Guest Masked Avenger Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1180514437.317608.17790@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 30, 2:25 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >>> I did not download the article but I read it. >> Wait. How can you read the article without downloading it to your >> computer? Do you mean you didn't "print it out"? I didn't either. >> It isn't necessary. If you had actually read the article you would >> have been able to answer questions about what you had read. You >> obviously didn't read the article even though you said you did. >> >> Martin > > I meant that I did not save the article or print out the article. I am a > speed reader. I speed read the article. My memory is not as good as it was > when I was your age. < snip > You might be a 'speed reader' ..... but your comprehension is as slow as a wet weekend ........ -- MA ....Yoiks .... and away ..... Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity .............. and I'm not sure about the Universe .......... - A. Einstein Does Schr Quote
Guest Masked Avenger Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 Jason wrote: < snip > > > Martin, > There are at least 90 people that know just as much about science as you > know. At least 40 of them have Ph.D degrees in various fields of science. and there are thousands ........ tens of thousands ....... of Scientists who say those '90' are wrong ! ....... you are supporting a minuscule mob of 'faith' based crackpots ...... and apparently proud of it ...... idiot ... > They probably have seen the same evidence that you have seen. They > continue to be advocates of creationism. I will continue to be an advocate > of creationism until I am 100 percent sure that you are correct and that > those 90 people are wrong. > jason the majority says YOU are wrong ......... I say you are a dangerous lunatic ..... -- MA ....Yoiks .... and away ..... Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity .............. and I'm not sure about the Universe .......... - A. Einstein Does Schr Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f3abu2$be9$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f3a9gk$8pn$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> <prabbit1@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 kill 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 damned. Sounds >>>> like "situational ethics" to me. >>> Yes, but that is different from brainwashing children to become 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 could brainwash > children into becoming atheist. And theist parents or teachers could brainwash children into becoming theist. High Scoool and College Biology professors > could brainwash students into believing that life can evolve from non-life > despite the lack of proof that it happened. How many times do you have to be told that "life does not evolve from non-life." Evolution deals with the changes in life and NOT how it formed to begin with. Now are you going to lie yet again about "life evolving from non-life"? Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <dt6s53ht46hk6916ggekb1lon0d2qcfsb5@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Wed, 30 May 2007 18:33:22 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-3005071833220001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>> In article <465df23b$0$4718$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Christopher >>> Morris" <Draccus@roadrunner.com> wrote: >>> >>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >>>> news:Jason-3005071349210001@66-52-22-22.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>>> In article <1180528020.475090.229050@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, >>>>> gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 30 Maj, 06:14, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>> In article <1180490913.993436.208...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On May 30, 10:19 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article <1180486688.526020.30...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >>>>> Martin >>>>>> snip> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> What you learned is that you were wrong, that scientists who are known >>>>>> as advocates of creation science do have their work published in peer- >>>>>> reviewed articles; so much for your claim of bias. Furthermore none >>>>>> of the work published provided support for creation science, which >>>>>> provides you with no evidence of any actual research done in that >>>>>> area. Based on your above post, however, you learned absolutely >>>>>> nothing and continue to tell the same lies as before. You are very >>>>>> strange. >>>>>> snip >>>>> Re-read the article. Bias was discussed in the article. The editors >>>>> required one of the authors to remove the creation science information >>>>> that was in the article. Do you honestly believe that the editors would >>>>> have required another author to remove the evolution information that was >>>>> in their article. Get real. >>>>> >>>> If the writter presents any information within an article be it the > body of >>>> the work or the conclusion and it is not backed with factual evidence they >>>> would have to revise the article in order to make it match the facts it >>>> matters not at all if they advocate creation or evolution. >>> It was my impression that the editors of the journal were advocates of >>> evolution and as a result did not want any of the authors of the articles >>> to discuss or even mention creation science. >> You are confused about what they don't want. They don't want >> pseudo-science and anti-scientific nonsense in their science journals. >> If any of the so-called creation science folks actually offered real >> science in support of their religious doctrines, they would have a >> chance of being published. >> >>> If you note the titles of all >>> of the articles that were mentioned--none of the articles appear to be >>> related to creation science. It's my guess that many science journals have >>> articles related to evolution. >> That's because evolution is science and 'creation science' is not. > > The scientists that are advocates of creation science would disagree with you. > > Oh. As long as they do science, they are free to do that. So far, I haven't seen ANY coherent science regarding "creation". I constantly ask for it. What I GET are the same old errors. (transitional fossils, unreproducible complexity and "looks like") IF they are scientists, they should easily be able to show the science. So far: None, nada, zip, nil. Tokay -- It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1180580100.479603.269330@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 31, 4:49 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <1180528020.475090.229...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >>>> On 30 Maj, 06:14, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> In article <1180490913.993436.208...