Evolution is Just Junk Science

May 29, 2007

On Sun, 27 May 2007 23:27:47 -0700, Jason wrote:

> Martin,

> I would appreciate your comments about this interesting article:

Will you kindly stop wasting bandwidth by reposting the same pointless

drivel over and over and over? Get a fucking web host and post a link.

Post a link to a previous posting. Dropping 400 lines of crap, over and

over and over, just pisses people off - even more than your usual crap

does.

--

Ah, yes. The Bible: the Christian’s Mein Kampf. - David Rice

May 29, 2007

On 29 Maj, 22:35, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1180465208.313920.130...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,

>

> bramble <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Well, Jason. You are posing as being shocked by the abortion and

> > calling these organisms "babies". I would be ready to sympathize with

> > your position if so many conservative Christians were not in favor of

> > death penalty and also in favor slavery and racism (this was mostly on

> > the past). So you, I mean the general group of Christians, are from

> > long ago speaking of a Most loving God, an infinite benevolent God. I

> > have read some stories in your Bible about your god ordering the

> > killing of all the women and children of some whole populations. And

> > not even some whole populations but the all the population of the

> > damned planet, in the so called Great Flood. This sort of god looks

> > to me a rather criminal and murderous god. And all their followers

> > are tainted by the same stories written in the Bible. You are gulty

> > of mudering by asociation. Conspiracy to justify murder, I would call

> > it.

> > I am not feeling hate for Christians. I am feeling sadness and fear

> > of these damned followers of Christ and think that they deserve an

> > hour or two of suffering in Hell, but not an enternity.

> > In my condition of human being and atheist, a day in Hell would be too

> > cruel for any human or animal to endure. And by the way, speaking of

> > Hell, this is another prove of the cruelty of your god.

> > You see. I can also can show myself as a human being compasionate and

> > loving.

> > Bramble

>

> Bramble,

> I will respond to some these issues.

>

> John 3:16 makes it clear that God does not want anyone to go to hell which

> is the reason he sent Jesus to suffer and die for our sins so that we

> don't have to suffer and die for our sins. If people decide to turn their

> backs on God and not accept his son as their saviour, that is not God's

> fault. If those people eventually end up in hell, it is NOT because God

> sent them to hell--instead they ended up in hell because they rejected

> God, his son and the gift of salvation. Don't blame God for sending people

> to hell--instead, blame the people that turned their backs on God. There

> are many examples in the Old Testament about people that turned their

> backs on God or rejected God. In those stories, God stopped blessing those

> people. However, when those people stopped rebelling aganist God, God was

> willing to accept them back into a relationship.

And then there is the real world. Have you ever thought of making a

visit?

>

> Related to abortion and execution:

> I found a verse in the book of Psalms indicating that God views the blood

> of children as "innocent blood". We want to protect the lives of unborn

> babies since we believe they also have innocent blood.

>

> On the other hand, people that are on death row (unless they are innocent

> of their crimes) do NOT have innocent blood.

> It is for that reason that millions of Christians support executions.

> There are scriptures in the Old Testament indicating that people were put

> to death for committing major sins such as murder.

>

> It's my guess that some of the people that are against executions are

> advocates of pro choice. That is confusing to me since it appears that

> they want to preserve the lives of people that do not have innocent blood

> but have no problem when abortion doctors kill babies that have innocent

> blood.-

Clearly you have no trouble bearing false witness as you do above once

again.

May 29, 2007

[snips]

On Sun, 27 May 2007 18:01:15 -0700, Jason wrote:

> I have stated in various posts that I accept the aspects of evolution

> theory that can be proved.

Which is none, as evolution theory is science and science on the whole

does not _do_ proof - and particularly in relation to theories.

So on the one hand you've said you accept some parts, on the other you

reject the entire concept outright (as, being a theory, is does not

get "proved"). You lie so much you can't even figure out how to tell

the truth.

Pathetic.

--

“We don’t care. We don’t have to care. We’re Republicans.”

May 29, 2007

[snips]

On Sun, 27 May 2007 18:11:27 -0700, Jason wrote:

>> >I have stated in various posts that I accept the aspects of evolution

>> >theory that can be proved.

>> You still show your disrespect for science by demanding 'proof'.

>>

>> Every step of evolution is consistent with the scientific evidence. Does

>> that mean that you are finally admitting that you accept evolution? If

>> not, what scientific objection do you have to it?

>

> The aspects of evolution that can be proved.

A minute ago it was about evolution theory. Now it's about evolution.

You still, of course, demand proof which is an uncommon thing in science

at best, but now you add a changing goalpost into the mix, to top off your

other lies.

