Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 On May 30, 7:31 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > The reality is that the advocates of evolution and abiogenesis have NO > evidence of how the first living cells came to be. Stop lying. I've posted this three times already. Could somebody let me know if this post is getting through or not? Perhaps Jason has killfiled me. 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 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 On May 30, 7:34 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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? How does it feel to be an unrepentant liar? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 On May 30, 7:35 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Do you believe that it is possible for a living cell to evolve from non-life? Here we go 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 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 On May 30, 8:28 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <iddp5395ic887cn44q67dp79pp83lea...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Tue, 29 May 2007 12:50:41 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-2905071250420...@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >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. > > > >> > > 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? It's not that hard to get a paper published in a peer reviewed journal. All you have to do is do some actual research. Martin Quote
Guest AT1 Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1180486688.526020.30680@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 30, 4:46 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <1180466455.275080.314...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, bramble >>> <leopoldo.perd...@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. >>>>>> 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. >> In other words, a brainwashing institute. >> >> A Christian college is the only kind of college where you pass because >> you _don't_ know any science. >> >> Martin > > And state universities brainwash people into believing in evolution. My > statement makes as much sense as your statement. > > What you refer to as brainwashing is known to the rest of the rational world as education. If you want to see brainwashing, look into the mirror. -- AT1 http://www.godblows.net Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 On Tue, 29 May 2007 14:11:35 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: - Refer: <7hhui4-0qe.ln1@spanky.localhost.net> >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. His Elders give him points for every ton of leaflets dropped each hour, so he figures that posting his fraudulent blather repeatedly gets him to give a Jehovas Witless Mafia boss a blow job at the next book-burning rally. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 On 29 May 2007 13:57:18 -0700, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: - Refer: <1180472238.573399.48020@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> >On 29 Maj, 07:24, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 28 May 2007 20:26:09 -0700, AT1 <notyourbusin...@godblows.net> >> wrote: >> - Refer: <PdKdnVSZW5_EAMbbnZ2dnUVZ_jmdn...@comcast.com> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Jason wrote: >snip > >> >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. > >And he has the amazing ability to lie and feel morally superior >simultaneously. It won't be long before is elected Pope. Al he needs to do is to murder millions through some edict or other. -- Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 In article <1180486190.340738.81820@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Not if there is a creator involved in the process. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 On Tue, 29 May 2007 19:19:19 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2905071919190001@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1180486688.526020.30680@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 30, 4:46 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1180466455.275080.314...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, bramble >> >> > <leopoldo.perd...@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. >> >> > > > >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. >> >> In other words, a brainwashing institute. >> >> A Christian college is the only kind of college where you pass because >> you _don't_ know any science. >> >> Martin > >And state universities brainwash people into believing in evolution. My >statement makes as much sense as your statement. > Presenting facts fairly is not brainwashing. You hate the fact that science has shown that some of your doctrines are false and lie about science at every turn. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 On May 30, 10:02 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180486190.340738.81...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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. > Not if there is a creator involved in the process. Ah so my posts _are_ shwoing up where you are. Why are you continuing to lie, saying that there's no evidence supporting abiogenesis? It's reprehensible! Martin Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 On Tue, 29 May 2007 19:58:12 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2905071958120001@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1180487793.835793.154760@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 30, 8:28 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <iddp5395ic887cn44q67dp79pp83lea...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > > On Tue, 29 May 2007 12:50:41 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> > > <Jason-2905071250420...