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > Martin >>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> On May 30, 10:19 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>> In article <1180486688.526020.30...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >>> Martin >>>> snip> >>>>> 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. >>>> What you learned is that you were wrong, that scientists who are known >>>> as advocates of creation science do have their work published in peer- >>>> reviewed articles; so much for your claim of bias. Furthermore none >>>> of the work published provided support for creation science, which >>>> provides you with no evidence of any actual research done in that >>>> area. Based on your above post, however, you learned absolutely >>>> nothing and continue to tell the same lies as before. You are very >>>> strange. >>>> snip >>> Re-read the article. Bias was discussed in the article. The editors >>> required one of the authors to remove the creation science information >>> that was in the article. Do you honestly believe that the editors would >>> have required another author to remove the evolution information that was >>> in their article. Get real. >> Everything posted in a scientific article has to be backed up with >> scientific evidence. Creationism is NOT science. You are the one >> living in a fantasy, not us. >> >> Martin > > Martin, > If you submitted an article re: evolution to the editor of the ICR > newsletter and it was rejected, do you think that bias would have been > involved? > Jason > > Yes. I would think so. But then, this newsletter is not a scientific publication. Tokay -- It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <WZKdnd2en990icPbnZ2dnUVZ_t_inZ2d@comcast.com>, AT1 > <notyourbusiness@godblows.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <1180513708.967942.322010@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On May 30, 2:36 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> That's normal. That's why it's called "peer review". Are you so >>>> ignorant as to believe that any scientist can get papers published >>>> without having to pass through the peer review process? It's that >>>> very process that keeps science honest. If religion had a peer review >>>> process then your entire religion would have been a non-starter. >>>> >>>>> 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? >>>> Knowing about science and actually doing science are not the same >>>> thing. The scientific method begins with a testable hypothesis that >>>> can then be either demonstrated or shown to be false by experiment. >>>> If a creationist proposes God as his hypothesis then he would have to >>>> be willing to test whether God exists and accept the conclusion of >>>> whatever experiment he has been able to design. You can't be a >>>> scientist and follow any dogmatic belief and religious beliefs are >>>> dogmatic beliefs, ie beliefs that people are expected to uphold >>>> regardless of what the evidence might say. >>>> >>>> Martin >>> I understand. However, there should NOT be a bias in favor of evolution >>> and against creation science. The bias should be in favor of the >>> scientific method. >>> Jason >>> >>> >> I'm glad you're in favor of the scientific method. I hope you realize >> that blows your idea of a fantasy spirit god (creation science) out of >> the water. > > No--it does not--I know of at least 90 people that have Ph.D degrees in > various fields of science. They are all advocates of creation science. But do they WORK in the field that deals with evolution? You wouldn't ask a plumber to fix your car, would you? (Well, if said plumber had an idea about cars, I would.... But if a mechanic disagreed with him, I would trust the mechanic) > Most of them are just as in favor of the scientific method as I am. In > most cases, our main disagreement is in relation to abiogenesis and common > descent. We (in most cases cases) support the aspects of evolution that > can be proved. That is the "god of the gaps". Same as on the old maps. "There be dragons". Actually, this is EXACTLY what this is. Tokay -- It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <a57s539daat6ed7ur8fecr7s2g90tfsufu@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Wed, 30 May 2007 18:46:59 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-3005071846590001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>> In article <WZKdnd2en990icPbnZ2dnUVZ_t_inZ2d@comcast.com>, AT1 >>> <notyourbusiness@godblows.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <1180513708.967942.322010@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > Martin >>>>> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On May 30, 2:36 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> That's normal. That's why it's called "peer review". Are you so >>>>>> ignorant as to believe that any scientist can get papers published >>>>>> without having to pass through the peer review process? It's that >>>>>> very process that keeps science honest. If religion had a peer review >>>>>> process then your entire religion would have been a non-starter. >>>>>> >>>>>>> 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? >>>>>> Knowing about science and actually doing science are not the same >>>>>> thing. The scientific method begins with a testable hypothesis that >>>>>> can then be either demonstrated or shown to be false by experiment. >>>>>> If a creationist proposes God as his hypothesis then he would have to >>>>>> be willing to test whether God exists and accept the conclusion of >>>>>> whatever experiment he has been able to design. You can't be a >>>>>> scientist and follow any dogmatic belief and religious beliefs are >>>>>> dogmatic beliefs, ie beliefs that people are expected to uphold >>>>>> regardless of what the evidence might say. >>>>>> >>>>>> Martin >>>>> I understand. However, there should NOT be a bias in favor of evolution >>>>> and against creation science. The bias should be in favor of the >>>>> scientific method. >>>>> Jason >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I'm glad you're in favor of the scientific method. I hope you realize >>>> that blows your idea of a fantasy spirit god (creation science) out of >>>> the water. >>> No--it does not--I know of at least 90 people that have Ph.D degrees in >>> various fields of science. They are all advocates of creation science. >> Then they are all liars. Creation science is a religious doctrine, >> nothing else. >> >> Besides, the list you have is not a list of 90 scientists. >> >>> Most of them are just as in favor of the scientific method as I am. In >>> most cases, our main disagreement is in relation to abiogenesis and common >>> descent. >> So you reject evolution for no reason at all. >> >>> We (in most cases cases) support the aspects of evolution that can be proved. >> You keep