Guest Bob T. Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 On Jul 5, 9:47 am, Frank Mayhar <f...@exit.com> wrote: > On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 00:25:17 -0700, Jason wrote: > > In article <pan.2007.07.05.04.01...@exit.com>, Frank Mayhar > > <f...@exit.com> wrote: > > >> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 13:29:34 -0700, 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. 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. > > Hey, there are many times as many Buddhists as there are Christians. So > you'll be converting any time now, right? Actually, that's not true. There are five or six times as many Christians as there are Buddhists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_religions Of course, Jason is quite wrong with his 88% number, because included in that are many Christians who believe in theistic evolution, as well as many who are completely ignorant of the debate. - Bob T. > > Reality isn't a popularity contest, kid. > > Oh, and there you go _again_ with the "making a fool of yourself in front > of uncounted thousands" thing. > -- > Frank Mayhar f...@exit.comhttp://www.exit.com/ > Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/ > http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/ > http://www.zazzle.com/fmayhar - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 In article <tC8ji.12851$3a.987@bignews9.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0507070100190001@66-52-22-38.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <LImdncfn-ookBxHbnZ2dnUVZ_vvinZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >> > >> > How many times do I have to tell you about the fossil and bone evidence > >> > that is mentioned in two different books? > >> > >> Except that you haven't told us anything about it. What is > >> it, and how does it support creation better than evolution? > > > > Upon your request, I'll google fossil evidence and find an article and > > post it. > > Can't you say it in your own words? I am not a paleontologist. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 In article <1183635896.557385.18370@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 5, 3:44 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <B40ji.8195$Rw1.1...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, > > b...@nonespam.com wrote: > > > 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. 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. > > Do you want to explain how you do it for anybody new to the thread? > > Martin Martin, Dr. Gish and I both have a different point of view in relation to how life came to be on this planet. Some of the advocates of macro-evolution get really upset when the advocates of evolution make statements like this: God created life. Evolution is a theory and not a fact. The law of biogenesis disproves abiogenesis. creation science is a theory. intelligent design should be taught in the public schools. I could give many other examples. The point is that all of the above statements reflect a different point of view related to how life came to be on this planet. When evolutionists are exposed to a different point of view related to how life came to be--it causes some of them to become very upset since they honestly believe that evolution is a fact. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 In article <kv8ji.12843$3a.7544@bignews9.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0507070044230001@66-52-22-38.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <B40ji.8195$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. > > Of course it is, just be yourself. Did you ever consider that your professor > in college hated you as a person and not as a Christian? Based on your > performance in this NG I would have to say that is the most logical reason. That is possible but I continue to believe that if I had been an atheist--she would not have hated me or the other Christians in the class. I had other atheist professors that treated me exactly the same way that they treated students that were atheists. In those cases, the professors did not even attempt to determine whether or not we were Christians. I respected those professors. One of the solutions is for Christians to start filing lawsuits against any atheist professors that humiliate Christians because of their religion. Jason Quote
Guest Bob T. Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 On Jul 5, 10:31 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: <snip> > Martin, > Dr. Gish and I both have a different point of view in relation to how life > came to be on this planet. Some of the advocates of macro-evolution get > really upset when the advocates of evolution make statements like this: > > God created life. Most of us don't find that upsetting, as long as you agree that He obviously did so several billion years ago, and that life has gradually diversified through the process of evolution since then. > > Evolution is a theory and not a fact. Evolution is both a theory and a fact. We know for a fact that all life on Earth, including humans, share a common ancestor. That is the _fact_ of evolution. If you want to suggest an alternate _theory_ of evolution that includes God manipulating the genes of creatures to encourage certain evolutionary paths, that is consistent with the evidence (though it is not necessary to explain the evidence.) If you want to suggest that God created humans separately and that we are not related to the other apes, you are just plain wrong. > > The law of biogenesis disproves abiogenesis. You don't understand the so-called "law of biogenesis". Hint: it has nothing to do with the origins of life on this planet. It is a counter to the pre-scientific belief that maggots appeared spontaneously in rotten meat. > > creation science is a theory. Really? Please state this theory, in scientific terms. All