Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1180437732.834602.80240@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> On 29 Maj, 04:08, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <1180388676.094238.216...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >>>> On 28 Maj, 20:41, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> In article <1180345706.613025.106...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, >>>>> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>> On 27 Maj, 18:15, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>> In article > <1180251937.912451.87...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Ma= >>>> rtin >>>>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On May 27, 12:21 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article <rlrh5395kqg7dlt21rumfrodta0cdq7...@4ax.com>, > Free Lun= >>>> ch >>>>>>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2007 18:57:12 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>>>>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>>>>>>> <Jason-2605071857120...@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>>>>>>>> In article <f3abu2$be...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>>>>>>>>>> <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <f3a9gk$8p...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>>>>>>>>>>>> <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I.e. that law about killing is NOT an absolute? > There ARE >>>>> cases when >>>>>>>>>>>>>> killing is allowed? There ARE times, such as when > you kil= >>>> l the >>>>>>> person >>>>>>>>>>>>>> right before he pushes the button that would blow up the >>>>>>> school full of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> kids, when killing another person is OK? Well, > I'll be da= >>>> mned. >>>>>>> Sounds >>>>>>>>>>>>>> like "situational ethics" to me. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but that is different from brainwashing > children to b= >>>> ecome >>>>>>> suicide >>>>>>>>>>>>> bombers or to become advocates of euthanasia. I > understand= >>>> your >>>>>>> point. I >>>>>>>>>>>>> have no problem with teaching children to care about >>>>> people. Can you >>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that situational ethics classes could be > used to >>>>> brainwash >>>>>>>>>>>>> children to believe in almost anything such as > abortion and >>>>>>> euthanasia. >>>>>>>>>>>> I never said they couldn't be. But the same could be > said for >>>>>>> classes on >>>>>>>>>>>> religion. ANYTHING could be used to "brainwash children." >>>>>>>>>>> That is true. In addition, and atheist parents or > teachers cou= >>>> ld >>>>>>> brainwash >>>>>>>>>>> children into becoming atheist. High Scoool and College > Biology >>>>>>> professors >>>>>>>>>>> could brainwash students into believing that life can > evolve f= >>>> rom >>>>>>> non-life >>>>>>>>>>> despite the lack of proof that it happened. >>>>>>>>>> There is overwhelming evidence that it happened and > there is no >>>>> evidence >>>>>>>>>> that the method by which it happened had anything to do with a >>>>>>>>>> supernatural being. Sorry, but your hatred of science > causes you >>>>> to tell >>>>>>>>>> repeated falsehoods. Why would a loving God turn you > into a lia= >>>> r? >>>>>>>>> Proove that it can happen in a laboratory experiment. >>>>>>>> It has been shown in laboratory experiments to happen with > viruses, >>>>>>>> bacteria and fruit flies. >>>>>>>> Next question, please. >>>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>> Please refer me to a website that shows that fruit flies > evolved from >>>>>>> non-life. >>>>>> Where else? Even the Bible says life came from non-life. >>>>>>> At one time, someone done an experiment that appeard to prove >>>>>>> that flies evolved from dead meat. >>>>>> There was no experiment. It was an assumption supported by the Bible, >>>>>> and it wasn't evolution that was being claimed. >>>>>>> It was later determined that the flies >>>>>>> actually came from eggs that were laid in that meat by female > flies.- >>>>>> Yet another example of reason and evidence disproving religious >>>>>> beliefs. >>>>> Google: spontaneous generation- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >>>> Yes, supported by the Bible and disproved by science. Another piece >>>> of reality for you to ignore. >>> Are you certain that the scientist that developed the theory was a >>> Christian? I seem to recall that it was a scientist that was an advocate >>> of evolution that developed that theory. >> What theory are you talking about? People (even Christians) became >> aware that flies are not the result of spontaneous generation (an idea >> pushed by the Bible) long before Darwin developed his theory. >> Furthermore a great many Christians accept that evolution is a fact, >> including the nuns, priests and brothers who taught it to me. You >> continue to babble incoherent nonsense. > > Do the advocates of abiogenesis believe that life can evolve from non-life? > > "Belief" is probably the wrong term. They know . Hey, even you should "know" that. That is the only point there is where the sky pixie and abiogenesis are on the same side. First there was no life, then there was life. So somewhere in between life had to come from non-life. Tokay -- "A synonym is a word you use when you can't spell the word you first thought of." Burt Bacharach Quote
Guest cactus 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. > > Just because they claim to know does not make them right. In fact they believe. What they claim to "know" is Christian mythology. Quote