You lie so much you can't even figure out how to tell the truth.

Pathetic.

--

7th Rule of Creationism: Never acknowledge your demonstrated errors.

May 29, 2007

On Mon, 28 May 2007 00:08:03 -0700, Jason wrote:

> Martin,

> The person that wrote this article truly understands how atheists think.

"Each and every atheist believes that something came from nothing"

Since I'm an atheist and do not believe that, then your statement is, as

is easily predictable based on the fact _you_ made it, a lie.

Any more lies to spew?

--

A creationist who accepts scientific evidence? Who is this REALLY?

May 29, 2007

[snips]

On Mon, 28 May 2007 20:46:07 -0700, 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

If they say that, they are not discussing evolution, but abiogenesis,

which is a different science entirely.

> I ask for the

> evidence that it happened that way.

Actually, as I recall, you asked for _proof_.

> 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.

Even if there were - and I'm not conceding there isn't - your persistent

demands to have it demonstrated in what amounts to a single lab experiment

which goes from inert matter to living cells is completely at odds with

what the science says, meaning you're asking for a science to demonstrate

a claim it does not make. Of course you know this, so asking for it is

simply dishonest.

> I won't accept that

> it happened this way unless you or someone else provides the evidence.

Just for our own edification, exactly how many articles on the subject

have you read? No, I don't mean creationist toilet paper, I mean proper

peer-reviewed articles, books on the subject by those respected in the

field and the like? Since you cannot even tell what the subject matter

is, I'm going to guess that the number is zero.

> Think about it--is that too much to ask?

It's funny you ask evidence - even proof - of science, yet adopt a belief

in a completely unevidenced invisible magic sky pixie. Can you say

"double standard"? Can you say "another bit of theistic dishonesty"?

> 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 actually said, word for word, "just accept it and believe it", and he

managed to keep his job as a science teacher? Fine; what was his name,

what school, what year, what was the actual subject matter - and what was

the actual question and actual response? I'm going to call him up and ask

him exactly where he gets off spewing that line of bullshit.

Oh... but wait... this was 36 years ago... and related by someone who is

established as repeatedly lying even at the best of times. Gee, why is it

I somehow don't find the idea of your recollection of this event being

accurate completely compelling?

> He later

> told us that he expected that a scientist would prove that a living cell

> could evolve naturally if the conditions were right.

Of course; that's what living cells do - or, rather, what populations of

living organisms in general do; they evolve.

> That was 36 years

> ago. It has not happened as of yet.

You should keep up with the literature. Oh, wait, I forgot; if it's not

produced by the ICR or some other creationist funhouse, you won't treat it

as legitimate.

> Don't expect me or any of the 90

> scientists that agree with me to change our minds until the evidence is

> provided.

You, a repeat liar, and a hatful of scientists, most of whom have

specialties in no way related to the subject at hand, do not make a

particularly compelling argument for much of anything.

--

“Agorn?” It’s Agarn! What’s the matter, did you get a F- in F Troop?

May 29, 2007

Jason wrote:

> In article <1180465208.313920.130170@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,

>

> Bramble,

> I will respond to some these issues.

>

[crap]

>

> Related to abortion and execution:

> I found a verse in the book of Psalms indicating that God views the blood

> of children as "innocent blood". We want to protect the lives of unborn

> babies since we believe they also have innocent blood.

>

[crap]

>

> It's my guess that some of the people that are against executions are

> advocates of pro choice. That is confusing to me since it appears that

> they want to preserve the lives of people that do not have innocent blood

> but have no problem when abortion doctors kill babies that have innocent

> blood.

>

1. Spilling innocent blood is wrong; unless, of course, God commands

it. In that case, it's totally fucking cool! Rock on!

2. You're an idiot. Simply because someone supports one thing, it does

not necessarily follow that they must take up a different stance on

another issue. It's called 'having a brain and being able to decide

issues based upon individual merits'. I for one support both a woman's

right to choose AS WELL AS the death penalty. I consider myself

liberal, but not completely. I'm socially liberal, but fiscally

conservative. Other are the opposite; many are somewhere in the middle.

Such is life.

3. The fact that you want to distill everything down into black and

white issues betrays your complete and utter lack of experience in life

and oh-so formidable ignorance about anything other than your tiny

little fantasy spiritual world.

4. You are a sad little monkey, whose DNA would have been better spent

on the bacteria that gives cheese its flavor. You would have at least

served a real, concrete purpose. Instead...