using the word 'proved' in a scientific context. You keep >> proving to us that you have no use for science at all. Science uses >> evidence, when you use the word 'proof' you show that you are ignorant >> of the scientific process, particularly when you demand 'proof'. >> >> Don't come back with more lies. Don't quote the ICR, CRS, AIG or >> Discovery Institute. They are all enemies of science, liars, and >> charletans. Not one of the people associated with them are scientists >> any more, even the few who were actually trained in science. They are >> now just con men, trying to get you to give them money. > > We support the aspects of evolution that have evidence. > > So, what aspects have no evidence? Name them, maybe we can clear them up for you. Tokay -- It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1fas53hfdrfd84vu4re8vqbj6dim61lhcp@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Wed, 30 May 2007 19:33:01 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-3005071933010001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>> In article <a57s539daat6ed7ur8fecr7s2g90tfsufu@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 30 May 2007 18:46:59 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>> <Jason-3005071846590001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>> In article <WZKdnd2en990icPbnZ2dnUVZ_t_inZ2d@comcast.com>, AT1 >>>>> <notyourbusiness@godblows.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jason wrote: >> ... >> >>>>>>> I understand. However, there should NOT be a bias in favor of > evolution >>>>>>> and against creation science. The bias should be in favor of the >>>>>>> scientific method. >>>>>>> Jason >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> I'm glad you're in favor of the scientific method. I hope you realize >>>>>> that blows your idea of a fantasy spirit god (creation science) out of >>>>>> the water. >>>>> No--it does not--I know of at least 90 people that have Ph.D degrees in >>>>> various fields of science. They are all advocates of creation science. >>>> Then they are all liars. Creation science is a religious doctrine, >>>> nothing else. >>>> >>>> Besides, the list you have is not a list of 90 scientists. >>>> >>>>> Most of them are just as in favor of the scientific method as I am. In >>>>> most cases, our main disagreement is in relation to abiogenesis and common >>>>> descent. >>>> So you reject evolution for no reason at all. >>>> >>>>> We (in most cases cases) support the aspects of evolution that can > be proved. >>>> You keep using the word 'proved' in a scientific context. You keep >>>> proving to us that you have no use for science at all. Science uses >>>> evidence, when you use the word 'proof' you show that you are ignorant >>>> of the scientific process, particularly when you demand 'proof'. >>>> >>>> Don't come back with more lies. Don't quote the ICR, CRS, AIG or >>>> Discovery Institute. They are all enemies of science, liars, and >>>> charletans. Not one of the people associated with them are scientists >>>> any more, even the few who were actually trained in science. They are >>>> now just con men, trying to get you to give them money. >>> We support the aspects of evolution that have evidence. >> Make up your mind. If you support the aspects of evolution that have >> evidence then you support common ancestry and abiogenesis (which isn't >> evolution, of course). If you reject common ancestry, you don't support >> the aspects of evolution that have evidence. If you reject abiogenesis, >> you reject science. > > I have seen no evidence indicating that mankind evolved from living cells. > > Ah, "eine Steilvorlage!" (hehe. Ok, it is a play on words. Not serious. But thats what some of them do....) "So you think mankind evolved from nonliving cells?" ;-) Tokay -- It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1180580639.377592.70320@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 31, 9:41 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <465def83$0$9953$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, "Christopher >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Morris" <Drac...@roadrunner.com> wrote: >>>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >>>> news:Jason-3005071302390001@66-52-22-22.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>>> In article <465d3e5b$0$4665$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, "Christopher >>>>> Morris" <Drac...@roadrunner.com> wrote: >>>>>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:Jason-2905072336340001@66-52-22-66.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>>>>> In article <1180501773.837383.112...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, >>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@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? >>>>>> Jason, >>>>>> Like in all things, if you do not do the homework you do not get > the gold >>>>>> star. In this case, they had to do some actual research in the field of >>>>>> study and that was the basis of their paper, their homework, which was >>>>>> then >>>>>> published in the Journals, they got the gold stars. This is not a > matter >>>>>> of >>>>>> bias but a matter of people wanting to be lazy, get something for >>>>>> nothing, >>>>>> and claim it is bias. When you do not do anything that is worthy of >>>>>> publishing of course it will not be published first you have to do the >>>>>> hard >>>>>> part the homework. When the creationists start to do their > homework then >>>>>> we >>>>>> will start to consider listening to what they have to say until then do >>>>>> not >>>>>> whine that no one is interested in your complaints. >>>>> I agree with most of your points. It's harder for the advocates of >>>>> creation science to get well written articles published in > journals. There >>>>> should not be bias but there is bias. >>>> The only Bias is that it has to be science and not religion or phiolosphy. >>>> If they write actual papers based on the scientific evidence then it > will be >>>> reviewed on it's merits. The key is it must be actual research and > not just >>>> the Bible says it and I believe it. >>>> One of the authors (mentioned in the >>>>> article) had to alter the conclusion that was in the original article >>>>> since it was related to creation science. >>>> If you wish to provide a citation of this supposed modifcation feel free, >>>> but it sounds more like a matter of poor research methods and poor >>>> conclusions based not on facts but on beliefs. >>>> After he made the required >>>>> change to satisfy the editors, the article was published in the journal. >>>>> Please answer this question: If another author had a conclusion that was >>>>> related to evolution--do you believe the editors would have required him >>>>> to alter the conclusion? >>>> If the conclusion could not be backed by factual evidence you bet and they >>>> have done so many times and all the time that is the