic materials proves > >> > evolution. > > >> It doesn't prove evolution. It proves abiogenesis. > > >> Tell me, Jason, at what point do you consider something alive? When > >> is it dead? When is a plant alive? When is it dead? I can answer > >> these questions, Jason, but I want to hear your answers first. > > > I don't know about plants but know about animals since I was raised on a > > farm. It was easy to tell the difference between live animals and dead > > animals. Doctors and nurses in hospitals can easily determine if a person > > has died because of the equipment that is used. > > >> > 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? As usual, he refuses to answer any of our questions. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 On Jul 5, 4:17 am, 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. > > > 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. 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. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 On Jul 5, 4:21 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > I have told you about the two books that discuss the fossil and bone > evidence that supports creation science. There is NO 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. If any such evidence existed then you would have presented it by now. Once again, Jason, do you have a fossil of your god or not? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 On Jul 5, 4:23 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <xqSii.18083$Qz4.15...@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-0307071808070001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <gaml83tsmduop5lfbcrprqhun5qna8o...@4ax.com>, John Baker > > > <n...@bizniz.net> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:02:39 -0700, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > >> >In article <mdmj83phkn2ick9iivtuffc3tff4s43...@4ax.com>, John Baker > > >> ><n...@bizniz.net> wrote: > > > >> >> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 00:45:20 -0000, Martin Phipps > > >> >> <martinphip...@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 You obviously didn't. > but I did not discuss my opinions with professors. You are supposed to. It's called "getting an education". Professors don't enjoy being fooled into believing you've actually learned something. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 On Jul 5, 4:29 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <pan.2007.07.04.19.50...@exit.com>, Frank Mayhar > <f...@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 <f...@exit.com> wrote: > > > - Refer: <pan.2007.07.03.20.05...@exit.com> > > >>On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 10:39:11 -0700, 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. > > > >>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. You were told that because you went to a bad college that didn't offer you anything that even resembled an education. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 On Jul 5, 8:41 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <HLUii.8588$3a.5...@bignews9.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-0407071323180001@66-52-22-86.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <xqSii.18083$Qz4.15...@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > >>news:Jason-0307071808070001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > >> > In article <gaml83tsmduop5lfbcrprqhun5qna8o...@4ax.com>, John Baker > > >> > <n...@bizniz.net> wrote: > > > >> >> On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:02:39 -0700, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > >> >> >In article <mdmj83phkn2ick9iivtuffc3tff4s43...@4ax.com>, John Baker > > >> >> ><n...@bizniz.net> wrote: > > > >> >> >> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 00:45:20 -0000, Martin Phipps > > >> >> >> <martinphip...@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. Please don't presume to tell university professors like myself how to teach: I value feedback from students. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 On Jul 5, 8:49 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <FKUii.8587$3a.5...@bignews9.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-0407071141550001@66-52-22-6.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <YYQii.17767$p7....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > >>news:Jason-0407071031060001@66-52-22-6.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > >> > 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. > > > >> >> >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." You told us that a friend at your college told you that about one of the professors teaching there! Now you're telling it as a radio preacher! Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 On Jul 5, 8:53 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <vhIsdqY67dTD-pn2-Spx19cLJ1yRd@M>, d...@dandrake.com wrote: > > On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 17:18:15 UTC, J...@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.) > Thanks for your post. I respect Galileo because he was able to think > outside the box. He was a risk taker. As was Darwin. Martin Quote
Guest cactus Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <fzEii.45125$5j1.123@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>, > bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <0uyii.74$yD2.17@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >>> <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >>>> news:Jason-0207072312460001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>>> In article <1183442128.284710.224670@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>>>> <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 3, 12:49 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>> In article <1183429649.303081.290...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, >>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>> <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Jul 3, 9:34 am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> In alt.atheism On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:29:16 -0700, J...@nospam.com >>>>>>>>> (Jason) let us all know that: >>>>>>>>>> Teachers have been teaching evolution in the public schools for >>>>>>>>>> over 35 >>>>>>>>>> years. Have you wondered how successful those high school teachers >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> been? >>>>>>>>> They've also been teaching mathematics and that the Earth >>>>>>>>> is a >>>>>>>>> spheroid. >>>>>>>>>> Answer: Only 12% of Americans believe that humans evolved from >>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>> life-forms without any involvement from a god. >>>>>>>>>> source: National Geographic Nov/2004 page 6 >>>>>>>>>> It appears to me that more Americans agree with me than agree with >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> advocates of evolution. >>>>>>>>> So what? >>>>>>>>>> It also explains why evolutionists rush to court >>>>>>>>>> every time a school system wants to teach intelligent design. >>>>>>>>> No it doesn't. >>>>>>>>> Jason: would you support the teaching of "Flat-Earth >>>>>>>>> Theory" >>>>>>>>> in schools. Remember: it's a competing idea. It doesn't matter how >>>>>>>>> many people believe it: IT'S A COMPETING IDEA. >>>>>>>> The flat Earth theory does get mentioned in schools and is followed >>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>> laughter. >>>>>>> If a school system tried to teach the Flat Earth Theory, I would write >>>>>>> letters to each member of the school board and ask them to reconsider >>>>>>> their decision. >>>>>> Explain why. Are you afraid that students might come to see that the >>>>>> flat Earth theory makes more sense? XD >>>>>> >>>>>> Martin >>>>> I see creation science and ID as the truth and see Flat Earth Theory as a >>>>> lie. However, unlike the evolutionists, I would not rush to court. >>>>> Instead, I would write letters to the members of the school board. I wish >>>>> that evolutionists would do that instead of rushing to court. >>>> Why would you wish that, Jason? If someone is breaking the law you > don't beg >>>> them to stop, you report them to the proper authorities. >>> Teaching false information is not a violation of the law--otherwise--all >>> history teachers that teach "historical revisionism" instead of historical >>> facts would be arrested. >>> >>> >> Is this your best argument for teaching creationism in public school - >> that it's legal to lie? > > No, the reason is because the advocates of Intelligent Design believe it > is the means by which life came to be on this planet. > > Honest answer. But I can think of no rational reason that a small group should be able to impose their mythos on others in a secular public school. Let them teach it in Sunday school along with the other teachings of their faith. Quote
Guest cactus Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 Ralph wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0407071122530001@66-52-22-6.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> In article <f6gk8n$v9f$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> >>> Jason wrote: >>>> In article <5euviqF3a5qs7U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >>>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> >>>>> >>>>> snipo >>>>>> I see it different. I see evolutionists that that rush to court to >>>>>> stop >>>>>> any school systems from teaching Intelligent Design. They do not want >>>>>> any >>>>>> competition. >>>>> Why do you keep telling this lie? >>>> It's my opinion that if evolutionists honestly believed that childen >>>> would >>>> laugh at creation science and would understand that evolution made much >>>> more sense than creation science--that they would not ever be concerned >>>> when many school systems started teaching intelligent design. That is >>>> NOT >>>> the case. >>> Correct, that's not the case. Why? Because children are suggestible and >>> can't always tell the difference between fact and "fiction presented as >>> fact." That's why we don't teach them that "the earth is flat" is a >>> viable theory, nor to we teach them that "man never went to the moon" >>> could possibly be true. >>> >>> We do teach them what's supported by evidence, however. >> What is your opinion about teachers teaching historical revisionism >> instead of historical facts? > > All history is revisionist history. Again, you've been told this several > times. It is hard to believe that you would give up your integrity in a > public forum. You're pitiful. > > Remember, this is polemics. Revisionist History is anything that Jason, or someone Jason approves of, didn't write. Quote
Guest cactus Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. And the reason that creationists are equally adamant that it be taught. > > 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. > If there were any truth to creationism, it would hold on. We can only hope that it will disappear from the face of the Earth. But as long as there are Christian fanatics and knownothings it will persist, just as polio persists despite the vaccine. > 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." > That was Hitler. You pick great sages, Jason. > 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? Jason, your point is perfectly clear. You are a classic case of "sour grapes." If not, read the book "1984" > > Jason > > Quote
Guest cactus Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 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. > 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 > > And you learned from him, didn't you Jason. Is that what you are practicing here? You seem to be very effective at making people lose their tempers with you. Quote
Guest cactus Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 Ralph 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. > > But not a good thing, because then they win. They then argue that they have reduced the expert to a distraught nincompoop who is frustrated that he can't respond to a reasonable argument. He's practicing. Quote
Guest cactus Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 John Baker wrote: > 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. He is. He's practicing his polemical arguments on us. > >> Jabbers does know more than Jason, even though that isn't >> saying much. >> Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 In article <1183614321.491612.315520@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 5, 8:53 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <vhIsdqY67dTD-pn2-Spx19cLJ1yRd@M>, d...@dandrake.com wrote: > > > On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 17:18:15 UTC, J...@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.) > > > Thanks for your post. I respect Galileo because he was able to think > > outside the box. He was a risk taker. > > As was Darwin. > > Martin These words are from the last paragraph of Darwin's book (Mentor Edition): "...having been originally breathed by the creator into a few forms or into one..." Quote
Guest cactus Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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 > > He'd better, unless he wants to be censured by the academic authorities at the school. Grades should not be religion-based, just based on the content of the reports. Quote
Guest cactus Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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 > > Confirming my point. That's why one should never debate a creationist without having prepared extensively in advance. Is this what you are practicing for Jason? Quote
Guest cactus Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 Therion Ware wrote: > 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. > It makes a lot of sense. Good analysis. Quote
Guest cactus Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 Michael Gray wrote: > 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. > > -- Thank you. The question is what, if anything, we do about it. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 In article <1183602162.499556.88450@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, "Bob T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > 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. Big Brother brainwashed the children by teaching the students what he wanted them to learn. He did not allow the students to learn two different theories. 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.