Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 On May 29, 11:50 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <9k4n5352rei3v65rm78385eh2i50fkb...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Mon, 28 May 2007 19:11:49 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-2805071911500...@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <1180388848.806915.313...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > > >gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > >> On 28 Maj, 20:44, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > ... > > > >> > I have read some science journals in the past 36 years. > > > >> If you have, you have been lying. If you have not, you have been > > >> lying. > > > >This reminds me of when I was in grade school. Name calling was popular in > > >those days. I guess that some people never grow up. > > > No, it's not name calling, its an observation about your behavior. You > > have routinely told lies and never acknowledged your lies when you were > > called on them. > > lier lier pants on fire 1) you misspelled "liar" 2) a mature person would admit to lying when he's been caught lying. Martin Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 On Mon, 28 May 2007 20:50:53 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2805072050530001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <9k4n5352rei3v65rm78385eh2i50fkb3e7@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Mon, 28 May 2007 19:11:49 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2805071911500001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <1180388848.806915.313210@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, >> >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: >> > >> >> On 28 Maj, 20:44, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> ... >> >> >> > I have read some science journals in the past 36 years. >> >> >> >> If you have, you have been lying. If you have not, you have been >> >> lying. >> > >> >This reminds me of when I was in grade school. Name calling was popular in >> >those days. I guess that some people never grow up. >> >> No, it's not name calling, its an observation about your behavior. You >> have routinely told lies and never acknowledged your lies when you were >> called on them. > >lier lier pants on fire When you are a liar, and you are, it is not wrong for your correspondents to point that out to others, to warn others that you and others such as the ICR are intentionally making false statements or that the ICR relies on people believing these false statements for their livelihood. They are professional liars. You, apparently, do it to support your own religious zealotry. I have no respect for your approach. Most of the Christians I know would not respect your repeated lies and refusal to learn about science. Augustine had no use for your approach, either. Learn. -- "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 On May 29, 11:59 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > I do not hate anyone. Keep telling yourself that and you'll comntinue to believe it, even as you condemn us to Hell for not believing in your God and, therefore (so you seem to believe), lacking any morals whatsoever. Martin Quote
Guest stoney Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 On 24 May 2007 10:10:12 -0700, John <sawireless2000@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism >On May 8, 3:38 am, Matt Silberstein ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> "proven". Common Descent is as well supported a grand fact as exists >> >> >> >> in science. > >Really says who. Those with a smidgen of education. >Who is this person that established that Common >Descent is a fact, published where? Who's powering your iron lung, and why? -- Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 On May 29, 12:13 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180406926.346646.109...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On May 29, 3:20 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1180351477.189532.148...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 28, 2:22 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > The 90 scientists that are advocates of > > > > > creation science are helping our cause by telling their stories in > the two > > > > > books discussed in my post. > > > > > The two books which you yourself haven't read. Is this naivite or > > > > abject stupidity? I can't tell anymore and am no longer interested in > > > > giving you the benefit of the doubt. > > > > I have read the comments of some of those scientists in "ICR Newsletters" > > > during the past 5 years so see no need to re-read that same sort of > > > information in those two books. However, the books would be great for > > > people that do not subscribe to the newletter. > > > Jason, > > Are you aware that creationist organisations employ "scientists" to > > say what they want them to say? Many of these "scientists" don't do > > any research and just appear at the organisation's bidding in an > > attempt to discredit real science. Real scientists get papers > > published in actual peer reviewed scientific journals. You'll be > > surprised how many of these "scientists" don't have any research at > > all in their resumes. We've encountered such "scientists" before. > > Don't assume we haven't. > No, I was not aware of that. As far as I know, the staff members of ICR do > not call themselvs scientists. However, when they write articles, they > place Ph.D after their names--if they have Ph.D degrees. It's difficult > for people that are advocates of creation science to get their articles > published in journals since their articles are usually rejected due to > bias. However, I'm sure you would believe the articles were rejected for a > different reason than bias. Not at all. Peer reviewed journals have a bias towards honesty and a bias against deliberate deceit. It is a bias they are quite proud to have. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 In article <1180404478.923622.86430@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 29, 2:44 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1180351191.205778.294...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On May 28, 2:11 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <1180327601.536678.172...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 28, 11:18 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > In article > > > > <1180317985.589733.293...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 28, 4:28 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > > In article <3flj539nm5bev469kptra9i2a7vgdrs...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 27 May 2007 11:51:01 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > > > > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > > > > > > > <Jason-2705071151020...@66-52-22-32.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > > > > > > >In article <56i6i.16237$KC4.3...@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, > > > > "James Brock" > > > > > > > > > ><j...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> "Free Lunch" <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > >>news:ts0j53hi2u9bjo389easj23vdv7jd83r9e@4ax.com... > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > >> > You asked if it was proven that it can happen. It was. Now > > > > you try to > > > > > > > > > >> > move the goal post to one that hasn't yet happened. > > Fine, keep > > > > > > showing > > > > > > > > > >> > us how dishonest you are in approaching this subject. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Anti-evolution Creationism is a lie. Those who repeat the > > > > > > anti-evolution > > > > > > > > > >> > creationist talking points are repeating those lies. > > > > > > > > > > > >> Since there is no god, and life definately exist, the > > only possible > > > > > > > > > >> conclusion is that life created itself through natural > > processes. > > > > > > > > > > > >> James Leon Zechariah Brock > > > > > > > > > > > >> Meaning of Genesis > > > > > > > > > > > >For the sake of discussion, let's assume that statement is > > > > true. Proof > > > > > > > > > >would be needed before you could determine that life > > created itself > > > > > > > > > >through natural processes. If you can not proove it, you would > > > > have to go > > > > > > > > > >back and at least consider the possibility that God does > > exist and > > > > > > created > > > > > > > > > >life. Without proof, some people will conclude that God created > > > > life and > > > > > > > > > >others will conclude that life created itself through natural > > > > processes. > > > > > > > > > >In both cases, those people are making use of faith since > > there is no > > > > > > > > > >proof. > > > > > > > > > > > Why do you keep repeating this falsehood? > > > > > > > > > > > Religious doctrines have absolutely no evidence to support them. > > > > > > > > > > > Scientific theories are consistent with the available evidence. > > > > > > > > > > > You ignore the word evidence and ask for something > > meaningless: proof. > > > > > > > > > > > Why would I consider the possibility that something exists when > > > > there is > > > > > > > > > absolutely no evidence to support it. Do you believe in > > every god that > > > > > > > > > has ever been worshipped? Why or why not? > > > > > > > > > > Why would I accept the conclusion that life created itself through > > > > natural > > > > > > > > processes when there is absolutely no evidence to support it? > > > > > > > > > Why shouldn't you accept the conclsuion that life emerged through > > > > > > > natural processes when every single shred of evidence supports it? > > > > > > > Why would you accept the conclusion that God created life when there > > > > > > > is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that God exists? Why > > > > > > > should you deny that your entire religion is a lie when all the > > > > > > > evidence demonstrates that God, Jesus, Mary, etc. were all made up > > > > > > > entirely as works of fiction. > > > > > > > > When a scientist is able to conduct an experiment that proves that a one > > > > > > celled life form can evolve from non-life, I will have the > > evidence I need > > > > > > to change my mind on this subject. Of course, before I