peer review process. >>>> Do you believe that journal editors should have a >>>>> bias against authors of articles that are advocates of creation science. >>>>> Jason >>>> They have a bias against poor research not based on factual evidence > it is a >>>> difference. >>> We have a difference of opinion. For example, if I wrote an article and >>> mentioned creation science several times in the article, the journal >>> editors would probably tell me to rewrite the article and remove all >>> references to creation science. On the other hand, if you wrote an article >>> and mentioned evolution several times, I doubt that the ediitors would >>> tell you to remove all references to evolution. Do you see my point? There >>> is a bias in favor of evolution and against creation science. The reason >>> is because the editors and members of the peer review committee are >>> advocates of evolution. >> Whether you write about creationism or evolution, in either case your >> claims need to be supported by evidence. Evolution is supported by >> evidence. Creationism isn't. It's that simple. It's only a bias in >> favour of the scientific method. >> >> Martin > > Do you think that the 40 doctorate-holding scientists mentioned in the > book entitled, "On the Seventh Day" Edited by J.F. Ashton would agree > that creationism is NOT supported by evidence? > Jason > > They failed to provide the evidence. They might say "I believe there is evidence". But where is it? Tokay -- It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1180589009.623007.230250@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 31, 1:33 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <1180580639.377592.70...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> On May 31, 9:41 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> In article <465def83$0$9953$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, "Christopher >>>>> Morris" <Drac...@roadrunner.com> wrote: >>>>>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:Jason-3005071302390001@66-52-22-22.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>>>>> Do you believe that journal editors should have a >>>>>>> bias against authors of articles that are advocates of > creation science. >>>>>> They have a bias against poor research not based on factual evidence. >>> There is a >>>>>> difference. >>>>> We have a difference of opinion. For example, if I wrote an article and >>>>> mentioned creation science several times in the article, the journal >>>>> editors would probably tell me to rewrite the article and remove all >>>>> references to creation science. On the other hand, if you wrote an > article >>>>> and mentioned evolution several times, I doubt that the ediitors would >>>>> tell you to remove all references to evolution. Do you see my > point? There >>>>> is a bias in favor of evolution and against creation science. The reason >>>>> is because the editors and members of the peer review committee are >>>>> advocates of evolution. >>>> Whether you write about creationism or evolution, in either case your >>>> claims need to be supported by evidence. Evolution is supported by >>>> evidence. Creationism isn't. It's that simple. It's only a bias in >>>> favour of the scientific method. >>> Do you think that the 40 doctorate-holding scientists mentioned in the >>> book entitled, "On the Seventh Day" Edited by J.F. Ashton would agree >>> that creationism is NOT supported by evidence? >> It either is supported by evidence or it isn't. And it isn't. It >> isn't a matter of opinion. No experiment has ever been conducted to >> demonstrate the existance of any god -nor could any experiment ever be >> conducted to test anything supernatural- let alone test the hypothesis >> that any god was responsible for the creation of any form of life on >> Earth, let alone man. What they may believe is irrelevant: it doesn't >> change the fact that there is absolutely NO evidence supporting >> creationism. >> >> Martin > > Martin, > The only evidence that I have seen is in relation to the fossil record. > Two different books have been written by advocates of creationism in > relation to the fossil record. One of the authors discusses the complete > absence of any true evolutionary transitional forms in the fossil record. And that is WRONG! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils No way around it. The fossils are there . If you like it or not. > I have read one of those books. I suggest that you read the last paragraph > of Chapter 14 of Darwin's famous book--he discusses something about life > being "breathed into a few forms or into one." Darwin also mentioned the > "Creator" in that same chapter. It was apparent to me that Darwin believed > in God and was familiar with the lst chapter of Genesis and probably > believed it was true but I am not 100 percent certain. I typed Darwin God > into the google search engine and was able to find lots of evidence > indicating that Darwin (at least during several years of his life) was a > Christian. I don't know whether or not he was Christian during the last > several years of his life. There was one site indicating that Darwin may > have had a deathbed confession of his love of God. Far as I know, this "deathbed conversion" is a hoax. But never mind, it actually has nothing to do with it. Whether or not Darwin was a Christian does not invalidate his work. So, what do you want to prove there? That Darwin was a christian? There hardly was a way around that in those times. But what does that say about his work? Nothing, that's what. Tokay -- It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 cactus wrote: > Jason wrote: >> In article <465d3e5b$0$4665$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Christopher >> Morris" <Draccus@roadrunner.com> wrote: >> >>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >>> news:Jason-2905072336340001@66-52-22-66.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>> 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? >>>> >>> >>> Jason, >>> >>> >>> >>> Like in all things, if you do not do the homework you do not get the >>> gold star. In this case, they had to do some actual research in the >>> field of study and that was the basis of their paper, their homework, >>> which was then published in the Journals, they got the gold stars. >>> This is not a matter of bias but a matter of people wanting to be >>> lazy, get something for nothing, and claim it is bias. When you do >>> not do anything that is worthy of publishing of course it will not be >>> published first you have to do the hard part the homework. When the >>> creationists start to do their homework then we will start to >>> consider listening to what they have to say until then do not whine >>> that no one is interested in your complaints. >> >> I agree with most of your points. It's harder for the advocates of >> creation science to get well written articles published in journals. > > They might