Guest cactus 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. Of course they make that claim. Sour grapes. If they had some valid science, they would get published. They plan to not give up and submit more article this > year with hopes of getting some of them published. > They have every right to hope. But it would be imprudent to hold their breath while waiting. > Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 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? > > Meaningless question. Non-living things do not evolve, only living things do. So, as has been pointed out to you before, the question has no validity. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 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>: > >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. Are you 100 percent certain? Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 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? > And how does it feel, Mr. Hypocrite, to be one who callously disregards the principles he claims to espouse until the mysterious second trimester. At which point he flips his beliefs to become attached to groups that callously disregard the rights of the vulnerable. These are groups that shamelessly and indecently break laws, engage in harassment and intimidating behavior. Not to mention their vicious habits of stalking and employing manipulative and coercive tactics to force the birth of children that they will despise for not being able to make it in society. How does it feel, Mr. Feelgood Christian to hang out with the devils for three months and the fascists for six? Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 In article <1180490981.530250.223040@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 I visited this site: http://www.rit.edu/~flwstv/biology.html I read the interesting long report. I learned some things about abiogenesis that I did not know. Jason Quote
Deathbringer Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 Come on Jason, education is not the same as intelligence and having a brain is not the same as using it. I can and have made creationists with Ph.D.s in biology cry and I don't even have my B.S. yet. Its no fun because they aren't used to being wrong and they tend to get even more upset than people who do not consider themselves educated. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 On Tue, 29 May 2007 21:14:04 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2905072114040001@66-52-22-14.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1180490913.993436.208310@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> 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 > >Martin, >Someone else challenged me to find proof that there was a bias against the >advocates of creation science that submit articles to journals. I googled >"rejected creation science articles". I found this article and learned >some things I did not know. I hope that you will also learn some things >that you did not know related to bias. > > > >29 May 2007 >Do Creationists Publish in >Notable Refereed Journals? >David Buckna Delete long article that Jason hasn't gotten permission for. > Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 In article <f3iokj$th0$01$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > 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 I done a google search for "rejected creation science articles" and found this report: 29 May 2007 Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals? David Buckna Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 In article <1180490913.993436.208310@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Martin, Someone else challenged me to find proof that there was a bias against the advocates of creation science that submit articles to journals. I googled "rejected creation science articles". I found this article and learned some things I did not know. I hope that you will also learn some things that you did not know related to bias. 29 May 2007 Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals? David Buckna Creation Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 In article <S367i.12613$RX.5882@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > 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. > > Of course they make that claim. Sour grapes. If they had some valid > science, they would get published. > > They plan to not give up and submit more article this > > year with hopes of getting some of them published. > > > They have every right to hope. But it would be imprudent to hold their > breath while waiting. > > > 29 May 2007 Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals? David Buckna Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 On May 30, 10:58 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180487793.835793.154...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@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. > I agree. The problem is the people that are part of the peer-review > process. They are all advocates of evolution. Every single biologist who has passed through the peer-review process believes in evolution. What should that tell you? > As a result, they have a > bias aganist anyone that is an advocate of creation science. Try to think why that might be. If somebody came to you and said that grass was yellow, that the sky is purple and that the sun is green, would you take them seriously? That is the level of stupidity that you expect them to publish in their journals. > 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? Who they are is not the issue. The issue is what evidence they have to support their arguments. NO such evidence exists for creationism. (There is no such thing as "creation science".) If they want to get published they might want to read some existing papers and do research for trhe purpose of refuting some of the existing arguments FOR evolution. They can't do that so they don't get published. Martin Quote