changed my > > mind, I > > > > > > would have to read the details of that experiment in a science > > magazine or > > > > > > journal. > > > > > > > Have you read any science journals already published on the subject? > > > > > Just a few posts back you claimed that amino acids couldn't be > > > > > produced naturally and that the amino acids couldn't be used to create > > > > > life. I posted links two weeks ago that proved both of these > > > > > assertions false. So why should we believe that you would start > > > > > reading science journals if a scientist were able to produce a living > > > > > cell? > > > > > > I would visit the city library and read that journal article. Believe it > > > > or not, this was an issue when I was in a college biology class in 1971. > > > > Our biology professor (an evolutionist) was hoping that a scientist would > > > > perform such an experiment within the next several years. I am still > > > > waiting. I don't really care whether or not you believe me. > > > > > So what you are telling us is that you haven't read a single science > > > journal in 36 years and have absolutely no knowledge of the field. > > > Yes, I believe you. > > > > I have read some science journals in the past 36 years. > > Then you should know more about science than your posts indicate. > That's all I'm saying. > > Martin Martin, The advocates of evolution keep posting messages indicating that evolution theory is based on science and evidence. When they tell me that the first living cell evolved as a result of natural forces, I ask for the evidence that it happened that way. As of yet, the evidence has not been provided. The bottom line is that there is NO evidence that the first living cell evolved as a result of natural forces. I won't accept that it happened this way unless you or someone else provides the evidence. Think about it--is that too much to ask? I had the same problem 36 years ago when my college biology professor told the class that the first living cells evolved naturally in the primordial pond. When a student asked him for the evidence that it happened that way, the professor said that there was no evidence so just accept it and believe it. He later told us that he expected that a scientist would prove that a living cell could evolve naturally if the conditions were right. That was 36 years ago. It has not happened as of yet. Don't expect me or any of the 90 scientists that agree with me to change our minds until the evidence is provided. jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 In article <1180405105.458739.189710@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 29, 2:56 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1180362971.809665.115...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > And, just as a side comment, the Bible says life came from non-life. > > > After all, where else would it come from, unless it existed from > > > eternity? > > > > God created life from non-life. > > God deson't exist. > > What amazes me is that you expect us to believe your crap when you > don't seriously believe it yourself. You invoke Pascal's Wager when > you say "What if you are wrong?" Well, what if _you_ are wrong? You > can't seriously introduce the concept of doubt without simultaneously > invoking the very real possibility of God's non-existance at which > point you are admitting that God might not exist. So why would you > expect us to believe he exists when you've already introduced doubt? > Pascal's Wager supports the hypothesis that no theist seriously > believes in God but rather simply hopes God exists so that they have > something to hold onto as they get older to relieve their fear of > death. It's like any other religion. > > > That is VERY different than a living cell > > (naturally) evolving from non-life. > > > > When I was in college in 1971, the college biology text book had a section > > related to the "primordial pond" or "primordial soup". The professor told > > us that the first living cells evolved from non-life in that primordial > > pond. I have been told that concept is no longer discussed in high school > > and college biology textbooks. If you google "primordial pond", you should > > find out more details. We discussed it in class and it was controversial > > even in 1971. The professor was not able to tell us how the "primordial > > pond" came to be. > > It was only controversial because their are ignorant fools like you > who mindlessly believe in creationism without question. Life had to > come from somewhere and "primorial pond" would refer to any source > from which the stuff of life may have come from. To say "that concept > is no longer discussed in high school and college" is either a lie or > wishful thinking on your part. > > Martin Are you saying that the primorial pond concept is still discussed in high school and college biology books? Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 In article <9k4n5352rei3v65rm78385eh2i50fkb3e7@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Mon, 28 May 2007 19:11:49 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2805071911500001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <1180388848.806915.313210@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > > > >> On 28 Maj, 20:44, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > ... > > >> > I have read some science journals in the past 36 years. > >> > >> If you have, you have been lying. If you have not, you have been > >> lying. > > > >This reminds me of when I was in grade school. Name calling was popular in > >those days. I guess that some people never grow up. > > No, it's not name calling, its an observation about your behavior. You > have routinely told lies and never acknowledged your lies when you were > called on them. lier lier pants on fire Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1180404478.923622.86430@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 29, 2:44 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <1180351191.205778.294...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> >>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> On May 28, 2:11 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> In article > <1180327601.536678.172...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> On May 28, 11:18 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>> In article >>> <1180317985.589733.293...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On May 28, 4:28 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article <3flj539nm5bev469kptra9i2a7vgdrs...@4ax.com>, > Free Lunch >>>>>>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 May 2007 11:51:01 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>>>>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>>>>>>> <Jason-2705071151020...@66-52-22-32.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>>>>>>>> In article <56i6i.16237$KC4.3...@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, >>>>> "James Brock" >>>>>>>>>>> <j...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> "Free Lunch" <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:ts0j53hi2u9bjo389easj23vdv7jd83r9e@4ax.com... >>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>>> You asked if it was proven that it can happen. It > was. Now >>>>> you try to >>>>>>>>>>>>> move the goal post to one that hasn't yet happened. >>> Fine, keep >>>>>>> showing >>>>>>>>>>>>> us how dishonest you are in approaching this subject. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Anti-evolution Creationism is a lie. Those who repeat the >>>>>>> anti-evolution >>>>>>>>>>>>> creationist talking points are repeating those lies. >>>>>>>>>>>> Since there is no god, and life definately exist, the >>> only possible >>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion is that life created itself through natural >>> processes. >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> James Leon Zechariah Brock >>>>>>>>>>>> Meaning of Genesis >>>>>>>>>>> For the sake of discussion, let's assume that statement is >>>>> true. Proof >>>>>>>>>>> would be needed before you could determine that life >>> created itself >>>>>>>>>>> through natural processes. If you can not proove it, > you would >>>>> have to go >>>>>>>>>>> back and at least consider the possibility that God does >>> exist and >>>>>>> created >>>>>>>>>>> life. Without proof, some people will conclude that God > created >>>>> life and >>>>>>>>>>> others will conclude that life created itself through natural >>>>> processes. >>>>>>>>>>> In both cases, those people are making use of faith since >>> there is no >>>>>>>>>>> proof. >>>>>>>>>> Why do you keep repeating this falsehood? >>>>>>>>>> Religious doctrines have absolutely no evidence to > support them. >>>>>>>>>> Scientific theories are consistent with the available > evidence. >>>>>>>>>> You ignore the word evidence and ask for something >>> meaningless: proof. >>> >>>>>>>>>> Why would I consider the possibility that something > exists when >>>>> there is >>>>>>>>>> absolutely no evidence to support it. Do you believe in >>> every god that >>>>>>>>>> has ever been worshipped? Why or why not? >>>>>>>>> Why would I accept the conclusion that life created itself > through >>>>> natural >>>>>>>>> processes when there is absolutely no evidence to support it? >>>>>>>> Why shouldn't you accept the conclsuion that life emerged through >>>>>>>> natural processes when every single shred of evidence supports it? >>>>>>>> Why would you accept the conclusion that God created life > when there >>>>>>>> is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that God > exists? Why >>>>>>>> should you deny that your entire religion is a lie when all the >>>>>>>> evidence demonstrates that God, Jesus, Mary, etc. were all made up >>>>>>>> entirely as works of fiction. >>>>>>> When a scientist is able to conduct an experiment that proves > that a one >>>>>>> celled life form can evolve from non-life, I will have the >>> evidence I need >>>>>>> to change my mind on this subject. Of course, before I changed my >>> mind, I >>>>>>> would have to read the details of that experiment in a science >>> magazine or >>>>>>> journal. >>>>>> Have you read any science journals already published on the subject? >>>>>> Just a few posts back you claimed that amino acids couldn't be >>>>>> produced naturally and