@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> > > >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. >> > >> > > >> > > 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? >> >> It's not that hard to get a paper published in a peer reviewed >> journal. All you have to do is do some actual research. >> >> Martin > >I agree. The problem is the people that are part of the peer-review >process. They are all advocates of evolution. As a result, they have a >bias aganist anyone that is an advocate of creation science. No, they have a bias against lies. The 'creation scientists' have _demonstrated_ that they will not do any scientific research. >For the sake >of discussion, let's say that you was a member of the peer-review board >for a journal. Would you vote to approve an article that was written by a >professor that was an advocate for creation science? Yes, if it was actual science. I would support any well-written, well-researched scientific article that was presented that was related to the journal I was reviewing. Your assumption, however, has a serious flaw. There are no 'creation science' researchers doing science. They never offered a single scientific paper to a peer reviewed journal. If they told you they did, they lied to you. No one has ever rejected a scientific paper just because it was done by a creation science advocate. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 On May 30, 10:22 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180487516.728068.304...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On May 30, 7:31 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > The reality is that the advocates of evolution and abiogenesis have NO > > > evidence of how the first living cells came to be. > > > Stop lying. I've posted this three times already. Could somebody let > > me know if this post is getting through or not? Perhaps Jason has > > killfiled me. > > > 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. > > (Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_bilayer) Sidney Fox's > > research showed that amino acids can spontaneously form protein > > chains. (Seehttp://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 (Seehttp://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 (Seehttp://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 > I read the above post. Prove to me that you understood it. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 In article <1180486688.526020.30680@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 30, 4:46 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1180466455.275080.314...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, bramble > > > <leopoldo.perd...@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. > > > > > >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. > > In other words, a brainwashing institute. > > A Christian college is the only kind of college where you pass because > you _don't_ know any science. > > Martin And state universities brainwash people into believing in evolution. My statement makes as much sense as your statement. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 In article <1180487516.728068.304850@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 30, 7:31 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > The reality is that the advocates of evolution and abiogenesis have NO > > evidence of how the first living cells came to be. > > Stop lying. I've posted this three times already. Could somebody let > me know if this post is getting through or not? Perhaps Jason has > killfiled me. > > 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 Martin, I read the above post. Jason Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 On Tue, 29 May 2007 20:26:26 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2905072026270001@66-52-22-14.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <dvmp53d3u10co3ek5inre1kiq2curra7cg@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Tue, 29 May 2007 19:58:12 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2905071958120001@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: .... >> >I agree. The problem is the people that are part of the peer-review >> >process. They are all advocates of evolution. As a result, they have a >> >bias aganist anyone that is an advocate of creation science. >> >> No, they have a bias against lies. The 'creation scientists' have >> _demonstrated_ that they will not do any scientific research. >> >> >> >For the sake >> >of discussion, let's say that you was a member of the peer-review board >> >for a journal. Would you vote to approve an article that was written by a >> >professor that was an advocate for creation science? >> >> Yes, if it was actual science. I would support any well-written, >> well-researched scientific article that was presented that was related >> to the journal I was reviewing. Your assumption, however, has a serious >> flaw. There are no 'creation science' researchers doing science. They >> never offered a single scientific paper to a peer reviewed journal. If >> they told you they did, they lied to you. No one has ever rejected a >> scientific paper just because it was done by a creation science >> advocate. > >Are you 100 percent certain? The evidence supports my claim and shows that your claim was wrong. If you can present valid science papers that were rejected only because they were offered by 'creation science' advocates, present them to us or stop with the innuendo. When did your god tell you to lie? Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1180486688.526020.30680@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 30, 4:46 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <1180466455.275080.314...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, bramble >>> <leopoldo.perd...@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. >>>>>> 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. >> In other words, a brainwashing institute. >> >> A Christian college is the only kind of college where you pass because >> you _don't_ know any science. >> >> Martin > > And state universities brainwash people into believing in evolution. My > statement makes as much sense as your statement. > > No, it does not. Granted that the sentence about christian colleges being all the same is not correct, but you don't have to "believe" in evolution. Look at the evidence, the experiments. Then look at the evidence and the experiments for the idea that "goddidit". Oh, you didn't find any? Hm... guess it is not science, then..... Tokay -- "A synonym is a word you use when you can't spell the word you first thought of." Burt Bacharach Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. > > It is their "opinion". It is just much more reasonable that those articles never made it through the process because they lacked what that process required, i.e. evidence, facts and a scientific basis. Tokay -- "A synonym is a word you use when you can't spell the word you first thought of." Burt Bacharach Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1180487793.835793.154760@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 30, 8:28 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <iddp5395ic887cn44q67dp79pp83lea...