I have ever seen are religious beliefs with a thin veneer of scientific terms to make it sound like a real theory. > > intelligent design should be taught in the public schools. Oh! And let's teach our children to believe in the Tooth Fairy instead of dentistry, too! > > I could give many other examples. The point is that all of the above > statements reflect a different point of view related to how life came to > be on this planet. When evolutionists are exposed to a different point of > view related to how life came to be--it causes some of them to become very > upset since they honestly believe that evolution is a fact. Which is only natural, since evolution actually is a fact. Religion has no place in public schools, which should remain secular. This also means that schools should not teach that Mohammed is the true Prophet of Allah, or that thunder is caused by Thor's mighty hammer. - Bob T. > > - Show quoted text - Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 In article <1183635604.130689.11990@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 5, 3:32 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <382dnajAcZBI0RHbnZ2dnUVZ_rPin...@sti.net>, "David V." > > > > <s...@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. > > Really? > > On Jun 12, 8:45 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > The title of the article was > > WAS DARWIN WRONG? > > the answer was: > > No--the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. > > Oh and for my bonus point: > > users.ameritech.net/dennisreynolds1/GravitationalTheory.html > > Martin I should have been more clear--I should have stated: I agree with the author in regard to this point: evolution is a theory. Did you state in a recent post that there was a time in the history of the earth that the law of biogenesis was not in effect? If so, What year did the law of biogenesis become in effect? Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 In article <_I8ji.12857$3a.5039@bignews9.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0407071741020001@66-52-22-64.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <HLUii.8588$3a.5708@bignews9.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> news:Jason-0407071323180001@66-52-22-86.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> > In article <xqSii.18083$Qz4.15279@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> >> news:Jason-0307071808070001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> >> > In article <gaml83tsmduop5lfbcrprqhun5qna8odls@4ax.com>, John Baker > >> >> > <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:02:39 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >In article <mdmj83phkn2ick9iivtuffc3tff4s430ti@4ax.com>, John > >> >> >> >Baker > >> >> >> ><nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 00:45:20 -0000, Martin Phipps > >> >> >> >> <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >On Jul 3, 1:45 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> In article > >> >> > <1183367570.892102.301...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >> >> >> >> >> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > On Jul 2, 12:17 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > > In article > >> >> >> >> >> > > <rPGdnUEMCJsZ5BXbnZ2dnUVZ_h_in...@comcast.com>, > >> >> >> >> >> > > John > >> >> >> >Popelish > >> >> >> >> >> > > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > > > Jason wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > > > > In article > >> >> >> >> >> > > > > <DtidnbMBPbT77hXbnZ2dnUVZ_t3in...@sti.net>, > >> >> > "David V." > >> >> >> >> >> > > > > <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > > > >> Jason wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > > > >>> Question for group: Martin told me that single > >> >> >> >> >> > > > >>> animal > >> >> >> >> >> > > > >>> cells > >> >> >> >> >> > > > >>> evolved into animal cell colonies. If that is true, > >> >> >> >> >> > > > >>> how > >> >> >> >> >> > > > >>> do you > >> >> >> >> >> > > > >>> explain this: > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > > > >>> Single-celled Transformers: Marine Phytoplankton > >> >> >> >> >> > > > >>> Changes > >> >> >> >> >> > > > >>> Form > >> >> >> >> >> > > > >>> To Protect Itself > >> >> >> >> >> > > > >> It's called evolution, something you refuse to > >> >> >> >> >> > > > >> understand. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > > > > or reverse evolution > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > > > What is your working definition of "reverse evolution"? > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > > an example: > >> >> >> >> >> > > cell colony reverse evolving into single cells > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > > This is the list that Martin posted--please notice that > >> >> >> >> >> > > (as > >> >> >> >> >> > > per > >> >> >> >evolution) > >> >> >> >> >> > > a single cell evolving into a cell colony. The article > >> >> >> >> >> > > that > >> >> >> >> >> > > I > >> >> >> >> >> > > posted > >> >> >> >> >> > > provided evidence of a cell colony reverse evolving into > >> >> > single cells. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > Not at all, Jason. That's like saying that a frog > >> >> >> >> >> > de-evolves > >> >> >> >> >> > back > >> >> >> >> >> > into a fish every time it goes for a swim. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> In order for evolution to happen the way that you stated it > >> >> >> >> >> happened, a > >> >> >> >> >> cell colony would have to remain a cell colony before the > >> >> >> >> >> next > >> >> >> >> >> step > >> >> >> >> >> of > >> >> >> >> >> evolution would take place--true or false? > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >False. Evolution is about diversity, not upward progress. You > >> >> >> >> >learned nothing in your biology class in college. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> I seriously doubt that Jason actually went to college. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >Martin > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >The evolution section of the biology class was a waste of time. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> So you were one of those snot-nosed brats who thought he knew more > >> >> >> than his professor, eh? <G> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > No, I just wanted to study hard and pass. I never argued with that > >> >> > professor. I was told by advisers to never have arguments with > >> >> > professors > >> >> > since it could have an effect upon the final grades. I did argue > >> >> > with > >> >> > one > >> >> > professor but it was related to a seminar that did not involve > >> >> > grades. > >> >> > The > >> >> > title of the seminar was Evolution versus Creation. That was the > >> >> > same > >> >> > professor that later debated Dr. Gish. > >> >> > Jason > >> >> > >> >> That's what you did Jason. you studied hard and passed. It is too bad > >> >> that > >> >> you didn't learn how to think when you went to school. > >> > > >> > I did learn to think but I did not discuss my opinions with professors. > >> > >> You ignorant buffoon! How could you learn without any dialogue between > >> you > >> and your professors??? > > > > If college students spent all of the time having arguments arguing with > > professors, the professors would not have time to lecture. > > No wonder you are so narrow minded. You never talked in the classroom. > Discussion with my professors was the single best learning tool I used in > college. It helps you to think clearly. Perhaps that is why you don't think > rationally, Jason. I did ask questions about things but that is different than starting an argument or detailed discussion. Quote
Guest Frank Mayhar Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 00:25:53 -0700, Jason wrote: > 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. Well, except for the ones in which he cheated. -- Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/ Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/ http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/ http://www.zazzle.com/fmayhar Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 In article <5f49b2F3b4spcU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com>snip > > > 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. > > So why are you claiming that all atheist professors would behave the way you > claim this one did? I did not mean to imply that all atheist professors are nutcase professors. I have had several atheist professors. I only had one nutcase atheist professor that appeared to me to hate Christian students. Upon request, I'll tell you the story. My other atheist professors did not even attempt to determine whether or not students were Christians. Those atheist professors treated all students the same--that is the way it is suppose to be. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 In article <5f4985F3bhlc4U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote > > snip > > > 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. > > What makes you think your experience is a universal one. > > BTW, in all my years of college (have a BA in English Lit), I don't recall > religion being mentioned once. Where the heck did you go to school? It only happened one time--upon request--I'll tell you the story. Quote
Guest Cary Kittrell Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 In article <Jason-0207072122210001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) writes: > > In article <1183427374.460244.45350@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 3, 4:32 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <f6bkdv$ja...@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>, > > > c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote: > > > > In article <1183367816.929104.115...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com> Martin > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> writes: > > > > > How does "de-evolution" fit in with "intelligent design"? > > > > > Does his god make mistakes and have to go back? XD > > > > > > > Well, given that most paleontologists agree that, as a crude > > > > estimate, over 99% of all species have gone extinct, I'd > > > > say that the Intelligent Desinger has a horrible recall rate. > > > > > > But millions of species have NOT gone extinct > > > > But billions have. > > > > > --that is a very good track record. > > > > No, it isn't. > > > > Martin > > It's a poor track record for macro evolution Yes, it is. But no one said that evolution has purpose, foresight, or intent. Mass extinction, followed by widespread radiative speciation, is one way that evolution works. An Intellligent Designer, one might think, would care. Evolution does not care. -- cary Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 In article <pan.2007.07.05.14.08.54@exit.com>, Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com> wrote: > On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 00:42:57 -0700, Jason wrote: > > 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. > > On the other hand, I had to deal with a nutcase Christian professor who > just couldn't stand the fact that I was an atheist taking his course. > Apparently I was a threat to all his little Christian students. So of > course for my "project significant learnings" (this was a sociology > course) I described my outlook and philosophy. (Heh, there was one kid > who just couldn't imagine how I could not believe in "God." And another > who said that she would pray for me; I just told her, "you do that." > That was 1986. What was that about all prayers being answered?) The > professor also didn't like it that on the first day of class, when he > drew three concentric circles and labelled them "body," "mind" and > "spirit" I immediately raised my hand to object to the last one. I made > a D in that course. > > Note that this was at a state-funded college. He was (mis)using public > funds to preach to his little Christian kids. > > Oh, and, "Jason?" I never once saw any professor try to "humiliate > Christians." Never. I haven't even _heard_ about it except from > hypersensitive idiot fundies such as yourself. That Christian professor should not have done that. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 In article <1183636091.736748.240330@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 5, 3:48 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <L90ji.8198$Rw1.7...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, > > b...@nonespam.com wrote: > > > Jason wrote: > > > > > 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? > > > > > 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. > > Oh no I'm sure they suspect the reason why some students simply don't > get it. I noticed the same lack of ability to think outside the box > with Muslim students. > > Martin Martin, I doubt that you grade their papers more harshly. jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 In article <3p8ji.12838$3a.9480@bignews9.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0507070048140001@66-52-22-38.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <L90ji.8198$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 > > I doubt that they do either, especially since you have presented nothing > that says they do. Most would not since they would not know or care whether or not some of the students were Christians--they treat all students the same--and that is the way that it should be. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 In article <NK8ji.12860$3a.1949@bignews9.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0407071800240001@66-52-22-64.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > 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 > > Are you aware that science isn't done by debate? Yes Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 In article <rx8ji.12846$3a.679@bignews9.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0507070053290001@66-52-22-38.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <w70ji.8196$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. > > You don't have enough intellect to know if it was an 'excellent' point. At the very least, they were clapping for him during the early portion of the debate but stop clapping for him after he made a fool of himself. I never did find out whether or not the students that came to support him received extra credit for attending the debate. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 In article <4otp839aa52lrvub2m6kk5fn9662menc69@4ax.com>, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > In alt.atheism On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 00:13:11 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > (Jason) let us all know that: > > > >I suggest that you visit Wikipedia to find out about the Law of Biogenesis. > > I suggest you visit a biology textbook and find out that there > is no such thing as the law of biogenesis. > > > Don > --- > aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde > Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. > > "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" > Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" That does not mean there is no such law. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 In article <468D1544.4020805@osu.edu>, James Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <omSii.18033$Qz4.9004@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >>news:Jason-0307072151530001@66-52-22-113.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > >>>Martin, > >>>Is evolution a theory? Yes or No > >> > >>Of course evolution is a theory. > > > > Thanks--if anyone else claims that evolution is a FACT, please > > let them know that "Of course evolution is a theory. > > Is Washington a state or a city? Choose one or the other. > > That's a dishonest question, of course. "Washington" sometimes > refers to a state and sometimes to a city. (And sometimes > to a historic figure, and so on.) It's dishonest in the > same way that your question is dishonest. > > (ONE MORE TIME) There are the facts of evolution -- what has been > actually observed -- and there is the theory of evolution -- > the best current explanation for those observed facts. > They are obviously closely related, but they are not the > same thing, just as Washington the state and Washington > the city refer to parts of the United States, but not the same > parts. > > Are you Jason Gastrich? > > Jim Burns No Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 In article <UG8ji.12856$3a.2747@bignews9.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0407072325200001@66-52-22-38.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > 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..." > > You've already been told by your idols not to use that phrase. Can't you do > anything right? Are you claiming that statement is not in that book? Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 In article <5f49rjF3aokskU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in > > snip > > 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. > > Do you honestly think that kids can't learn anything on their own? Yes, they can learn things on their own. It would be better if both theories were taught? Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 In article <f6ini8$72i$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f6gp3f$5q5$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Do you want them to teach flat-earth and round-earth and let the kids > >> decide? How about "bad vapors" and "germ theory"? Or "earth-centered" vs > >> "sun centered"? You probably don't want those choices all offered, do > >> you? Then why offer a choice here between "crap" and fact? Even if you > >> think ID is the fact and evolution is the crap, why would you want crap > >> being taught? It makes no logical sense. > >> > >> (And I'm going to keep asking this every time you come up with this > >> "teach them both" nonsense.) > > > > I answered similar questions in other posts. In those cases, I would write > > letters to the members of the school board but would not hire a lawyer and > > take the school system to court. > > I.e. you don't want them to teach nonsense along with the real facts. So > why would you ever want both evolution and ID both taught? OBVIOUSLY, > one is wrong and the other is right. So why teach the one that's wrong > (which ever one that is?) > > BTW, you did NOT answer the question asked. That's why I asked it again. > In fact, I'll separate it out for you so it's not surrounded by other text: > > Why do you want something that is wrong taught along with something that > is right (without trying to decide which is which here)? It's my opinion that both evolution and ID should be taught. Without a time machine, it would be impossible to PROVE how life came to be on this planet. In other words, we don't know for sure which is correct so we should teach both of them. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 In article <f6in73$5v4$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > 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. > > So in one breath, you admit that evolution is the truth and should be > taught and in the next you claim it's brainwashing. Please make up your > mind. > > <snip remaining crap> There are some aspects of evolution that are true. It is brainwashing since evolutionists will not allow Intelligent Design to be taught. Quote
Guest Bob T. Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 On Jul 5, 11:20 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f6ini8$72...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <f6gp3f$5q...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Do you want them to teach flat-earth and round-earth and let the kids > > >> decide? How about "bad vapors" and "germ theory"? Or "earth-centered" vs > > >> "sun centered"? You probably don't want those choices all offered, do > > >> you? Then why offer a choice here between "crap" and fact? Even if you > > >> think ID is the fact and evolution is the crap, why would you want crap > > >> being taught? It makes no logical sense. > > > >> (And I'm going to keep asking this every time you come up with this > > >> "teach them both" nonsense.) > > > > I answered similar questions in other posts. In those cases, I would write > > > letters to the members of the school board but would not hire a lawyer and > > > take the school system to court. > > > I.e. you don't want them to teach nonsense along with the real facts. So > > why would you ever want both evolution and ID both taught? OBVIOUSLY, > > one is wrong and the other is right. So why teach the one that's wrong > > (which ever one that is?) > > > BTW, you did NOT answer the question asked. That's why I asked it again. > > In fact, I'll separate it out for you so it's not surrounded by other text: > > > Why do you want something that is wrong taught along with something that > > is right (without trying to decide which is which here)? > > It's my opinion that both evolution and ID should be taught. Without a > time machine, it would be impossible to PROVE how life came to be on this > planet. That's true. We have one theory that is backed by vast quantities of physical evidence. We have another "theory" that is actually religious faith. Which one should be taught in science class? > > In other words, we don't know for sure which is correct so we should teach both of them. We know that one theory is science, and the other one is religion. You are welcome to teach religion in church - keep it out of the public schools. - Bob T. > > - Show quoted text - Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 In article <gU%ii.8192$Rw1.636@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > 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. They already do that. Believe it or not, the advocates of creation science and ID have evidence. ICR has a graduate school. Most of the students are high school biology teachers that attend the graduate school during the summer months. There are several hundred people that have Ph.D degrees that are advocates of creation science and ID. Examples include: Dr. Daniel Criswell--he has a Ph.D degree in molecular biology--he teaches biology at the ICR Graduate Schoool. Dr. John Baumgardner--he has a Ph.D degree in geophysics from UCLA--he teaches geophysics professor at the ICR Graduate School. Jerry Bergman is on the Biology faculty at Northwest State College in Ohio. Quote
Guest Mike Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 Jason wrote: > OKAY--I get it. The advocates of Evolution CLAIM that life formed from > non-life. No, you don't get it. The advocates of evolution dont' say a damned thing about how life formed. Evolution has nothing to do with how it formed. It has to do ONLY with how it CHANGED once it did form. If the advocates of evolution want to convince the advocates of > creation science and ID that it happened, scientists should conduct a lab > experiment to make it happen. That evidence would convince the advocates > of creation science and ID that it happened that way. Otherwise, encourage > your fellow advocates of evolution to stop trying to convince us that you > have evidence that it happened that way. Also, as been pointed out to you before, not all events can be re-created in a lab. That doesn't mean they didn't happen. 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.