that the amino acids couldn't be used to create >>>>>> life. I posted links two weeks ago that proved both of these >>>>>> assertions false. So why should we believe that you would start >>>>>> reading science journals if a scientist were able to produce a living >>>>>> cell? >>>>> I would visit the city library and read that journal article. Believe it >>>>> or not, this was an issue when I was in a college biology class in 1971. >>>>> Our biology professor (an evolutionist) was hoping that a > scientist would >>>>> perform such an experiment within the next several years. I am still >>>>> waiting. I don't really care whether or not you believe me. >>>> So what you are telling us is that you haven't read a single science >>>> journal in 36 years and have absolutely no knowledge of the field. >>>> Yes, I believe you. >>> I have read some science journals in the past 36 years. >> Then you should know more about science than your posts indicate. >> That's all I'm saying. >> >> Martin > > Martin, > The advocates of evolution keep posting messages indicating that evolution > theory is based on science and evidence. When they tell me that the first > living cell evolved as a result of natural forces, Who said this. Please provide a citation or quit lying. I ask for the evidence > that it happened that way. Provide us with who said it, and maybe we can figure it out. No biologist is going to use that terminology. As of yet, the evidence has not been provided. > The bottom line is that there is NO evidence that the first living cell > evolved as a result of natural forces. Of course not - evolution applies to living organism, so a life form cannot "evolve" from anything except another life form. How many times have you been told this, and by how many posters? Why do you persist in lying? I won't accept that it happened > this way unless you or someone else provides the evidence. Think about > it--is that too much to ask? It is. It's totally unreasonable and dishonest on your part because the way you ask for it constitutes a lie. > I had the same problem 36 years ago when my college biology professor told > the class that the first living cells evolved naturally in the primordial > pond. When a student asked him for the evidence that it happened that way, > the professor said that there was no evidence so just accept it and > believe it. He later told us that he expected that a scientist would prove > that a living cell could evolve naturally if the conditions were right. > That was 36 years ago. It has not happened as of yet. Don't expect me or > any of the 90 scientists that agree with me to change our minds until the > evidence is provided. I don't expect you to change your mind if Jesus himself tells you. > jason > > Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 In article <1180406524.191921.267560@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 29, 3:11 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1180352347.912694.137...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On May 28, 3:08 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > Martin, > > > > The person that wrote this article truly understands how atheists think. > > > > > No, he doesn't. And in the future, do not quote an entire article > > > only to add your comments at the bottom. It requires a great deal of > > > effort scanning through the article and then realizing that you never > > > bothered to respond to any of my comments. Not one. > > > > > > After reading the posts in this thread and several other threads, it > > > > became obvious to me that some atheists have a deep hatred for Christians > > > > and anyone that is an advocate for creation science. One person that was > > > > an advocate for creation science stopped posting after about a week. I > > > > don't blame him. Reading the above article helped me to understand how > > > > atheists think. > > > > > Jason, stop swallowing lies. Just because you've been swallowing lies > > > since the first day you started going to church doesn't mean you > > > shouldn't stop now. The tone of entire article you quoted is > > > "Atheists are evil. Atheists are evil. Atheists are evil." It is > > > pure hate literature. The fact that you swallow it so easily says a > > > lot about the way you think and nothing about the way atheists think. > > > > > > I hope that all people that have been atheists for over 10 > > > > years are not as filled with the 'spirit of hate" as some of the members > > > > of this newsgroup. Love is a better emotion than hate. > > > > > Christians know _nothing_ of love. That's another of your lies. You > > > condemn those who disagree with you to your imaginary Hell. > > > > > > The person that > > > > wrote this report stated that atheists believe that abortion is nothing > > > > more than a medical procedure. I would agree that he is correct. Many of > > > > your fellow athests view the killing of an unborn baby as nothing more > > > > than a medical procedure. How does it feel to be part of a group of people > > > > that have that sort of attitude about the lives of unborn babies? > > > > > How does it feel to be part of a group of people who have that sort of > > > attitude towards anyone who would disagree with them? > > > I read your comments but am in agreement with the person that wrote the > > article. > > So you think atheists are evil then, lacking any morals whatsoever. > What is the point of us talking to you then? > > You may think I've been heavy handed with you of late but the fact is > that you are now discussing the very same topics that we discussed > three weeks ago and you are making the very same arguments that you > made then and which we already refuted. Forgive us if we think you're > not reading what we write. We tend to resent you making the same > arguments all over again when you know full well that we've already > refuted them. I also resent you repeatedly telling me that I "don't > understand" when we are talking about things which we clearly > understand but you don't! > > > My experience in this newsgroup during the past two weeks > > confired almost everything that was in the article. > > Consider how the opinions atheists have of Christians are confirmed by > your unwillingness to admit that you know absolutely nothing about the > science you claim to be wrong. You could have spent the last three > weeks reading up about evolution and discovering the truth. You > obviously didn't. Why should we even bother with you at this point? > > > For example, one > > poster referred to a fetus as nothing more than an animal. > > A fetus is a POC. I am a POC. You are a POC. And we are all > homosapien which is part of the primate family. > > Don't think for a moment that Kelsey is a model atheist. That would > be like saying Hitler is a model Catholic. Do you think I am somebody > who regards a fetus as no different than a "parasitic meatsack"? Do > you? > > > How does it > > feel to be part of a group of people that have many members that have a > > callous disregard for the lives of viable unborn unwanted babies? > > You didn't answer my question either so I will ask you again. > > > > How does it feel to be part of a group of people who have that sort of > > > attitude towards anyone who would disagree with them? > > Atheists are by no means a unified group: atheists are simply people > who don't believe the lies that theists tell them. There's no other > qualities you can attribute to atheists except the lack of belief. To > say "Atheists are callous" is pure prejudice and hatred and it says > more about you than it does about atheists. > > > I realize that all atheists do not have that attitude > > How kind of you to notice. > > > but if you read the > > same posts that I have read these past two weeks--you will know that I am > > telling the truth. > > I stopped reading Kelsey's posts about a week ago. I also have > avoided reading any of your replies to him for the same reason. It is > possible for two people to be on different sides of an issue and still > have both of them be psychotic. So what? > > > I did detect the "spirit of hate" in some of the posts > > and if you are honest--you would agree that you also noticed the spirit of > > hate unless your bias is so strong that you are not able to see it. > > We've talked about this before. What amazes me is that you can't see > the level of hatred coming out of your own posts. I've tried pointing > this out to you but you've just dismissed it. Near as I can tell, you > hate atheists, pregnant women who might their lives back, Mexicans, > Indians and the Chinese and that's just off the top of my head, all > based on the posts I've seen from you this past month. You think > atheists lack morality, that Mexicans are there in the US commiting > crimes and that you can't trust the Indians - or at least not the > Chinese who are communist and therefore don't live up to their > international agreements. Care to disagree? > > > If you > > read all the posts in this newsgroup for about a week--you should also see > > that spirit of hate reflected in many of the posts. > > Absolutely. I've seen a lot of hatred from you. I'm growing tired of > it. > > > It's easy for me to > > see it but I doubt that it would be just as easy for many atheists to > > recognize it when it is present since they have a bias in favor of > > atheism. > > It's not a bias. It's a question of seeing clearly. You, after all, > are the one who's beliefs depend on faith. We just see the world for > the way it is. How is that biased? > > Martin No, but it was obvious from some of the posts that some people believe that an abortion is just a medical procedure. I do not hate anyone. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 In article <1180406926.346646.109570@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 29, 3:20 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1180351477.189532.148...