be beautifully written, eloquent, poetic and grammatical. But > if they do not contain valid science they won't get published. Actually, the usual scientific articles are a pain to read. Elegant? Oh boy. Grammatically correct, but those guys usually are not exactly good writers. Usually. There are exceptions. > > There >> should not be bias but there is bias. > > There isn't a bias, except against bad or invalid science. > > One of the authors (mentioned in the >> article) had to alter the conclusion that was in the original article >> since it was related to creation science. > > If creationism were scientifically valid, it would not need to have its > conclusions revised. The fact that the conclusion had to be revised > prior to publication is an indication that there might have been some > decent science going on, but the author came to incorrect conclusions > based on the evidence. I don't blame her for being miffed: what writer > likes editors? About the same as critics. Well, that goes for fiction writers (I had a fling with it once). Scientific writers NEED editors. AND critics. That's what the method is about. [snip] Tokay -- It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 Masked Avenger wrote: > Jason wrote: > > < snip > > >> >> Martin, >> There are at least 90 people that know just as much about science as you >> know. At least 40 of them have Ph.D degrees in various fields of science. > > and there are thousands ........ tens of thousands ....... of Scientists > who say those '90' are wrong ! ....... > you are supporting a minuscule mob of 'faith' based crackpots ...... and > apparently proud of it ...... > > idiot ... > >> They probably have seen the same evidence that you have seen. They >> continue to be advocates of creationism. I will continue to be an >> advocate >> of creationism until I am 100 percent sure that you are correct and that >> those 90 people are wrong. >> jason > > > the majority says YOU are wrong ......... I say you are a dangerous > lunatic ..... > Be careful. Argument by numbers is dangerous. I agree, of course. But the reason is not that so many think that way. Tokay -- It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats. Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <rlrh5395kqg7dlt21rumfrodta0cdq7h86@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sat, 26 May 2007 18:57:12 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2605071857120001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>> In article <f3abu2$be9$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <f3a9gk$8pn$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>>>> <prabbit1@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 kill 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 damned. Sounds >>>>>> like "situational ethics" to me. >>>>> Yes, but that is different from brainwashing children to become 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 could brainwash >>> children into becoming atheist. High Scoool and College Biology professors >>> could brainwash students into believing that life can evolve from 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 liar? > > Proove that it can happen in a laboratory experiment. Prove that the sun exists by making a sun in a laboratory experiment. Clue-time: not everything can be duplicated in a lab for various reasons and not being able to duplicate it in a lab doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1180327377.444027.85020@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 28, 11:11 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <1180317805.294731.52...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> >>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> On May 28, 4:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> In article <bpkj53he0ptnmj6mqoju6nella9b542...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 27 May 2007 11:44:14 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>>> <Jason-2705071144140...@66-52-22-32.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>>>> In article <v4bj53tm5ca33k3jb5kalhc5t86ibs3...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>>>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 May 2007 09:31:17 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>>>>> <Jason-2705070931180...@66-52-22-1.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>>>>>> In article >>> <1180254267.019564.134...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On May 27, 1:11 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>> Was a living cell produced by the chemical reactions? >>>>>>>>>> Stop moving the goalposts. You asked if evolution had been >>>>>>>>>> demonstrated in a laboratory. It has. Worse, you know it >>> has. We've >>>>>>>>>> been over this before. You ran away from the argument, > remember? >>>>>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>>>> I did not want to continue because we were not moving forward. I >>> had to >>>>>>>>> explain basic creation science concepts and my theories over and >>> over and >>>>>>>>> over and over and over. >>>>>>>> Creation science is not science. It is religious doctrine. >>>>>>>>> After about two weeks, I decided that people were >>>>>>>>> so brainwashed by high school biology teachers and college science >>>>>>>>> professors that they were not able to open their minds to > alternative >>>>>>>>> theories that explain how life came to be on this planet. >>>>>>>> Facts sure get in the way of your doctrines, don't they. >>>>>>>>> I did learn >>>>>>>>> about the amazing faith of evolutionists. They told me that life >>> evolved >>>>>>>> >from non-life. >>>>>>>> The beginning of life is a different problem than the evolution >>> of life. >>>>>>>> Still, all of the evidence points to a natural beginning of > life and no >>>>>>>> evidence supports any religious claims about a creator. >>>>>>>>> To believe that--it requires a lot of faith. >>>>>>>> Only that reality exists. If you reject reality, then you can > reject >>>>>>>> anything. >>>>>>>>> Some of the >>>>>>>>> people told me that life probably evolved from amino acids. >>> However, they >>>>>>>>> were not able to tell me how the amino acids came to be. It was >>> a waste of >>>>>>>>> time. I believe in most of the concepts of evolution that can be >>> proved. >>> >>>>>>>> No you don't. You believe the lies of the anti-science > creationists. >>>>>>> While I was taking a college biology class, the professor done some >>>>>>> experiments that proved some of the aspects of evolution > theory. I had no >>>>>>> problems believing those aspects of evolution theory. I have problems >>>>>>> believing the aspects of evolution theory that can not be proved. >>>>>> What do you mean by 'proved' here? We know that there is evidence that >>>>>> overwhelmingly supports variation over time and speciation. What >>>>>> evidence gathered about evolution are you unwilling to accept and what >>>>>> _scientific_ objection do you have? >>>>>>> I know >>>>>>> that most everyone that is an advocate of creation science also > accepts >>>>>>> the aspects of evolution theory that can be proved. >>>>>> Creation science is a religious doctrine. It is not science. The >>>>>> advocates of 'creation science' and 'intelligent design' never do any >>>>>> science. They lie about science. They reject science. They makes > claims >>>>>> that are contrary to the physical evidence. The only possible form of >>>>>> creationism that could be considered consistent with the physical >>>>>> evidence is theistic evolution since it merely asserts that God, > in some >>>>>> way, has guided the natural processes that have been observed by >>>>>> scientists. >>>>>>> The advocates of >>>>>>> creation science disagree with evolutionists in regard to how > life began >>>>>>> on this planet. >>>>>> Once again, the question about how life began is not a valid > reason for >>>>>> you to object to evolution, which is how life changed over time on >>>>>> earth. >>>>>>> The evolutionists believe that life evolved from non--life >>>>>>> and the advocates of creation science believe that God created > life on >>>>>>> this planet. >>>>>> No. You have this wrong, again. So-called creation scientists like the >>>>>> ICR, CRS and AIG reject evolution, they don't merely assert that God >>>>>> started life and guided it, they refuse to accept that humans share a >>>>>> common ancestry with apes, other mammals, other animals and all other >>>>>> life forms. That is their lie. That is their rejection of science. >>>>>> The question about how life began does not have enough evidence > to make >>>>>> any statements about it, yet there is more evidence for a natural >>>>>> process of life beginning than there is for a God-driven process. Why >>>>>> would you reject the hypothesis that is supported by evidence in favor >>>>>> of a hypothesis that is completely unsupported by evidence, > particularly >>>>>> when those who offer this unsupported hypothesis offer a further >>>>>> hypothesis about the change in life over time that is contrary to the >>>>>> evidence. Creation science is a con job. You have been suckered > by them. >>>>>>> It takes more faith to believe that life evolved from >>>>>>> non-life than to believe that God created life. >>>>>> That is a false and unsupportable claim. You appear to prefer making >>>>>> such claims to learning the facts. >>>>> I disagree that ICR rejects evolution. That is not true. The truth > is that >>>>> they accept the aspects of evolution that CAN be proved. They reject the >>>>> aspects of evoluiton that have NOT been proved. You believe all > aspects of >>>>> evolution theory. We are on different pages related to this issue. The >>>>> main difference is that we believe God created people; lots of > plants and >>>>> lots of animals. It's my theory that evolution kicked shortly after the >>>>> creation process was finished. Darwin agrees with me related to this >>>>> issue. Hard core evolutionists believe that life evolved from non-life. >>>>> They believe that mankind evolved from a one-celled creature. > There is NO >>>>> proof that life evolved from non-life and there is no proof that mankind >>>>> evolved from a one-celled creature. >>>> Darwin's book Descent of Man disagrees with you. Fossil evidence >>>> disagrees with you. Genetic evidence disagrees with you. Comparative >>>> anatomy and comparative psychology disagrees with you. All the >>>> evidence disagrees with you. >>> At least 90 scientists agrees with me and that is enough for me. >> That's 91 people who are wrong. So what? >> >> Martin > > It's important to me. It has been claimed by secular academia that > creationists are not scientists. 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. So name these scientists and their fields of expertise. Then scratch off that list any that are not experts in areas of biology (such as get rid of the physicists, the astronomers, etc.) Then see how many are left. Then compare that tiny hand full with the number of scientists worldwide in those same fields that do NOT agree with you. Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <0p7s53l5lkk24u29ja0qrebt4m0ocliorr@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> They might start out trying to con me into believing them, but they >> would fail and quit. There are a handful of scientists who reject the >> scientific evidence for evolution because of their religious faith, yet >> manage to do science in related areas, but they are not actually doing >> any research to show that 'creation science' is true. They know it is >> not. The rest of your 90 aren't doing anything related to the history of >> life on earth, so their opinions are of very little value. >> >> How much have these liars stolen from you? > > None. They stole your rationality (or did you not have any to begin with?) Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f3a9mp$8pn$4@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f39qln$okd$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <1180158726.338881.255070@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>>>> <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Think of the Earth as one big lifeboat and we don't know if the >>>>>> "rescue" (cooling) will start in years, decades or centuries. By >>>>>> rationing fossil fuels now, we can actually avoid a calamity. We'd >>>>>> also need those fossil fuels later for heating if the Earth started to >>>>>> get cold. Polluting the environment now makes as much sense as >>>>>> throwing an old man overboard: if we ration our supplies then we can >>>>>> all be rescued. >>>>>> >>>>>> Martin >>>>> Martin, >>>>> Think about it---if it is a cycle--the global warming will continue >>>>> regardless of what we do. We can't control the major polluting countries >>>>> of the world like China and India. Those people will not take actions to >>>>> control pollution. They are on the lifeboat and don't care about anyone >>>>> else on the lifeboat. >>>> So if the old man on the lifeboat wants to be splashing water from the >>>> ocean into the lifeboat, you should do likewise simply because you can't >>>> stop him? Shouldn't you at least be doing what you can to bail some >>>> water back OUT of the lifeboat even if he's splashing it back in as fast >>>> as or faster than you can bail it back out? >>> I am the only American in the boat and there are seven people on the boat >>> that do not care about pollution. That guy from China is actually bragging >>> about how much he loves pollution and CO2. They are splashing in the water >>> much faster than I can spash it back out. After several hours, my arms get >>> tired so I stop splashing. I give up. >> That's your problem. You'd just give up rather than try and stop them. > > It's difficult for one person to win the battle against seven people. But you don't want to even try. You don't even try to refrain from doing what they're doing wrong, much less try to stop them. "But, mommy, the other bullies were beating on Suzie and I couldn't stop them so I beat on her as well." The > point is that the only way to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere > is if every country in the world takes major actions to reduce C02. If > America is the only country that does it--the end result is that C02 > levels will continue to rise. But not as fast. The result in America is that our economy > would be placed in jeopardy--if we endorsed the accord. Both Clinton and > Bush realized this and that is the reason they did not endorse the > accords. Countries like China may sign the accord but as you may > know--communist countries don't usually abide by agreements that they have > signed. And if they didn't abide by it, we could enforce various sanctions such as trade embargos, etc. Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 Jason wrote: > No--if I had it to do over, I would have stated that I gave the ministry > the exact amount of money they requested to care for one of the unwed > mothers until she had her baby and that I did not remember the amount of > money that I donated to that ministry. Yes, I realize that if you had to do it all over again, you wouldn't have lied about it since you were caught so easily. Now let's address the fact that you lied to begin with. Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <9ltoi4-ifc.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Sat, 26 May 2007 13:03:36 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >>> It also shows that you don't understand what you read--I clearly stated >>> (see above) that "I was guessing that it was about $300-$400. It may have >>> been more". >> Yet your "guess" shows you're either lying through your teeth, or >> incredibly stupid, as even _you_ should be able to figure out that living >> expenses run considerably higher than $100 per month. >> >> Your "guess" demonstrates, quite adequately, that you are either so stupid >> you believe that $100/month is sufficient, or you were simply lying about >> paying all her expenses. > > You are making assumptions that may or may not be true. The home for unwed > mothers was established by the pastor of a church that has over 2000 > members. It's possible that all of the staff members were volunteers. Then those volunteers "paid" some of her expenses by donating time. It's > possible that most of the food and clothing was donated by church members. Then those members "paid" some of her expenses by donating food. > It's possible that the doctors that delivered the babies were church > members that did not charge the church for their services. Then some of those doctors "paid" some of her expenses by donating medical services. You did NOT pay all of her expenses yourself. You didn't even come anywhere close to doing so. If you are free > to make assumptions, I am also free to make assumptions. But I didn't make any assumptions. The truth is that > I gave the ministry the exact amount of money that they requested. They > were in a much better position to determine how much money was needed than > either you or I. YOU were in a much better position to not lie to begin with when you claimed to have paid ALL her expenses yourself. Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote snip > > No--it does not--I know of at least 90 people that have Ph.D degrees in > various fields of science. They are all advocates of creation science. Oh really? Name them. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-3005072217060001@66-52-22-111.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1fas53hfdrfd84vu4re8vqbj6dim61lhcp@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Wed, 30 May 2007 19:33:01 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in snip > > I have seen no evidence indicating that mankind evolved from living cells. I have seen no evidence indicating that god(s) exist. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest bramble Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 On 31 mayo, 02:33, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <465df23b$0$4718$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, "Christopher > > > > Morris" <Drac...@roadrunner.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-3005071349210001@66-52-22-22.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <1180528020.475090.229...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > >> On 30 Maj, 06:14, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> > In article <1180490913.993436.208...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > >> > Martin > > > >> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> > > On May 30, 10:19 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> > > > In article <1180486688.526020.30...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > > Martin > > >> snip> > > >> > 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. > > > >> What you learned is that you were wrong, that scientists who are known > > >> as advocates of creation science do have their work published in peer- > > >> reviewed articles; so much for your claim of bias. Furthermore none > > >> of the work published provided support for creation science, which > > >> provides you with no evidence of any actual research done in that > > >> area. Based on your above post, however, you learned absolutely > > >> nothing and continue to tell the same lies as before. You are very > > >> strange. > > >> snip > > > > Re-read the article. Bias was discussed in the article. The editors > > > required one of the authors to remove the creation science information > > > that was in the article. Do you honestly believe that the editors would > > > have required another author to remove the evolution information that was > > > in their article. Get real. > > > If the writter presents any information within an article be it the body of > > the work or the conclusion and it is not backed with factual evidence they > > would have to revise the article in order to make it match the facts it > > matters not at all if they advocate creation or evolution. > > It was my impression that the editors of the journal were advocates of > evolution and as a result did not want any of the authors of the articles > to discuss or even mention creation science. If you note the titles of all > of the articles that were mentioned--none of the articles appear to be > related to creation science. It's my guess that many science journals have > articles related to evolution. > Jason there is not trouble for you, creationists, Jason. You can live outside science building your own storyboard of creation. In the long range, if you can convince enough ordinary scientists that god created the Universe, and that Jesus the Christ is the son of god that died in a cross, you had win. But you all beleivers are wasting your precious time pissing us atheists here. We have become atheists, not because of science, for using a primary logic. The only trouble you have with scientists is that most of them are also atheists. I think you can win your case the easiest by throwing out all the regular stories written in the Bible, telling us this is all nonsense, and that this god is an unpresentable god, that smells a lot of crime and hate for humanity. You you have to invent a new sort of religion quite different from those we know. Bramble Quote