Guest AT1 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 > > No, that's what you silly little christers would do. Science, by its very nature, comes up with hypotheses and does everything it can to DISPROVE it. Respectable scientists (which turns out to be the vast majority of them) are always looking to disprove their assumptions and understanding of things. It's how our understanding of matters is increased. Religion refuses to even consider the possibility that it is flawed. Notice how much had to be written about the process of science vs. how much was needed to sum up religion? -- AT1 http://www.godblows.net Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 On May 30, 11:26 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <dvmp53d3u10co3ek5inre1kiq2curra...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Tue, 29 May 2007 19:58:12 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-2905071958120...@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >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? Are you 100% certain that your god even exists? Because he doesn't. we are not the ones dealing in fantasies: that would be you and your ilk. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 In article <e967i.12614$RX.12354@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > 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? > > > > > Meaningless question. Non-living things do not evolve, only living > things do. So, as has been pointed out to you before, the question has > no validity. It's possible to answer a meaningless question so what is your answer? Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 On May 30, 11:33 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180490981.530250.223...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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 > > I visited this site:http://www.rit.edu/~flwstv/biology.html > > I read the interesting long report. I learned some things about > abiogenesis that I did not know. What five amino acids did the Ceylon-born biochemist Cyril Ponnamperuma find in a meteorite that had fallen in Australia on September 28, 1969? Working with Ruth Mariner and Carl Sagan and using an experimental procedure similar to the Miller/Urey experiment, what chemical did Ponnamperuma synthesize and how do living cells use it? What is the distinction between "chemical evolution" and "biological evolution"? Plantlife had to have evolved before animal life. Why? What is the theory of mechanism? What is the Gaia hypothesis and what ethical message does it send? What is the naturalistic fallacy and how does a moral code based on the Gaia hypothesis avoid it? How does Elliott Sober explain why people sometimes behave unethically even though natural selection would demand that they do. You forget, Jason, I am a university professor and I can tell when somebody hasn't studied but only says that they did. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 On May 30, 12:08 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 29 May 2007 > Do Creationists Publish in > Notable Refereed Journals? > David Buckna > Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <e967i.12614$RX.12354@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>, > bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > >> 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? >>> >> Meaningless question. Non-living things do not evolve, only living >> things do. So, as has been pointed out to you before, the question has >> no validity. > > It's possible to answer a meaningless question so what is your answer? > > My answer is that the question is meaningless, and therefore has no valid answer. Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <S367i.12613$RX.5882@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>, > bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > >> 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. >> Of course they make that claim. Sour grapes. If they had some valid >> science, they would get published. >> >> They plan to not give up and submit more article this >>> year with hopes of getting some of them published. >>> >> They have every right to hope. But it would be imprudent to hold their >> breath while waiting. >> > > > > 29 May 2007 > Do Creationists Publish in > Notable Refereed Journals? > David Buckna > Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 In article <1180501328.258832.5250@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 30, 11:33 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1180490981.530250.223...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > 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 > > > > I visited this site:http://www.rit.edu/~flwstv/biology.html > > > > I read the interesting long report. I learned some things about > > abiogenesis that I did not know. > > What five amino acids did the Ceylon-born biochemist Cyril > Ponnamperuma find in a meteorite that had fallen in Australia on > September 28, 1969? > > Working with Ruth Mariner and Carl Sagan and using an experimental > procedure similar to the Miller/Urey experiment, what chemical did > Ponnamperuma synthesize and how do living cells use it? > > What is the distinction between "chemical evolution" and "biological > evolution"? > > Plantlife had to have evolved before animal life. Why? > > What is the theory of mechanism? > > What is the Gaia hypothesis and what ethical message does it send? > > What is the naturalistic fallacy and how does a moral code based on > the Gaia hypothesis avoid it? > > How does Elliott Sober explain why people sometimes behave unethically > even though natural selection would demand that they do. > > You forget, Jason, I am a university professor and I can tell when > somebody hasn't studied but only says that they did. > > Martin Martin, I did not download the article but I read it. If I wanted to download the article, I could easily answer the questions. I am not in college anymore and do not have to take any more tests or exams. I did not even like taking tests and exams when I was in college. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 In article <1180501773.837383.112070@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 30, 12:08 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > 29 May 2007 > > Do Creationists Publish in > > Notable Refereed Journals? > > David Buckna > > =A9 David Buckna. All Rights Reserved. > > > > Creation =B3Scientists=B2? > > Many critics perpetuate false claims to the effect that no genuine > > scientist would be a creationist. The Institute for Creation Research > > refutes this myth here, as does Answers in Genesis here. > > In his book The Monkey Business (1982) paleontologist Niles > > Eldredge wrote that no author who published in the Creation Research > > Society Quarterly =B3has contributed a single article to any reputable > > scientific journal=B2 (p.83). Apparently Eldredge couldn=B9t be bothered= > to > > glance at the Science Citation Index or any other major science > > bibliographic source. > > > Developmental biologist Willem J. Ouweneel, a Dutch creationist > > and CRSQ contributor, published a classic and widely cited paper on > > developmental anomalies in fruit flies (=B3Developmental genetics of > > homoeosis,=B2 Advances in Genetics, 16 [1976], 179-248). Herpetologist > > Wayne Frair, a frequent CRSQ contributor, publishes his work on turtle > > systematics and serology in such journals as Journal of Herpetology, > > Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Science, and Herpetologica. > > <snip> > > So if they are getting papers published then what are they complaining > about? The fact is that they get papers published when they do > science and they don't get papers published when they try to spread > religious dogma. You've just proven our point, Jason. Way to go! > > Martin Martin, Did you read the entire article? I read it and the author, David Buckna, done an excellent job. He mentioning the bias that advocates of creation science have had to deal with in getting their articles published in journals. In some cases, they even had to alter their articles to get them published. One of the editors even mentioned that they did not print letters from the advocates of creation science. I was pleased to learn that some of the advocates of creation science have been able to get their articles published. Do you admit that some of the advocates of creation science know just as much about science as the advocates of evolution? Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 In article <PM77i.4542$u56.48@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <S367i.12613$RX.5882@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>, > > bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > > > >> 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. > >> Of course they make that claim. Sour grapes. If they had some valid > >> science, they would get published. > >> > >> They plan to not give up and submit more article this > >>> year with hopes of getting some of them published. > >>> > >> They have every right to hope. But it would be imprudent to hold their > >> breath while waiting. > >> > > > > > > > > 29 May 2007 > > Do Creationists Publish in > > Notable Refereed Journals? > > David Buckna > > Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 On May 30, 2:39 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <PM77i.4542$u56...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>, > > b...@nonespam.com wrote: > > It looks like they were doing good science. It is worth noting that > > none of the papers published concerned "creation science." > > Good point. However, all articles written by advocates of evolution are > not related to evolution. But the papers on evolution get published because they are actual science whereas creationism is not. Creationism apriori assumes the existance of God, something 1) for which there is no evidence and 2) which intelligent people know full well doesn't exist. You're not doing science if you're doing creationism: you're just spreading fairy tales. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 30, 2007 Posted May 30, 2007 On May 30, 12:14 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Someone else challenged me to find proof that there was a bias against the > advocates of creation science that submit articles to journals. I googled > "rejected creation science articles". I found this article and learned > some things I did not know. I hope that you will also learn some things > that you did not know related to bias. Jason, I've already responded to this post. Perhaps your newsreader isn't receiving all my posts. As I have already pointed out, the fact that advocates of creationism have been able to get papers published PROVES that there is NO bias against creationists and demonstrates without a doubt that IF they were to produce actual science then they would get published. I never said that no creationist has ever had his name on a scientific paper: in fact, if they have Ph.D.s then they would have been required to publish something during their Ph.D. program, something related to their thesis topic. Often all that is needed is for them to participate in an ongoing research program at the institute where they studied. What makes them now frauds, however, is the claim that they are scientists doing "creation science" when there is no such thing as "creation science". Creationism assumes apriori the existance of a supernatural being and offers no testable mechanisms for how life on Earth began. With nothing to test, there is no research to be done and all that they can try to do is refute the claim of scientists doing actual research in the fields of evolution and abiogenesis. The fact that they haven't had any papers published in their chosen "field of research" means that they haven't been able to refute any of the claims that actual researchers have made. Note that actual researchers don't agree on all points so it is always possible for two papers to get published in the same journals making completely different and contradictory claims: there are plenty of examples of this in all journals in all fields of research, which demonstrates that there is absolutely NO bias towards one opinion, not as long as both sides are backed by actual evidence (which creationism isn't). Journals typically publish both sides of an ongoing debate because that is what their readers want: scientists want to know what research is "on the cutting edge" and very often cutting edge ideas are controversial as there is some question as to what is true and what isn't. Evolution just isn't a controversial issue anymore among respected scientists and creationist have a long way to go before they can change this. Instead, they are losing ground every day as experiment after experiment confirms what real scientists had already suspected and the god of the gaps grows smaller and smaller until it becomes clear that no gods exist. Martin Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.