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On May 28, 2:22 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > The 90 scientists that are advocates of > > > > creation science are helping our cause by telling their stories in the two > > > > books discussed in my post. > > > > > The two books which you yourself haven't read. Is this naivite or > > > abject stupidity? I can't tell anymore and am no longer interested in > > > giving you the benefit of the doubt. > > > I have read the comments of some of those scientists in "ICR Newsletters" > > during the past 5 years so see no need to re-read that same sort of > > information in those two books. However, the books would be great for > > people that do not subscribe to the newletter. > > Jason, > Are you aware that creationist organisations employ "scientists" to > say what they want them to say? Many of these "scientists" don't do > any research and just appear at the organisation's bidding in an > attempt to discredit real science. Real scientists get papers > published in actual peer reviewed scientific journals. You'll be > surprised how many of these "scientists" don't have any research at > all in their resumes. We've encountered such "scientists" before. > Don't assume we haven't. > > Martin Martin, No, I was not aware of that. As far as I know, the staff members of ICR do not call themselvs scientists. However, when they write articles, they place Ph.D after their names--if they have Ph.D degrees. It's difficult for people that are advocates of creation science to get their articles published in journals since their articles are usually rejected due to bias. However, I'm sure you would believe the articles were rejected for a different reason than bias. Jason Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 On Mon, 28 May 2007 20:26:09 -0700, AT1 <notyourbusiness@godblows.net> wrote: - Refer: <PdKdnVSZW5_EAMbbnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@comcast.com> >Jason wrote: >> In article <9k4n5352rei3v65rm78385eh2i50fkb3e7@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 28 May 2007 19:11:49 -0700, in alt.atheism >>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>> <Jason-2805071911500001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>> In article <1180388848.806915.313210@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, >>>> gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 28 Maj, 20:44, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> ... >>> >>>>>> I have read some science journals in the past 36 years. >>>>> If you have, you have been lying. If you have not, you have been >>>>> lying. >>>> This reminds me of when I was in grade school. Name calling was popular in >>>> those days. I guess that some people never grow up. >>> No, it's not name calling, its an observation about your behavior. You >>> have routinely told lies and never acknowledged your lies when you were >>> called on them. >> >> lier lier pants on fire >> >> > >That would have been so much more of a zinger were you able to spell a >simple four-letter word correctly. Jason is a good Xtian. He does not know any four letter words. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 On Mon, 28 May 2007 20:39:26 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote: - Refer: <q28n535i4ucpco00je1if98bqc7ql9fj8g@4ax.com> >On 24 May 2007 10:10:12 -0700, John <sawireless2000@yahoo.com> wrote in >alt.atheism > >>On May 8, 3:38 am, Matt Silberstein >><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>> >> >> >> "proven". Common Descent is as well supported a grand fact as exists >>> >> >> >> in science. >> >>Really says who. > >Those with a smidgen of education. > >>Who is this person that established that Common >>Descent is a fact, published where? > >Who's powering your iron lung, and why? It looks as if it was shut off weeks ago, resulting in brain-death. -- Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 In article <1180408086.743449.51520@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 29, 10:08 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1180388676.094238.216...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > On 28 Maj, 20:41, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <1180345706.613025.106...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > On 27 Maj, 18:15, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > Please refer me to a website that shows that fruit flies evolved from > > > > > > non-life. > > > > > > > Where else? Even the Bible says life came from non-life. > > > > > > > >At one time, someone done an experiment that appeard to prove > > > > > > that flies evolved from dead meat. > > > > > > > There was no experiment. It was an assumption supported by the Bible, > > > > > and it wasn't evolution that was being claimed. > > > > > > > >It was later determined that the flies > > > > > > actually came from eggs that were laid in that meat by female flies.- > > > > > > > Yet another example of reason and evidence disproving religious > > > > > beliefs. > > > > > > Google: spontaneous generation- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > > > Yes, supported by the Bible and disproved by science. Another piece > > > of reality for you to ignore. > > > > Are you certain that the scientist that developed the theory was a > > Christian? I seem to recall that it was a scientist that was an advocate > > of evolution that developed that theory. > > Spontaneous generation is not evolution. In fact it is the opposite > of evolution. Evolution claims that life descended from smpler forms > and, thus, only viruses (or something even smaller) could conceivably > emerge from the basic building blocks of life. > > Spontaneous generation may not be mentioned specifically in the > Christian Bible but the Talmud (Shabbos 107b) "states that lice may be > killed on Shabbos because there is no prohibition to kill animals that > are the product of spontaneous generation". (See > http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2006/01/spontaneous-generation-and-nyc-water.html > ) Spontaneous generation is a religious belief that has been proven > wrong by science. It is just like creationism in that regard. > > Martin How do evolutionists believe that the first living cell came to be? Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <ZwN6i.11705$rO7.11209@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, > bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <1180404478.923622.86430@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On May 29, 2:44 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> In article <1180351191.205778.294...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>>>> >>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> On May 28, 2:11 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>> In article >>> <1180327601.536678.172...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>>>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On May 28, 11:18 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article >>>>> <1180317985.589733.293...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On May 28, 4:28 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In article <3flj539nm5bev469kptra9i2a7vgdrs...@4ax.com>, >>> Free Lunch >>>>>>>>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 May 2007 11:51:01 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>>>>>>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>> <Jason-2705071151020...@66-52-22-32.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <56i6i.16237$KC4.3...@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, >>>>>>> "James Brock" >>>>>>>>>>>>> <j...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Free Lunch" <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:ts0j53hi2u9bjo389easj23vdv7jd83r9e@4ax.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asked if it was proven that it can happen. It >>> was. Now >>>>>>> you try to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> move the goal post to one that hasn't yet happened. >>>>> Fine, keep >>>>>>>>> showing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us how dishonest you are in approaching this subject. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anti-evolution Creationism is a lie. Those who repeat the >>>>>>>>> anti-evolution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creationist talking points are repeating those lies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since there is no god, and life definately exist, the >>>>> only possible >>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion is that life created itself through natural >>>>> processes. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> James Leon Zechariah Brock >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Meaning of Genesis >>>>>>>>>>>>> For the sake of discussion, let's assume that statement is >>>>>>> true. Proof >>>>>>>>>>>>> would be needed before you could determine that life >>>>> created itself >>>>>>>>>>>>> through natural processes. If you can not proove it, >>> you would >>>>>>> have to go >>>>>>>>>>>>> back and at least consider the possibility that God does >>>>> exist and >>>>>>>>> created >>>>>>>>>>>>> life. Without proof, some people will conclude that God >>> created >>>>>>> life and >>>>>>>>>>>>> others will conclude that life created itself through natural >>>>>>> processes. >>>>>>>>>>>>> In both cases, those people are making use of faith since >>>>> there is no >>>>>>>>>>>>> proof. >>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you keep repeating this falsehood? >>>>>>>>>>>> Religious doctrines have absolutely no evidence to >>> support them. >>>>>>>>>>>> Scientific theories are consistent with the available >>> evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>> You ignore the word evidence and ask for something >>>>> meaningless: proof. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why would I consider the possibility that something >>> exists when >>>>>>> there is >>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely no evidence to support it. Do you believe in >>>>> every god that >>>>>>>>>>>> has ever been worshipped? Why or why not? >>>>>>>>>>> Why would I accept the conclusion that life created itself >>> through >>>>>>> natural >>>>>>>>>>> processes when there is absolutely no evidence to support it? >>>>>>>>>> Why shouldn't you accept the conclsuion that life emerged through >>>>>>>>>> natural processes when every single shred of evidence supports it? >>>>>>>>>> Why would you accept the conclusion that God created life >>> when there >>>>>>>>>> is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that God >>> exists? Why >>>>>>>>>> should you deny that your entire religion is a lie when all the >>>>>>>>>> evidence demonstrates that God, Jesus, Mary, etc. were all made up >>>>>>>>>> entirely as works of fiction. >>>>>>>>> When a scientist is able to conduct an experiment that proves >>> that a one >>>>>>>>> celled life form can evolve from non-life, I will have the >>>>> evidence I need >>>>>>>>> to change my mind on this subject. Of course, before I changed my >>>>> mind, I >>>>>>>>> would have to read the details of that experiment in a science >>>>> magazine or >>>>>>>>> journal. >>>>>>>> Have you read any science journals already published on the subject? >>>>>>>> Just a few posts back you claimed that amino acids couldn't be >>>>>>>> produced naturally and that the amino acids couldn't be used to create >>>>>>>> life. I posted links two weeks ago that proved both of these >>>>>>>> assertions false. So why should we believe that you would start >>>>>>>> reading science journals if a scientist were able to produce a living >>>>>>>> cell? >>>>>>> I would visit the city library and read that journal article. Believe it >>>>>>> or not, this was an issue when I was in a college biology class in 1971. >>>>>>> Our biology professor (an evolutionist) was hoping that a >>> scientist would >>>>>>> perform such an experiment within the next several years. I am still >>>>>>> waiting. I don't really care whether or not you believe me. >>>>>> So what you are telling us is that you haven't read a single science >>>>>> journal in 36 years and have absolutely no knowledge of the field. >>>>>> Yes, I believe you. >>>>> I have read some science journals in the past 36 years. >>>> Then you should know more about science than your posts indicate. >>>> That's all I'm saying. >>>> >>>> Martin >>> Martin, >>> The advocates of evolution keep posting messages indicating that evolution >>> theory is based on science and evidence. When they tell me that the first >>> living cell evolved as a result of natural forces, >> Who said this. Please provide a citation or quit lying. >> >> >> I ask for the evidence >>> that it happened that way. >> Provide us with who said it, and maybe we can figure it out. No >> biologist is going to use that terminology. >> >> >> As of yet, the evidence has not been provided. >>> The bottom line is that there is NO evidence that the first living cell >>> evolved as a result of natural forces. >> Of course not - evolution applies to living organism, so a life form >> cannot "evolve" from anything except another life form. How many times >> have you been told this, and by how many posters? Why do you persist in >> lying? >> >> I won't accept that it happened >>> this way unless you or someone else provides the evidence. Think about >>> it--is that too much to ask? >> It is. It's totally unreasonable and dishonest on your part because the >> way you ask for it constitutes a lie. >> >>> I had the same problem 36 years ago when my college biology professor told >>> the class that the first living cells evolved naturally in the primordial >>> pond. When a student asked him for the evidence that it happened that way, >>> the professor said that there was no evidence so just accept it and >>> believe it. He later told us that he expected that a scientist would prove >>> that a living cell could evolve naturally if the conditions were right. >>> That was 36 years ago. It has not happened as of yet. Don't expect me or >>> any of the 90 scientists that agree with me to change our minds until the >>> evidence is provided. >> I don't expect you to change your mind if Jesus himself tells you. >> >>> jason >>> >>> > > Answer this question: > Has an experiment been done which proves that a living cell can evolve > naturally? That is a meaningless question. Individuals do not evolve, populations do. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 In article <ZwN6i.11705$rO7.11209@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <1180404478.923622.86430@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> On May 29, 2:44 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>> In article <1180351191.205778.294...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >>> > >>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>> On May 28, 2:11 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>>> In article > > <1180327601.536678.172...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On May 28, 11:18 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>>>>> In article > >>> <1180317985.589733.293...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On May 28, 4:28 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>>>>>>> In article <3flj539nm5bev469kptra9i2a7vgdrs...@4ax.com>, > > Free Lunch > >>>>>>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 May 2007 11:51:01 -0700, in alt.atheism > >>>>>>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >>>>>>>>>> <Jason-2705071151020...@66-52-22-32.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >>>>>>>>>>> In article <56i6i.16237$KC4.3...@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, > >>>>> "James Brock" > >>>>>>>>>>> <j...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> "Free Lunch" <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message > >>>>>>>>>>>> news:ts0j53hi2u9bjo389easj23vdv7jd83r9e@4ax.com... > >>>>>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>>>>>>>> You asked if it was proven that it can happen. It > > was. Now > >>>>> you try to > >>>>>>>>>>>>> move the goal post to one that hasn't yet happened. > >>> Fine, keep > >>>>>>> showing > >>>>>>>>>>>>> us how dishonest you are in approaching this subject. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Anti-evolution Creationism is a lie. Those who repeat the > >>>>>>> anti-evolution > >>>>>>>>>>>>> creationist talking points are repeating those lies. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Since there is no god, and life definately exist, the > >>> only possible > >>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion is that life created itself through natural > >>> processes. > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> James Leon Zechariah Brock > >>>>>>>>>>>> Meaning of Genesis > >>>>>>>>>>> For the sake of discussion, let's assume that statement is > >>>>> true. Proof > >>>>>>>>>>> would be needed before you could determine that life > >>> created itself > >>>>>>>>>>> through natural processes. If you can not proove it, > > you would > >>>>> have to go > >>>>>>>>>>> back and at least consider the possibility that God does > >>> exist and > >>>>>>> created > >>>>>>>>>>> life. Without proof, some people will conclude that God > > created > >>>>> life and > >>>>>>>>>>> others will conclude that life created itself through natural > >>>>> processes. > >>>>>>>>>>> In both cases, those people are making use of faith since > >>> there is no > >>>>>>>>>>> proof. > >>>>>>>>>> Why do you keep repeating this falsehood? > >>>>>>>>>> Religious doctrines have absolutely no evidence to > > support them. > >>>>>>>>>> Scientific theories are consistent with the available > > evidence. > >>>>>>>>>> You ignore the word evidence and ask for something > >>> meaningless: proof. > >>> > >>>>>>>>>> Why would I consider the possibility that something > > exists when > >>>>> there is > >>>>>>>>>> absolutely no evidence to support it. Do you believe in > >>> every god that > >>>>>>>>>> has ever been worshipped? Why or why not? > >>>>>>>>> Why would I accept the conclusion that life created itself > > through > >>>>> natural > >>>>>>>>> processes when there is absolutely no evidence to support it? > >>>>>>>> Why shouldn't you accept the conclsuion that life emerged through > >>>>>>>> natural processes when every single shred of evidence supports it? > >>>>>>>> Why would you accept the conclusion that God created life > > when there > >>>>>>>> is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that God > > exists? Why > >>>>>>>> should you deny that your entire religion is a lie when all the > >>>>>>>> evidence demonstrates that God, Jesus, Mary, etc. were all made up > >>>>>>>> entirely as works of fiction. > >>>>>>> When a scientist is able to conduct an experiment that proves > > that a one > >>>>>>> celled life form can evolve from non-life, I will have the > >>> evidence I need > >>>>>>> to change my mind on this subject. Of course, before I changed my > >>> mind, I > >>>>>>> would have to read the details of that experiment in a science > >>> magazine or > >>>>>>> journal. > >>>>>> Have you read any science journals already published on the subject? > >>>>>> Just a few posts back you claimed that amino acids couldn't be > >>>>>> produced naturally and that the amino acids couldn't be used to create > >>>>>> life. I posted links two weeks ago that proved both of these > >>>>>> assertions false. So why should we believe that you would start > >>>>>> reading science journals if a scientist were able to produce a living > >>>>>> cell? > >>>>> I would visit the city library and read that journal article. Believe it > >>>>> or not, this was an issue when I was in a college biology class in 1971. > >>>>> Our biology professor (an evolutionist) was hoping that a > > scientist would > >>>>> perform such an experiment within the next several years. I am still > >>>>> waiting. I don't really care whether or not you believe me. > >>>> So what you are telling us is that you haven't read a single science > >>>> journal in 36 years and have absolutely no knowledge of the field. > >>>> Yes, I believe you. > >>> I have read some science journals in the past 36 years. > >> Then you should know more about science than your posts indicate. > >> That's all I'm saying. > >> > >> Martin > > > > Martin, > > The advocates of evolution keep posting messages indicating that evolution > > theory is based on science and evidence. When they tell me that the first > > living cell evolved as a result of natural forces, > > Who said this. Please provide a citation or quit lying. > > > I ask for the evidence > > that it happened that way. > > Provide us with who said it, and maybe we can figure it out. No > biologist is going to use that terminology. > > > As of yet, the evidence has not been provided. > > The bottom line is that there is NO evidence that the first living cell > > evolved as a result of natural forces. > > Of course not - evolution applies to living organism, so a life form > cannot "evolve" from anything except another life form. How many times > have you been told this, and by how many posters? Why do you persist in > lying? > > I won't accept that it happened > > this way unless you or someone else provides the evidence. Think about > > it--is that too much to ask? > > It is. It's totally unreasonable and dishonest on your part because the > way you ask for it constitutes a lie. > > > I had the same problem 36 years ago when my college biology professor told > > the class that the first living cells evolved naturally in the primordial > > pond. When a student asked him for the evidence that it happened that way, > > the professor said that there was no evidence so just accept it and > > believe it. He later told us that he expected that a scientist would prove > > that a living cell could evolve naturally if the conditions were right. > > That was 36 years ago. It has not happened as of yet. Don't expect me or > > any of the 90 scientists that agree with me to change our minds until the > > evidence is provided. > > I don't expect you to change your mind if Jesus himself tells you. > > > jason > > > > Answer this question: Has an experiment been done which proves that a living cell can evolve naturally? Jason Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 On 29 Maj, 04:08, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180388676.094238.216...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 28 Maj, 20:41, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1180345706.613025.106...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > On 27 Maj, 18:15, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > In article <1180251937.912451.87...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Ma= > > rtin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 27, 12:21 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > In article <rlrh5395kqg7dlt21rumfrodta0cdq7...@4ax.com>, Free Lun= > > ch > > > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sat, 26 May 2007 18:57:12 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > > > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > > > > > > <Jason-2605071857120...@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > > > > > >In article <f3abu2$be...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > > > > > ><prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Jason wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > In article <f3a9gk$8p...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > > > > > >> > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> >> I.e. that law about killing is NOT an absolute? There ARE > > > cases when > > > > > > > > >> >> killing is allowed? There ARE times, such as when you kil= > > l the > > > > > person > > > > > > > > >> >> right before he pushes the button that would blow up the > > > > > school full of > > > > > > > > >> >> kids, when killing another person is OK? Well, I'll be da= > > mned. > > > > > Sounds > > > > > > > > >> >> like "situational ethics" to me. > > > > > > > > > >> > Yes, but that is different from brainwashing children to b= > > ecome > > > > > suicide > > > > > > > > >> > bombers or to become advocates of euthanasia. I understand= > > your > > > > > point. I > > > > > > > > >> > have no problem with teaching children to care about > > > people. Can you > > > > > > > > >> > understand that situational ethics classes could be used to > > > brainwash > > > > > > > > >> > children to believe in almost anything such as abortion and > > > > > euthanasia. > > > > > > > > > >> I never said they couldn't be. But the same could be said for > > > > > classes on > > > > > > > > >> religion. ANYTHING could be used to "brainwash children." > > > > > > > > > >That is true. In addition, and atheist parents or teachers cou= > > ld > > > > > brainwash > > > > > > > > >children into becoming atheist. High Scoool and College Biology > > > > > professors > > > > > > > > >could brainwash students into believing that life can evolve f= > > rom > > > > > non-life > > > > > > > > >despite the lack of proof that it happened. > > > > > > > > > There is overwhelming evidence that it happened and there is no > > > evidence > > > > > > > > that the method by which it happened had anything to do with a > > > > > > > > supernatural being. Sorry, but your hatred of science causes you > > > to tell > > > > > > > > repeated falsehoods. Why would a loving God turn you into a lia= > > r? > > > > > > > > Proove that it can happen in a laboratory experiment. > > > > > > > It has been shown in laboratory experiments to happen with viruses, > > > > > > bacteria and fruit flies. > > > > > > > Next question, please. > > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > Please refer me to a website that shows that fruit flies evolved from > > > > > non-life. > > > > > Where else? Even the Bible says life came from non-life. > > > > > >At one time, someone done an experiment that appeard to prove > > > > > that flies evolved from dead meat. > > > > > There was no experiment. It was an assumption supported by the Bible, > > > > and it wasn't evolution that was being claimed. > > > > > >It was later determined that the flies > > > > > actually came from eggs that were laid in that meat by female flies.- > > > > > Yet another example of reason and evidence disproving religious > > > > beliefs. > > > > Google: spontaneous generation- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > Yes, supported by the Bible and disproved by science. Another piece > > of reality for you to ignore. > > Are you certain that the scientist that developed the theory was a > Christian? I seem to recall that it was a scientist that was an advocate > of evolution that developed that theory. What theory are you talking about? People (even Christians) became aware that flies are not the result of spontaneous generation (an idea pushed by the Bible) long before Darwin developed his theory. Furthermore a great many Christians accept that evolution is a fact, including the nuns, priests and brothers who taught it to me. You continue to babble incoherent nonsense. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 On 29 Maj, 04:11, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180388848.806915.313...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 28 Maj, 20:44, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1180351191.205778.294...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 28, 2:11 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > In article <1180327601.536678.172...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, M= > > artin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 28, 11:18 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > In article > > > > <1180317985.589733.293...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 28, 4:28 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > > > In article <3flj539nm5bev469kptra9i2a7vgdrs...@4ax.com>, Free= > > Lunch > > > > > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 27 May 2007 11:51:01 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > > > > > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > > > > > > > > <Jason-2705071151020...@66-52-22-32.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net= > > >: > > > > > > > > > > >In article <56i6i.16237$KC4.3...@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, > > > > > "James Brock" > > > > > > > > > > ><j...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> "Free Lunch" <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > >>news:ts0j53hi2u9bjo389easj23vdv7jd83r9e@4ax.com... > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > >> > You asked if it was proven that it can happen. It was.= > > Now > > > > > you try to > > > > > > > > > > >> > move the goal post to one that hasn't yet happened. > > > Fine, keep > > > > > > > showing > > > > > > > > > > >> > us how dishonest you are in approaching this subject. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Anti-evolution Creationism is a lie. Those who repeat = > > the > > > > > > > anti-evolution > > > > > > > > > > >> > creationist talking points are repeating those lies. > > > > > > > > > > > >> Since there is no god, and life definately exist, the > > > only possible > > > > > > > > > > >> conclusion is that life created itself through natural > > > processes. > > > > > > > > > > > >> James Leon Zechariah Brock > > > > > > > > > > > >> Meaning of Genesis > > > > > > > > > > > >For the sake of discussion, let's assume that statement is > > > > > true. Proof > > > > > > > > > > >would be needed before you could determine that life > > > created itself > > > > > > > > > > >through natural processes. If you can not proove it, you w= > > ould > > > > > have to go > > > > > > > > > > >back and at least consider the possibility that God does > > > exist and > > > > > > > created > > > > > > > > > > >life. Without proof, some people will conclude that God cr= > > eated > > > > > life and > > > > > > > > > > >others will conclude that life created itself through natu= > > ral > > > > > processes. > > > > > > > > > > >In both cases, those people are making use of faith since > > > there is no > > > > > > > > > > >proof. > > > > > > > > > > > Why do you keep repeating this falsehood? > > > > > > > > > > > Religious doctrines have absolutely no evidence to support = > > them. > > > > > > > > > > > Scientific theories are consistent with the available evide= > > nce. > > > > > > > > > > > You ignore the word evidence and ask for something > > > meaningless: proof. > > > > > > > > > > > Why would I consider the possibility that something exists = > > when > > > > > there is > > > > > > > > > > absolutely no evidence to support it. Do you believe in > > > every god that > > > > > > > > > > has ever been worshipped? Why or why not? > > > > > > > > > > Why would I accept the conclusion that life created itself th= > > rough > > > > > natural > > > > > > > > > processes when there is absolutely no evidence to support it? > > > > > > > > > Why shouldn't you accept the conclsuion that life emerged throu= > > gh > > > > > > > > natural processes when every single shred of evidence supports = > > it? > > > > > > > > Why would you accept the conclusion that God created life when= > > there > > > > > > > > is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that God exists?