Evolution is Just Junk Science

July 5, 2007

In article <1183612982.043046.89330@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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

Believe it or not, more people in America agree with me than agree with

you. About 88% of Americans agree with me and about 12% of Americans agree

with you.

July 5, 2007

In article <1183611711.739190.213530@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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

What books are you referring to? If life does not spontaneously generate

today, why would you believe that it spontaneously generated millions of

years ago? Perhaps you have faith that it happend.

I suggest that you visit Wikipedia to find out about the Law of Biogenesis.

Jason

July 5, 2007

In article <1183613105.400062.144190@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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

How many times do I have to tell you about the fossil and bone evidence

that is mentioned in two different books?

July 5, 2007

Jason wrote:

> How many times do I have to tell you about the fossil and bone evidence

> that is mentioned in two different books?

Except that you haven't told us anything about it. What is

it, and how does it support creation better than evolution?

July 5, 2007

In article <pan.2007.07.05.04.01.13@exit.com>, Frank Mayhar

<frank@exit.com> wrote:

> 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.

The reality is that about 88% of Americans agree with me and about 12% of

Americans agree with you.

July 5, 2007

In article <382dnavAcZDK0BHbnZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@sti.net>, "David V."

<spam@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

That's funny.

July 5, 2007

In article <382dnajAcZBI0RHbnZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@sti.net>, "David V."

<spam@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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?

The person that wrote the article that appeared in the Nov/2004 issue of

National Geographic stated (on page 8) that evolution was a theory. I

agree with that author.

Jason

July 5, 2007

In article <1183614288.256108.75320@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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

That was another story. There are lots of atheist professors that hate

Christians so there are lots of stories.

July 5, 2007

In article <1183611421.720994.141500@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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

Martin,

I doubt that you would humiliate any of your students--at least I hope

not. Most professors are decent people. I only had one nut case

professors.

Jason

July 5, 2007

In article <1183602912.989554.158340@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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

Do you now understand why advisors tell students not to have arguments

with professors?

July 5, 2007

In article <NKudnWdnefNwzBHbnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish

<jpopelish@rica.net> wrote:

> 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.

I disagree. I have had to deal with one nut case professor that seemed to

hate Christians. There are probably other nut case professors in other

colleges that also try to humiliate Christians.

July 5, 2007

In article <B40ji.8195$Rw1.1449@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,

bm1@nonespam.com wrote:

> 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.

It's easy.

July 5, 2007

In article <L90ji.8198$Rw1.7907@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,

bm1@nonespam.com wrote:

> 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.

That's the way it is suppose to work. I doubt that many atheist professors

even realize that they judge the written reports of Christian students

more harshly than they grade the papers of atheist students.

jason

July 5, 2007

On 4 Jul., 18:37, John Baker <n...@bizniz.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 09:04:51 -0400, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

> >"cactus" <b...@nonespam.com> wrote in message

> >news:fwEii.45124$5j1.2231@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...

> >> Ralph wrote:

> >>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message

> >>>news:Jason-0307071035260001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> >>>> In article <5euviqF3a5qs...@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"

> >>>> <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote:

>

> >>>>> "Jason" <J...@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.

>

> - Skjul tekst i anf

July 5, 2007

In article <w70ji.8196$Rw1.7759@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,

bm1@nonespam.com wrote:

> 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.

You are correct--that is how Dr. Gish won many debates. When the science

professor that was debating Dr. Gish stated shouting and acting like a

little child--even his students that came to support him stopped clapping

for him when he made an excellent point.

>

> He's practicing.

July 5, 2007

In article <%a0ji.8199$Rw1.3957@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,

bm1@nonespam.com wrote:

> 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?

No---I would only do that if I had a degree in Biology or a related field.

I debated the same professor that Dr. Gish debated. We had the debate in

his office about a week before his debate with Dr. Gish. The professor

easily won the debate that he had with me.

July 5, 2007

In article <LImdncfn-ookBxHbnZ2dnUVZ_vvinZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish

<jpopelish@rica.net> wrote:

> Jason wrote:

>

> > How many times do I have to tell you about the fossil and bone evidence

> > that is mentioned in two different books?

>

> Except that you haven't told us anything about it. What is

> it, and how does it support creation better than evolution?

Upon your request, I'll google fossil evidence and find an article and post it.