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>> On Tue, 29 May 2007 12:50:41 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>> <Jason-2905071250420...@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> 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? >> It's not that hard to get a paper published in a peer reviewed >> journal. All you have to do is do some actual research. >> >> Martin > > I agree. The problem is the people that are part of the peer-review > process. They are all advocates of evolution. As a result, they have a > bias aganist anyone that is an advocate of creation science. For the sake > of discussion, let's say that you was a member of the peer-review board > for a journal. Would you vote to approve an article that was written by a > professor that was an advocate for creation science? > Jason > > Ok. Lets say it again. Where is the evidence for "creation science"? Not there, not in the articles, there are none. If you have any, let's hear it. Haven't seen any yet. Where is the evidence for evolution? Oh, boy. Where to start? Books, Papers, Research, Experiments without end. And, no, I would not reject a paper of a professor that was an advocate of creation science based on this fact. I would reject it if he failed to do what is necessary for a scientific article. I.e. provide evidence. Same as every other paper. No evidence = not published in a scientific paper. That is all there is to it. (yes, well, an article about astrophysics would not get published in a paper about, say, cardiology.) Tokay -- "A synonym is a word you use when you can't spell the word you first thought of." Burt Bacharach Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 On May 30, 10:19 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180486688.526020.30...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On May 30, 4:46 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1180466455.275080.314...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, bramble > > > > <leopoldo.perd...@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. > > > > > > >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. > > > In other words, a brainwashing institute. > > > A Christian college is the only kind of college where you pass because > > you _don't_ know any science. > > And state universities brainwash people into believing in evolution. False! State universities back up their claims with EVIDENCE. > My > statement makes as much sense as your statement. Except that it is a lie. Martin Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 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 > > Water, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon and Nitrogen. Plus Energy, i.e. lightning. There you have it: The "primordial pond". If you want to know where these components come from, ask an astrophysicist. Oh, hell. Ask a physicist. Or ask me. But I already answered that question and won't type it again. And if you STILL want to know where the big band came from, ask the astrophysicists again. They will tell you about the M-Theory. God of the Gaps is shrinking.... and damn fast. Tokay -- "A synonym is a word you use when you can't spell the word you first thought of." Burt Bacharach Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 AT1 wrote: > 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? > > Sorry. Ouzo is my poison. But if you want it, I will share..... (No, I am not greek. I just happen to like it) Tokay -- "A synonym is a word you use when you can't spell the word you first thought of." Burt Bacharach Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <Xns993F568C27F81freddybear@66.150.105.47>, Fred Stone > <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > The advocates of creation science know. > > But have no nada zip nil evidence for it. How can they know? Conclusion: They can't. AGAIN: Evolution has nothing to do with it. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis. Pretty good one at that, based on experiments that showed most, if not all, of the steps are possible. Tokay -- "A synonym is a word you use when you can't spell the word you first thought of." Burt Bacharach Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 In article <1180487793.835793.154760@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 30, 8:28 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <iddp5395ic887cn44q67dp79pp83lea...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > On Tue, 29 May 2007 12:50:41 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > <Jason-2905071250420...@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > >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. > > > > > >> > > 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? > > It's not that hard to get a paper published in a peer reviewed > journal. All you have to do is do some actual research. > > Martin I agree. The problem is the people that are part of the peer-review process. They are all advocates of evolution. As a result, they have a bias aganist anyone that is an advocate of creation science. For the sake of discussion, let's say that you was a member of the peer-review board for a journal. Would you vote to approve an article that was written by a professor that was an advocate for creation science? Jason Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1180486190.340738.81820@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> 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 > > Not if there is a creator involved in the process. > > =(&%/(&()/`=?)'`?=( AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN: Show even ONE shred of evidence for that "idea". ONE. Tokay -- "A synonym is a word you use when you can't spell the word you first thought of." Burt Bacharach Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <8d9ui4-0qe.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@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. > > But apparently you did not understand that..... Tokay -- "A synonym is a word you use when you can't spell the word you first thought of." Burt Bacharach 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.