5. You're a twat. 'Nuff said.

--

AT1

http://www.godblows.net

May 29, 2007

Jason wrote:

> In article <1180466046.337053.150430@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

> bramble <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote:

>

>> On 28 mayo, 19:56, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>> In article <1180362971.809665.115...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,

>>>

>>>> 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. 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.

>> Of course, the primordial soup is nothing but a guess. We have not

>> the faintest idea of how could be working this primordial soup if

>> there was any. We have not enough knowledge to explain that theory.

>>

>> But our lack of intelligence about the priomordial soup, is not

>> sufficient reason

>> to believe that god crated life on the this Earth or in anywhere else.

>> =BFWhy not? By the most simple logic. If god wanted to create men at

>> his own image he had not any need to create also a Universe so vast.

>> On the other hand, if god wanted to comunicate with the men, he had

>> done a nasty piece of a job. For only a handful of human beings have

>> any knowledge of the true god. Most people is worshiping fake gods

>> and doctrines. So, with this simple argumentation, I know that god

>> does not exist at all. In case there were a real god, has nothing to

>> do the god that portray the religions. In general, religious leaders

>> are nothing but swindlers and con-men.

>> You were talking about hate. I hope you would not see nay hate in my

>> words. I am trying to sound logical and sober. I only hate lies and

>> fake doctrines.

>> Bramble.

>

> Bramble,

> I did not detect any evidence of the spirit of hate in your posts. I hope

> that you keep an open mind on these issues. I hope that in reference to

> the primordial soup concept--that the people that believe it are relying

> on "faith" instead of evidence. One the questions that my biology

> professor could answer about the primordial pond was: "How did the

> primordial pond come to be?" Think about that question.

> Jason

>

Spirit of hate? Are you that daft? We don't believe in spirits; except

the single-malt kind. Got any?

--

AT1

http://www.godblows.net

May 29, 2007

On Tue, 29 May 2007 13:46:35 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

<Jason-2905071346360001@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>In article <1180466455.275080.314740@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, bramble

><leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote:

>

>> On 28 mayo, 20:33, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>> > On Mon, 28 May 2007 12:20:34 -0700, in alt.atheism

>> > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>> > <Jason-2805071220350...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>> >

>> > >In article <1180351477.189532.148...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

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

>> >

>> > ....

>> >

>> > >> 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.

>> >

>> > >> Martin

>> >

>> > >Martin,

>> > >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

>> >

>> > The ICR does not do science. They are a religious cult. They are liars.

>> > Deal with it.

>>

>> ICR means Institute of Creation Science. It is a religious

>> institution.

>> Bramble

>

>Yes, that is true. It's a religious organization and they also operate a

>Christian College.

>

What they don't do is engage in any science at all.

May 29, 2007

On Tue, 29 May 2007 12:50:41 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

<Jason-2905071250420001@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>In article <1180442340.366878.229220@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

>gudloos@yahoo.com wrote:

>

>> 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.

>

>I do not have evidence. I've seen several articles in the ICR newsletter

>over the years related to this subject. They claim that their articles do

>not make it through the peer review process. It's their opinion that it's

>related to bias. They plan to not give up and submit more article this

>year with hopes of getting some of them published.

>

They are lying to you.

May 29, 2007

In article <1180471902.397682.7340@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, bramble

<leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 29 mayo, 21:44, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <1180466046.337053.150...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

>

> > Bramble,

> > I did not detect any evidence of the spirit of hate in your posts. I hope

> > that you keep an open mind on these issues. I hope that in reference to

> > the primordial soup concept--that the people that believe it are relying

> > on "faith" instead of evidence. One the questions that my biology

> > professor could answer about the primordial pond was: "How did the

> > primordial pond come to be?" Think about that question.

> > Jason

>

> There is not any serious problem of imagining how a primordial soup

> can start.

> The most common trouble is that this people involved in this search

> lacks some key elements to found out how it could have started the

> first living cells, and how they have evolved. Perhaps one day they

> will find them, perhaps no.

> First of all we have to be aware of our limitations.

>

> The troubles I have with religion do not come from science, but from

> my own logical thinking. The general panorama of religions show

> clearly a case of swindling and political control of people.

> Bramble

The reality is that the advocates of evolution and abiogenesis have NO

evidence of how the first living cells came to be. It's true that

Christians also have no evidence which proves that God created life. Until

I see the evidence that living cells can evolve from non-life, I will not

change my opinions on this subject.