= > > Why > > > > > > > > should you deny that your entire religion is a lie when all the > > > > > > > > evidence demonstrates that God, Jesus, Mary, etc. were all made= > > up > > > > > > > > entirely as works of fiction. > > > > > > > > When a scientist is able to conduct an experiment that proves tha= > > t a one > > > > > > > celled life form can evolve from non-life, I will have the > > > evidence I need > > > > > > > to change my mind on this subject. Of course, before I changed my > > > mind, I > > > > > > > would have to read the details of that experiment in a science > > > magazine or > > > > > > > journal. > > > > > > > Have you read any science journals already published on the subject? > > > > > > Just a few posts back you claimed that amino acids couldn't be > > > > > > produced naturally and that the amino acids couldn't be used to cre= > > ate > > > > > > life. I posted links two weeks ago that proved both of these > > > > > > assertions false. So why should we believe that you would start > > > > > > reading science journals if a scientist were able to produce a livi= > > ng > > > > > > cell? > > > > > > I would visit the city library and read that journal article. Believe= > > it > > > > > or not, this was an issue when I was in a college biology class in 19= > > 71. > > > > > Our biology professor (an evolutionist) was hoping that a scientist w= > > ould > > > > > perform such an experiment within the next several years. I am still > > > > > waiting. I don't really care whether or not you believe me. > > > > > So what you are telling us is that you haven't read a single science > > > > journal in 36 years and have absolutely no knowledge of the field. > > > > Yes, I believe you. > > > > > Martin > > > > I have read some science journals in the past 36 years.- Skjul tekst i an= > > f=F8rselstegn - > > > If you have, you have been lying. If you have not, you have been > > lying. > > This reminds me of when I was in grade school. Name calling was popular in > those days. I guess that some people never grow up.- - > Your arguments are based on lies and childish attempts at distortion of what others have posted. You are the one who acts like an infant. Your posts display a total ignorance of even junior high school science concepts, so, if you actually do have that minimum amount of knowledge, you have been lying. If you do not have that knowledge, you have not read science journals to any significant degree - i.e. you were lying. Quote
Guest Fred Stone Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in news:Jason-2805072255010001@66-52-22-3.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net: > How do evolutionists believe that the first living cell came to be? > We don't know yet. -- Fred Stone aa# 1369 "When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that seemed like posturing." -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 On 29 Maj, 03:10, AT1 <notyourbusin...@godblows.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <1180388676.094238.216...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > snip > >>>>> At one time, someone done an experiment that appeard to prove > >>>>> that flies evolved from dead meat. > >>>> There was no experiment. It was an assumption supported by the Bible, > >>>> and it wasn't evolution that was being claimed. > >>>>> It was later determined that the flies > >>>>> actually came from eggs that were laid in that meat by female flies.- > >>>> Yet another example of reason and evidence disproving religious > >>>> beliefs. > >>> Google: spontaneous generation- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > >> Yes, supported by the Bible and disproved by science. Another piece > >> of reality for you to ignore. > > > Are you certain that the scientist that developed the theory was a > > Christian? I seem to recall that it was a scientist that was an advocate > > of evolution that developed that theory. > > Jason > > Given your other pathetic memory lapses--you'll forgive me if I don't > assign much weight to your 'recollection'. He is also responding to something I did not write. His problem is not just poor memory. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 On 29 Maj, 04:32, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180389626.658700.240...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 28 Maj, 21:11, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1180352347.912694.137...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 28, 3:08 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > Martin, snip > > > > Martin, > > > I read your comments but am in agreement with the person that wrote the > > > article. My experience in this newsgroup during the past two weeks > > > confired almost everything that was in the article. For example, one > > > poster referred to a fetus as nothing more than an animal. How does it > > > feel to be part of a group of people that have many members that have a > > > callous disregard for the lives of viable unborn unwanted babies? > > > How does it feel to constantly lie about the opinions of your > > opponents to your oponents? It makes you look like an idiot and earns > > you nothing but contempt. > > > I > > > realize that all atheists do not have that attitude but if you read the > > > same posts that I have read these past two weeks--you will know that I am > > > telling the truth. > > > We all know that you are lying. > > > I did detect the "spirit of hate" in some of the posts > > > and if you are honest--you would agree that you also noticed the spirit of > > > hate unless your bias is so strong that you are not able to see it. If you > > > read all the posts in this newsgroup for about a week--you should also see > > > that spirit of hate reflected in many of the posts. It's easy for me to > > > see it but I doubt that it would be just as easy for many atheists to > > > recognize it when it is present since they have a bias in favor of > > > atheism. > > > The bias is in favor of honesty. People feel contempt for you because > > of your incredible dishonesty. You had no right to expect anything > > else. > > I had to set next to a lady (during a church service) that must have used > a bottle of perfume. I had a hard time breathing. However, after about 30 > minutes, I did not even notice the smell of the perfume. That lady > probably noticed the smell of the perfume while she was putting it on but > probably did not smell it for the rest of the day. I believe that you and > many other people that have been atheists for over 10 years are like that > lady. Many atheists have developed the spirit of hate but have had it so > long, that they are not even aware of it. You probably do not even notice > is when fellow atheists are displaying their spirits of hate. However, > someone like myself can visit the atheist website and read the posts and > clearly see the spirit of hate displayed in lots of posts. In other words, > just as the lady did not notice the strong odor of her perfume, you do not > notice the spirit of hate when it is displayed by other people or > yourself. You lack the honesty to understand that atheists do not hate theists or that the contempt for you that you have seen is not felt because you are a theist. Your dishonesty is demonstrated in nearly every post; below is yet another example of it. >When I read the article that I posted, he mentioned various > examples such as atheists that view abortion as a medical procedure > instead of what it really is which is the killing of an unborn baby. It is, of course, a medical procedure, no matter what else you think it is. Your dishonesty is insisting that your opinion (that there is such a thing as an unborn baby) is shared by those who are pro-choice even after it has been repeatedly pointed out that it is not. That > shows a callous disregard for life. No it doesn't. It shows that we do not agree with you. Furthermore you are dishonestly (or perhaps ignorantly) implying that pro-choice people are all atheists. Most of them are, in fact, theists of one kind or another. Otherwise there would not be millions of people supporting pro-choice. I fully expect you to continue these points and to continue your lies about atheists and about people who are pro- choice. The spirit of hate is directed > towards: > outspoken christians No Jason it is not. Most people in my family are Christians. My mother and father were Christians; I do not hate them. I have many friends who are Christians (some of them very active - one is even a priest); I do not hate them. > outspoken members of the pro-life movement Nonsense. > outspoken advocates of creation science Only those cynical opportunists who, no doubt, make up most of the leadership. The others just have my pity, because they are the victims of manipulators interested only in money and power. > outspoken opponents of homosexual marriages- Since most of them are very clearly motivated by an irrational and very ugly hatred of homosexuals, they are rather easy to hate. I do not hate a person just because he is against homosexual marriage; I merely disagree with him. Also you Jason are not the object of my hate. I have the same contempt for you that very probably most people who have any contact with you, Christian or otherwise, feel for you. I might feel sorry for you if I knew more about you, but you are simply not worth hating. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 On 29 Maj, 05:46, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180404478.923622.86...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On May 29, 2:44 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1180351191.205778.294...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 28, 2:11 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > In article > > <1180327601.536678.172...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 28, 11:18 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > In article > > > > <1180317985.589733.293...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 28, 4:28 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > > > In article <3flj539nm5bev469kptra9i2a7vgdrs...@4ax.com>, > Free Lunch > > > > > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 27 May 2007 11:51:01 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > > > > > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > > > > > > > > <Jason-2705071151020...