July 5, 2007

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 00:14:44 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>In article <1183613105.400062.144190@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>> 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

>

>How many times do I have to tell you about the fossil and bone evidence

>that is mentioned in two different books?

How many times do we have to tell you that we want real

evidence, not creationist propaganda?

>

July 5, 2007

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:30:32 GMT, cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote:

- Refer: <ce0ji.8201$Rw1.1938@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>

>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.

I do not have a useful answer to your question.

--

July 5, 2007

On Jul 5, 2:17 pm, cactus <b...@nonespam.com> wrote:

> 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.

>

> 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.

And Hitler also said this:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a

fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by

a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned

men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a

sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a

man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last

rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple

the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the

world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years,

with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the

fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the

Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated,

but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if

there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly

it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a

duty to my own people."

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The

Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp.

19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

Hitler is Jason's hero.

Martin

July 5, 2007

On Jul 5, 2:47 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> Believe it or not, more people in America agree with me than agree with

> you. About 88% of Americans agree with me and about 12% of Americans agree

> with you.

88% of Americans, huh? All that does is condemn the American

educational system.

http://www.nas.edu/sputnik/ruther1.htm

"In this century, no two pieces of news so shocked America's world

view of itself as the devastating attack on Pearl Harbor on December

7, 1942 and, a mere 15 years later, the successful launching of the

Soviet space craft on October 5, 1957. Each provoked an enormous

national response, the one leading ultimately to the Allied victory in

World War II and the other to U.S. dominance in space. In each

instance, the recovery from humiliation to vindication was

surprisingly short, although, as we know, the political, economic, and

technological ramifications of WWII and the space race, still being

played out, have profoundly changed life in this country and much of

the world.

"Nationwide reform efforts in education followed both of these trials

by fire. But there are some important differences between them that

are worth bearing in mind as we look at the science education reform

efforts following in Sputnik's wake. Where the post-war/pre-sputnik

educational concerns were largely demographic-first the colleges

trying to accommodate returning veterans, the likes of which had not

been seen before, then quickly the schools doing the same for the

young baby boomers. In contrast, the post-Sputnik concerns were

curricular, focusing on what was being taught and how, rather than who

was being taught. Another difference between the two eras was the

assignment of blame. The military and the politicians received the

blame for Pearl Harbor, not educators; in the Sputnik instance, the

finger of blame quickly and sternly pointed at the schools. The third

difference has to do with the public perception of the outcomes of the

two reform movements: the first is almost unanimously regarded as a

great success, a milestone in the history of American education not

unlike that of the Morrill Act in the last century, while the second

is widely regarded as having failed. I think that perception is only

half right.

"My remarks will focus on the Sputnik-associated science education

reform efforts of the late 1950s and the 1960s, and argue that in fact

they have left us a legacy of great value should we choose to draw on

it in the current science education reform effort."

Your country may have improved its science education in the last fifty

years, Jason, but clearly it still has a long way to go.

Martin

July 5, 2007

On Jul 5, 3:13 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1183611711.739190.213...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > 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.

> What books are you referring to? If life does not spontaneously generate

> today, why would you believe that it spontaneously generated millions of

> years ago? Perhaps you have faith that it happend.

Not faith, Jason, evidence, as you very well know.

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

Martin

July 5, 2007

On Jul 5, 3:14 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1183613105.400062.144...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > As usual, he refuses to answer any of our questions.

> How many times do I have to tell you about the fossil and bone evidence

> that is mentioned in two different books?

So far you haven't. All you've done is claim it exists. Again,

Jason, where is there a fossil of your god?

Martin

July 5, 2007

On Jul 5, 3:25 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> The reality is that about 88% of Americans agree with me and about 12% of

> Americans agree with you.

88% of Americans, huh? All that does is condemn the American

educational system.

http://www.nas.edu/sputnik/ruther1.htm

"In this century, no two pieces of news so shocked America's world

view of itself as the devastating attack on Pearl Harbor on December

7, 1942 and, a mere 15 years later, the successful launching of the

Soviet space craft on October 5, 1957. Each provoked an enormous

national response, the one leading ultimately to the Allied victory

in

World War II and the other to U.S. dominance in space. In each

instance, the recovery from humiliation to vindication was

surprisingly short, although, as we know, the political, economic,

and