May 29, 2007

On 30 Maj, 01:31, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1180471902.397682.7...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, bramble

>

> <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On 29 mayo, 21:44, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > In article <1180466046.337053.150...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

>

> > > Bramble,

> > > I did not detect any evidence of the spirit of hate in your posts. I hope

> > > that you keep an open mind on these issues. I hope that in reference to

> > > the primordial soup concept--that the people that believe it are relying

> > > on "faith" instead of evidence. One the questions that my biology

> > > professor could answer about the primordial pond was: "How did the

> > > primordial pond come to be?" Think about that question.

> > > Jason

>

> > There is not any serious problem of imagining how a primordial soup

> > can start.

> > The most common trouble is that this people involved in this search

> > lacks some key elements to found out how it could have started the

> > first living cells, and how they have evolved. Perhaps one day they

> > will find them, perhaps no.

> > First of all we have to be aware of our limitations.

>

> > The troubles I have with religion do not come from science, but from

> > my own logical thinking. The general panorama of religions show

> > clearly a case of swindling and political control of people.

> > Bramble

>

> The reality is that the advocates of evolution and abiogenesis have NO

> evidence of how the first living cells came to be.

You just can't stop lying can you?

It's true that

> Christians also have no evidence which proves that God created life. Until

> I see the evidence that living cells can evolve from non-life, I will not

> change my opinions on this subject.-

Imagine the distress of the scientific community.

May 29, 2007

Jason wrote:

> In article <iddp5395ic887cn44q67dp79pp83leanaq@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>

>> On Tue, 29 May 2007 12:50:41 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>> <Jason-2905071250420001@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>>> In article <1180442340.366878.229220@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

>>> gudloos@yahoo.com wrote:

>>>

>>>> 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.

>>> I do not have evidence. I've seen several articles in the ICR newsletter

>>> over the years related to this subject. They claim that their articles do

>>> not make it through the peer review process. It's their opinion that it's

>>> related to bias. They plan to not give up and submit more article this

>>> year with hopes of getting some of them published.

>>>

>> They are lying to you.

>

> How would you know whether or not they are lying?

>

Well, you certainly don't.

--

AT1

http://www.godblows.net

May 29, 2007

In article <1180469278.154697.278030@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,

bramble <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 29 mayo, 04:59, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <1180406524.191921.267...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

>

> > 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.

>

> Hi, Jason:

> Here you are again faigning a disgust for the murder of babies, as

> you call it. If you want to show your disgust with murdering

> infants, unborns, children and women, you have to reject and denounce

> the Bible as a book full of hate, murdering and genocides. All this

> was ordered by god himself.

> For as long as Christians would held the Bible, specially the OT, as a

> Holy Book, you have not any credit to preach us about pity for the

> fetus, even if you call them babies.

> Bramble

How does it feel to be part of a group of people that have a callous

disregard for the lives of viable unwanted unborn babies?

May 29, 2007

On Tue, 29 May 2007 16:35:33 -0700, Jason wrote:

> In article <koiui4-0qe.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

>

>> On Mon, 28 May 2007 00:08:03 -0700, Jason wrote:

>>

>> > Martin,

>> > The person that wrote this article truly understands how atheists think.

>>

>> "Each and every atheist believes that something came from nothing"

>>

>> Since I'm an atheist and do not believe that, then your statement is, as

>> is easily predictable based on the fact _you_ made it, a lie.

>>

>> Any more lies to spew?

>

> Do you believe that it is possible for a living cell to evolve from non-life?

Directly, or over, oh, a couple hundred million years?

Oh, wait... that would make for a complete question which is actually

applicable to the subject at hand, rather than your half-assed question

which cannot be answered as it stands, as it isn't sufficiently clear to

determine what it is actually asking. Which isn't surprising, since it

was asked by someone without a shred of a clue what the subject matter

even is, let alone enough education in it to say anything relevant.

Now for the real question: is Jason smart enough to figure out what this

implies about his views, and honest enough to do the appropriate things?

I predict no; that he'll either completely fail to grasp it, or he'll

grasp it but adopt yet another dishonest position in regards to it.

Ball's in your court, Bucko; can you even come up with an honest question

which is actually based in the subject at hand? Or is even that asking

too much?

--

“Hemlock Lite: a third fewer pathogens than regular Hemlock.” -- ML

May 29, 2007

In article <koiui4-0qe.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 28 May 2007 00:08:03 -0700, Jason wrote:

>

> > Martin,

> > The person that wrote this article truly understands how atheists think.

>

> "Each and every atheist believes that something came from nothing"

>

> Since I'm an atheist and do not believe that, then your statement is, as

> is easily predictable based on the fact _you_ made it, a lie.

>

> Any more lies to spew?

Do you believe that it is possible for a living cell to evolve from non-life?