Guest bramble Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 On 31 mayo, 02:41, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <465def83$0$9953$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, "Christopher > > > > If the conclusion could not be backed by factual evidence you bet and they > > have done so many times and all the time that is the peer review process. -----------------snipped excess-------------------- > > Do you believe that journal editors should have a > > > bias against authors of articles that are advocates of creation science. > > > Jason > > > They have a bias against poor research not based on factual evidence it is a > > difference. > > We have a difference of opinion. For example, if I wrote an article and > mentioned creation science several times in the article, the journal > editors would probably tell me to rewrite the article and remove all > references to creation science. On the other hand, if you wrote an article > and mentioned evolution several times, I doubt that the ediitors would > tell you to remove all references to evolution. Do you see my point? There > is a bias in favor of evolution and against creation science. The reason > is because the editors and members of the peer review committee are > advocates of evolution. > Jason Of course, Jason. Of course. This magazines are meant to be read by scientist or science lovers. There is a philosophy involved in the contemporary science thinking. And this philosophy is a sort of "natural philosophy", not a "creationist philosophy". Creationist philosophy is a sort of the negation of the way present scientists are thinking. So, these creationist theorists are simply telling the scientists involved in the theory of evolution, "you are wrong. You cannot think that way. Look here, look there. You are wrong." Well unless creationist would not find a better way to explain why they are wrong, they are not going anywhere. Scientists want to find ways to explain nature in a natural way, without any trace of a supernatural force. Bramble Quote
Guest bramble Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 On 31 mayo, 02:08, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Wed, 30 May 2007 18:58:25 -0700, in alt.atheism > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-3005071858250...@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <dt6s53ht46hk6916ggekb1lon0d2qcf...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > >> On Wed, 30 May 2007 18:33:22 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-3005071833220...@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > ... > > >> >If you note the titles of all > >> >of the articles that were mentioned--none of the articles appear to be > >> >related to creation science. It's my guess that many science journals have > >> >articles related to evolution. > > >> That's because evolution is science and 'creation science' is not. > > >The scientists that are advocates of creation science would disagree with you. > > They might start out trying to con me into believing them, but they > would fail and quit. There are a handful of scientists who reject the > scientific evidence for evolution because of their religious faith, yet > manage to do science in related areas, but they are not actually doing > any research to show that 'creation science' is true. They know it is > not. The rest of your 90 aren't doing anything related to the history of > life on earth, so their opinions are of very little value. > > How much have these liars stolen from you? these purported "religious" fake scientists are "The Warriors of Darkness". Bramble Quote
Guest bramble Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 On 31 mayo, 03:40, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 31, 3:35 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > In article <1180514437.317608.17...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On May 30, 2:25 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > I did not download the article but I read it. > > > > Wait. How can you read the article without downloading it to your > > > computer? Do you mean you didn't "print it out"? I didn't either. > > > It isn't necessary. If you had actually read the article you would > > > have been able to answer questions about what you had read. You > > > obviously didn't read the article even though you said you did. > > I meant that I did not save the article or print out the article. I am a > > speed reader. I speed read the article. My memory is not as good as it was > > when I was your age. As the song says, "what a drag it is getting old." > > I have a question for you. While I was in high school, we looked at > > one-celled creatures under microscopes. They were called parameciums and > > amoebae. Do you honestly believe that mankind evolved from a one > > celled-life form? You could never convince me that it could ever happen. > > Incidentally, you said that there was no evidence for either > abiogenesis or human evolution. There is evidence of both. You said > if you were presented evidence then you would become an > "evolutionist". You have been presented the evidence. You now say > that nothing could ever convince you. The conclusion that you've been > lying to us is inescapable. > > Martin Jason said that with evidence he would become an evolutionist. Well, has he any evidence of the existence of god? Has he any evidence of the miracles of Crist? Bramble Quote
Guest stoney Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 On Tue, 29 May 2007 14:55:44 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in alt.atheism >On Mon, 28 May 2007 20:39:26 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote: > - Refer: <q28n535i4ucpco00je1if98bqc7ql9fj8g@4ax.com> >>On 24 May 2007 10:10:12 -0700, John <sawireless2000@yahoo.com> wrote in >>alt.atheism >> >>>On May 8, 3:38 am, Matt Silberstein >>><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>> >> >> >> "proven". Common Descent is as well supported a grand fact as exists >>>> >> >> >> in science. >>> >>>Really says who. >> >>Those with a smidgen of education. >> >>>Who is this person that established that Common >>>Descent is a fact, published where? >> >>Who's powering your iron lung, and why? > >It looks as if it was shut off weeks ago, resulting in brain-death. and the corpse is still twitching. -- Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others. Quote
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.