@66-52-22-32.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > > > > > > > >In article <56i6i.16237$KC4.3...@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, > > > > > "James Brock" > > > > > > > > > > ><j...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> "Free Lunch" <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > >>news:ts0j53hi2u9bjo389easj23vdv7jd83r9e@4ax.com... > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > >> > You asked if it was proven that it can happen. It > was. Now > > > > > you try to > > > > > > > > > > >> > move the goal post to one that hasn't yet happened. > > > Fine, keep > > > > > > > showing > > > > > > > > > > >> > us how dishonest you are in approaching this subject. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Anti-evolution Creationism is a lie. Those who repeat the > > > > > > > anti-evolution > > > > > > > > > > >> > creationist talking points are repeating those lies. > > > > > > > > > > > >> Since there is no god, and life definately exist, the > > > only possible > > > > > > > > > > >> conclusion is that life created itself through natural > > > processes. > > > > > > > > > > > >> James Leon Zechariah Brock > > > > > > > > > > > >> Meaning of Genesis > > > > > > > > > > > >For the sake of discussion, let's assume that statement is > > > > > true. Proof > > > > > > > > > > >would be needed before you could determine that life > > > created itself > > > > > > > > > > >through natural processes. If you can not proove it, > you would > > > > > have to go > > > > > > > > > > >back and at least consider the possibility that God does > > > exist and > > > > > > > created > > > > > > > > > > >life. Without proof, some people will conclude that God > created > > > > > life and > > > > > > > > > > >others will conclude that life created itself through natural > > > > > processes. > > > > > > > > > > >In both cases, those people are making use of faith since > > > there is no > > > > > > > > > > >proof. > > > > > > > > > > > Why do you keep repeating this falsehood? > > > > > > > > > > > Religious doctrines have absolutely no evidence to > support them. > > > > > > > > > > > Scientific theories are consistent with the available > evidence. > > > > > > > > > > > You ignore the word evidence and ask for something > > > meaningless: proof. > > > > > > > > > > > Why would I consider the possibility that something > exists when > > > > > there is > > > > > > > > > > absolutely no evidence to support it. Do you believe in > > > every god that > > > > > > > > > > has ever been worshipped? Why or why not? > > > > > > > > > > Why would I accept the conclusion that life created itself > through > > > > > natural > > > > > > > > > processes when there is absolutely no evidence to support it? > > > > > > > > > Why shouldn't you accept the conclsuion that life emerged through > > > > > > > > natural processes when every single shred of evidence supports it? > > > > > > > > Why would you accept the conclusion that God created life > when there > > > > > > > > is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that God > exists? Why > > > > > > > > should you deny that your entire religion is a lie when all the > > > > > > > > evidence demonstrates that God, Jesus, Mary, etc. were all made up > > > > > > > > entirely as works of fiction. > > > > > > > > When a scientist is able to conduct an experiment that proves > that a one > > > > > > > celled life form can evolve from non-life, I will have the > > > evidence I need > > > > > > > to change my mind on this subject. Of course, before I changed my > > > mind, I > > > > > > > would have to read the details of that experiment in a science > > > magazine or > > > > > > > journal. > > > > > > > Have you read any science journals already published on the subject? > > > > > > Just a few posts back you claimed that amino acids couldn't be > > > > > > produced naturally and that the amino acids couldn't be used to create > > > > > > life. I posted links two weeks ago that proved both of these > > > > > > assertions false. So why should we believe that you would start > > > > > > reading science journals if a scientist were able to produce a living > > > > > > cell? > > > > > > I would visit the city library and read that journal article. Believe it > > > > > or not, this was an issue when I was in a college biology class in 1971. > > > > > Our biology professor (an evolutionist) was hoping that a > scientist would > > > > > perform such an experiment within the next several years. I am still > > > > > waiting. I don't really care whether or not you believe me. > > > > > So what you are telling us is that you haven't read a single science > > > > journal in 36 years and have absolutely no knowledge of the field. > > > > Yes, I believe you. > > > > I have read some science journals in the past 36 years. > > > Then you should know more about science than your posts indicate. > > That's all I'm saying. > > > Martin > > Martin, > The advocates of evolution keep posting messages indicating that evolution > theory is based on science and evidence. When they tell me that the first > living cell evolved as a result of natural forces, I ask for the evidence > that it happened that way. As of yet, the evidence has not been provided. > The bottom line is that there is NO evidence that the first living cell > evolved as a result of natural forces. I won't accept that it happened > this way unless you or someone else provides the evidence. Think about > it--is that too much to ask? Is it too much to ask you to accept that abiogenesis is not a part of evolution. > I had the same problem 36 years ago when my college biology professor told > the class that the first living cells evolved naturally in the primordial > pond. When a student asked him for the evidence that it happened that way, > the professor said that there was no evidence so just accept it and > believe it. He later told us that he expected that a scientist would prove > that a living cell could evolve naturally if the conditions were right. > That was 36 years ago. It has not happened as of yet. Don't expect me or > any of the 90 scientists that agree with me to change our minds until the > evidence is provided. Your dishonesty is unconquerable. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 On 29 Maj, 06:13, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180406926.346646.109...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On May 29, 3:20 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1180351477.189532.148...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 28, 2:22 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > The 90 scientists that are advocates of > > > > > creation science are helping our cause by telling their stories in > the two > > > > > books discussed in my post. > > > > > The two books which you yourself haven't read. Is this naivite or > > > > abject stupidity? I can't tell anymore and am no longer interested in > > > > giving you the benefit of the doubt. > > > > I have read the comments of some of those scientists in "ICR Newsletters" > > > during the past 5 years so see no need to re-read that same sort of > > > information in those two books. However, the books would be great for > > > people that do not subscribe to the newletter. > > > Jason, > > Are you aware that creationist organisations employ "scientists" to > > say what they want them to say? Many of these "scientists" don't do > > any research and just appear at the organisation's bidding in an > > attempt to discredit real science. Real scientists get papers > > published in actual peer reviewed scientific journals. You'll be > > surprised how many of these "scientists" don't have any research at > > all in their resumes. We've encountered such "scientists" before. > > Don't assume we haven't. > > > Martin > > Martin, > No, I was not aware of that. As far as I know, the staff members of ICR do > not call themselvs scientists. However, when they write articles, they > place Ph.D after their names--if they have Ph.D degrees. It's difficult > for people that are advocates of creation science to get their articles > published in journals since their articles are usually rejected due to > bias. However, I'm sure you would believe the articles were rejected for a > different reason than bias. We are all sure that you have no evidence that they are rejected due to bias. Without evidence your accusation is meaningless. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 On May 29, 11:46 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > The advocates of evolution keep posting messages indicating that evolution > theory is based on science and evidence. When they tell me that the first > living cell evolved as a result of natural forces, I ask for the evidence > that it happened that way. As of yet, the evidence has not been provided. > The bottom line is that there is NO evidence that the first living cell > evolved as a result of natural forces. I won't accept that it happened > this way unless you or someone else provides the evidence. Think about > it--is that too much to ask? The evidence has been posted repeatedly and you have ignored it. It _is_ a lot to ask for you to expect us to post it all over again. 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. Most of this information has been posted already. You would have known all this information already if you had actually read a paper on the subject like you said you had. Here's an actual paper on the subject that you can now read: http://www.rit.edu/~flwstv/biology.html Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 On May 29, 1:55 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > How do evolutionists believe that the first living cell came to be? Why do you say "evolutionists" when you mean "biologists"? There are no reputable biologists who aren't aware of the evidence supporting evolution. 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. Most of this information has been posted already. You would have known all this information already if you had actually read a paper on the subject like you said you had. Here's an actual paper on the subject that you can now read: http://www.rit.edu/~flwstv/biology.html Martin 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.