May 29, 2007

On Tue, 29 May 2007 14:10:22 -0700, gudloos wrote:

> On 29 Maj, 22:15, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>> In article <8d9ui4-0qe....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

>>

>> <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > [snips]

>>

>> > On Mon, 28 May 2007 22:55:01 -0700, Jason wrote:

>>

>> > > How do evolutionists believe that the first living cell came to be?

>>

>> > Evolutionists are the wrong people to ask; the correct people to ask are

>> > abiogenesists. You know, completely different field of study and all

>> > that.

>>

>> Various people have told me that Evolution and Abiogenesis are separate fields.

>

> Don't you believe them? Jason you are hilarious.

Isn't it funny how he's so quick to believe anyone who says anything

"anti-evolution", even when it has nothing whatsoever to do with

evolution, yet when it comes to examining actual facts and what the

science actually says, he demands "proof" of every single step when he

himself knows (or should) that's not how science works.

Complete and absolute acceptance of whatever nonsense comes along on one

side, and complete rejection of reality on the other. Yet somehow he

seems to think this is an honest and legitimate approach.

I tell you, religion turns the brain to tapioca.

--

Christianity is evil by it’s own standards. - Paul Feonic

May 29, 2007

On Tue, 29 May 2007 17:28:02 -0700, in alt.atheism

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

<Jason-2905071728020001@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>In article <iddp5395ic887cn44q67dp79pp83leanaq@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>

>> On Tue, 29 May 2007 12:50:41 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>> <Jason-2905071250420001@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>> >In article <1180442340.366878.229220@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

>> >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote:

>> >

>> >> On 29 Maj, 06:13, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

....

>> >> > 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.

>> >

>> >I do not have evidence. I've seen several articles in the ICR newsletter

>> >over the years related to this subject. They claim that their articles do

>> >not make it through the peer review process. It's their opinion that it's

>> >related to bias. They plan to not give up and submit more article this

>> >year with hopes of getting some of them published.

>> >

>> They are lying to you.

>

>How would you know whether or not they are lying?

The ICR has a habit of telling lies to get people to make donations to

them.

May 29, 2007

Jason wrote:

> In article <1180469278.154697.278030@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,

> bramble <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote:

>

>> On 29 mayo, 04:59, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>> In article <1180406524.191921.267...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

>>

>>> 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.

>> Hi, Jason:

>> Here you are again faigning a disgust for the murder of babies, as

>> you call it. If you want to show your disgust with murdering

>> infants, unborns, children and women, you have to reject and denounce

>> the Bible as a book full of hate, murdering and genocides. All this

>> was ordered by god himself.

>> For as long as Christians would held the Bible, specially the OT, as a

>> Holy Book, you have not any credit to preach us about pity for the

>> fetus, even if you call them babies.

>> Bramble

>

> How does it feel to be part of a group of people that have a callous

> disregard for the lives of viable unwanted unborn babies?

>

Didn't we cover this yesterday? How does it feel to be a twat, and a

repetitive one at that?

--

AT1

http://www.godblows.net

May 30, 2007

In article <iddp5395ic887cn44q67dp79pp83leanaq@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> On Tue, 29 May 2007 12:50:41 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> <Jason-2905071250420001@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> >In article <1180442340.366878.229220@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

> >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote:

> >

> >> 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.

> >

> >I do not have evidence. I've seen several articles in the ICR newsletter

> >over the years related to this subject. They claim that their articles do

> >not make it through the peer review process. It's their opinion that it's

> >related to bias. They plan to not give up and submit more article this

> >year with hopes of getting some of them published.

> >

> They are lying to you.

How would you know whether or not they are lying?

May 30, 2007

On May 30, 3:41 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <Xns993F568C27F81freddyb...@66.150.105.47>, Fred Stone

>

> <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:

> > J...@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.

>

> The advocates of creation science know.

Tell me, Jason, how does anything as complex as the simple animal cell

form from dust, let alone an entire human body? The writers of the

Bible had no idea how complex the human body is, let alone the simple

cell: it took billions of years for these things to evolve.

Martin

May 30, 2007

On May 30, 3:50 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1180442340.366878.229...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

>

> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > 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.

> > > 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.

>

> I do not have evidence. I've seen several articles in the ICR newsletter

> over the years related to this subject. They claim that their articles do

> not make it through the peer review process. It's their opinion that it's

> related to bias.

Yes, it is a bias against lying. Only articles backed up with

verifiable evidence get past the peer review process. People are free

to make whatever conclusions they want as long as they are backed up

by actual evidence. There is NO evidence supporting creationism.

That's the problem.

Martin

May 30, 2007

On May 30, 4:35 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: