Guest Jason Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 In article <f3mk7m$jkv$00$5@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > 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?" No-- I believe that God created mankind; some plants; some animals and that evolution took over after the creation process was finished. Darwin used the term "creator" in his book to refer to God. He used these words in the last paragraph of chapter 14 "...having been originally breathed into a few or into one..." That appears to me to be related to the first chapter of Genesis. Jason > > > ;-) > > > Tokay Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 In article <f3mje8$opr$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f3abu2$be9$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <f3a9gk$8pn$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I.e. that law about killing is NOT an absolute? There ARE cases when > >>>> killing is allowed? There ARE times, such as when you kill the person > >>>> right before he pushes the button that would blow up the school full of > >>>> kids, when killing another person is OK? Well, I'll be damned. Sounds > >>>> like "situational ethics" to me. > >>> Yes, but that is different from brainwashing children to become suicide > >>> bombers or to become advocates of euthanasia. I understand your point. I > >>> have no problem with teaching children to care about people. Can you > >>> understand that situational ethics classes could be used to brainwash > >>> children to believe in almost anything such as abortion and euthanasia. > >> I never said they couldn't be. But the same could be said for classes on > >> religion. ANYTHING could be used to "brainwash children." > > > > That is true. In addition, and atheist parents or teachers could brainwash > > children into becoming atheist. > > And theist parents or teachers could brainwash children into becoming > theist. > > High Scoool and College Biology professors > > could brainwash students into believing that life can evolve from non-life > > despite the lack of proof that it happened. > > How many times do you have to be told that "life does not evolve from > non-life." Evolution deals with the changes in life and NOT how it > formed to begin with. > > Now are you going to lie yet again about "life evolving from non-life"? My college biology professor taught us the primordial soup concept. He told us that the first living cells evolved in the primordial soup. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 In article <f3ml0u$qtv$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <rlrh5395kqg7dlt21rumfrodta0cdq7h86@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 26 May 2007 18:57:12 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-2605071857120001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >>> In article <f3abu2$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. However, some things can be duplicated in a lab. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 In article <1180640246.126221.144270@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > On 31 Maj, 21:42, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1180605964.134247.111...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > On 31 Maj, 03:33, 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.c= > > > om>, > > > > > > Martin > > > > > >> snip> > > > > > >> > Martin, > > > > > >> > Someone else challenged me to find proof that there was a bias aga= > > > inst > > > > > >> > the > > > > > >> > advocates of creation science that submit articles to journals. I > > > > > >> > googled > > > > > >> > "rejected creation science articles". I found this article and lea= > > > rned > > > > > >> > some things I did not know. I hope that you will also learn some t= > > > hings > > > > > >> > that you did not know related to bias. > > > > > > > >> What you learned is that you were wrong, that scientists who are kno= > > > wn > > > > > >> as advocates of creation science do have their work published in pee= > > > r- > > > > > >> 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 wou= > > > ld > > > > > > 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 bod= > > > y of > > > > > the work or the conclusion and it is not backed with factual evidence t= > > > hey > > > > > 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. > > > > > Only those that fulfill the requirements of scientific research. > > > Submit an article advocating creation science that does the same, and > > > it will be printed. So far that has not happened. You can call that > > > bias if you like, but you are the one showing bias. > > > > I disagree. Due to the bias, the editors and members of the peer review > > committee would either not print the article in the journal or order me to > > re-write it and take out the creation science material. > > You have no way of knowing that - except projection. > > They actully > > ordered an author to remove the creation science material from one of his > > articles. > > So you say, but you are a well-known liar. > > In many cases, it's probably a judgement call related to whether > > or not an article fulfills the requirements of scientific research. If the > > people that are making the judgements are all advocates of evolution, it's > > easy to guess the results of the judgement calls. > > > > And guesses are all you have, besides your rather silly lies. Did you read the article? Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 In article <f3n78i$u06$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f3mjpn$jkv$00$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > > > >> 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 > > > > They have written books. They are probably advertised at the ICR website. > > I know they advertise the books in their newsletters. > > > > > > I can state the basics about evolution in one sentence. If you believe > that to be false you must have other evidence. > > Since none of you could so far even show a hint for your hypothesis, I > am not interested in buying a book that most likely will be nothing more > but the same errors that have been discarded countless times. See above. > > Tokay I'll try to summarize it in one sentence but if you need the details, you will have to visit the ICR website and order one of the books. example: "Creation and Change" by D.F. Kelly (272 pages) This is a brief summary: God created mankind; some plants; some animals;--After the creation process was finished, evolution kicked in. Darwin mentioned the "creator" in his famous book. Json Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 In article <1180640688.930970.157300@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > On 31 Maj, 21:53, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1180606898.110830.85...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > On 31 Maj, 07:11, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <1180580100.479603.269...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@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 le= > > > arned > > > > > > > > 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 kn= > > > own > > > > > > > as advocates of creation science do have their work published in pe= > > > er- > > > > > > > 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 wou= > > > ld > > > > > > 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? > > > > > They are on record as being biased, furthermore, and more importantly, > > > their newsletter is not a peer-reviewed journal. > > > > > > Jason- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > > Now, you should see my point--the editors and members of the peer review > > committees are on record as being biased. > > No, they are not Jason. The editors of the news letter work for an > organisation founded to advocate creation science, i.e. they are on > record as being biased. > > > Even the members of peer review > > committees are also biased. One of the editors (mentioned in the article) > > actually indicated that she rejected for publicatian any letters that were > > written by advocates of creation science. That is a clear cut case of > > bias. > > It's normal for the advocates of evolution to have a bias against anyone > > that is an advocate of creation science. I once heard a college professor > > state that advocates of creation science were similar to the flat > > earthers. > > > > Yes, that is true; they are. Flat Earthers would have a very > difficult time publishing in a peer-reviewed journal, and, according > to your logic (chortle!) that would prove the journals were biased. It's easy for victims of bias to recognize it. For example, the author that was told that he had to alter the conclusion to remove creation science--it was VERY easy for him to recognize the bias. I doubt that the editor or the members of the peer review committee even realized that they were displaying bias. You made a good point. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 In article <1180640399.836673.240350@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > On 31 Maj, 21:45, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1180627943.271932.200...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > > > bramble <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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.c= > om>, > > > > > >> > 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, whi= > ch > > > > > >> 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 v= > ery > > > > > >> strange. > > > > > >> snip > > > > > > > > Re-read the article. Bias was discussed in the article. The edito= > rs > > > > > > required one of the authors to remove the creation science inform= > ation > > > > > > 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 eviden= > ce they > > > > > would have to revise the article in order to make it match the fact= > s 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 arti= > cles > > > > to discuss or even mention creation science. If you note the titles o= > f 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 > > > > Bramble, > > Evolutionists that are atheists are in control and are now making the > > rules. We are fighting an uphill battle. > > Fighting against reality can be difficult. > > > Jason- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - Fighting against the establishment can be dfficult. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 In article <1180640792.590095.319080@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > On 31 Maj, 21:57, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <f3mn38$t1...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > Jason wrote: > > > > In article <f3a9mp$8p...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Jason wrote: > > > >>> In article <f39qln$ok...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > >>> <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > > > >>>> Jason wrote: > > > >>>>> In article > > > > <1180158726.338881.255...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <phippsmar...@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. W= > e'd > > > >>>>>> also need those fossil fuels later for heating if the Earth star= > ted 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 contin= > ue > > > >>>>> regardless of what we do. We can't control the major polluting co= > untries > > > >>>>> of the world like China and India. Those people will not take act= > ions 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 a= > s 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 th= > e boat > > > >>> that do not care about pollution. That guy from China is actually b= > ragging > > > >>> about how much he loves pollution and CO2. They are splashing in th= > e water > > > >>> much faster than I can spash it back out. After several hours, my a= > rms get > > > >>> tired so I stop splashing. I give up. > > > >> That's your problem. You'd just give up rather than try and stop the= > m=2E > > > > > > 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 atmosph= > ere > > > > 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. > > > > That would start trade wars. We had some trade wars in the history of > > America and the end result was harm to our economy.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8= > rselstegn - > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > Having large parts of the Earth flooded or turned into wasteland might > have some negative effect too. If the primary cause of global warming is because it is a natural cycle, regardless of what we do--it will still happen--until the cycle changes. Do you believe that communist countries like China will honor any agreements they have signed or will sign? I seen a color picture in National Geographic magazine of factories in China. Heavy clouds of BLACK smoke was coming out of those smoke stacks. Their leaders may say they care about global warming but in reality they care about making money. jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 In article <1180641519.163541.196840@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > On 31 Maj, 22:00, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <f3mnk7$t1...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > Jason wrote: > > > > In article <9ltoi4-ifc....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > > > <kbjarna...@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 st= > ated > > > >>> (see above) that "I was guessing that it was about $300-$400. It ma= > y 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 l= > iving > > > >> 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 mem= > bers. > > > > > 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. Th= > ey > > > > 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. > > > > Yes, I should have stated that I paid all of the expenses that the > > ministry asked me to pay. I made the mistake of assumming that I paid all > > of her expenses but in reality, I paid a portion of the expenses that were > > needed to care for her until her baby was placed for adoption.- Skjul tek= > st i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > Just drop it Jason. We all know you lied. Personally I think, based > on your past performance, you made the entire thing up. If it will make you feel better about yourself to believe that I intentionally told a lie--than believe whatever you choose to believe. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 In article <1180641387.036483.169950@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > On 31 Maj, 22:31, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1180607019.955565.27...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > On 31 Maj, 07:17, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <1fas53hfdrfd84vu4re8vqbj6dim61l...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > snip > > > > > I have seen no evidence indicating that mankind evolved from living cells= > > > .- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > > > You have never seen a human? > > > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > > When you see a human, you think that the human evolved from a living cell. > > When I see a human, I think that God created mankind; some plants and some > > animals. After the creation process was finished--evolution kicked in.- > > I see. When you said you accepted evolution you were lying - how very > surprising! Re-read my statement--I stated: "After the creation process was finished--EVOLUTION kicked in". I have stated in other posts that the main area of disagreement is with abiogenesis and common descent. Quote
Guest James Burns Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 Jason wrote: [to Martin Phipps] > 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. Why is this so hard to imagine? Every individual human starts life as a single-celled lifeforms: a fertilized ovum. (I don't intend this as a scientific proof, just a "Wake up and smell the coffee" smack in the head. The evidence for common descent is much better than this.) Jim Burns Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 James Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> said: >Jason wrote: > >[to Martin Phipps] >> 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. > >Why is this so hard to imagine? Every individual human starts >life as a single-celled lifeforms: a fertilized ovum. > >(I don't intend this as a scientific proof, just a >"Wake up and smell the coffee" smack in the head. >The evidence for common descent is much better than this.) > >Jim Burns The usual reason behind "you could never convince me" is the argument from incredulity, as described at: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:02:30 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3105071302300001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <f3mjpn$jkv$00$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris ><tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> 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 > >They have written books. They are probably advertised at the ICR website. >I know they advertise the books in their newsletters. So what? Scientists write books as a sideline. They present their actual research in scientific journals. Tell us what scientific journals they published in. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:59:17 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3105071359170001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <f3n78i$u06$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris ><tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <f3mjpn$jkv$00$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >> > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: .... >> >> 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 >> > >> > They have written books. They are probably advertised at the ICR website. >> > I know they advertise the books in their newsletters. >> > >> > >> >> I can state the basics about evolution in one sentence. If you believe >> that to be false you must have other evidence. >> >> Since none of you could so far even show a hint for your hypothesis, I >> am not interested in buying a book that most likely will be nothing more >> but the same errors that have been discarded countless times. See above. >> >> Tokay > >I'll try to summarize it in one sentence but if you need the details, you >will have to visit the ICR website and order one of the books. example: >"Creation and Change" by D.F. Kelly (272 pages) > >This is a brief summary: >God created mankind; some plants; some animals;--After the creation >process was finished, evolution kicked in. >Darwin mentioned the "creator" in his famous book. >Json There is no evidence that any gods exist. That means that your claim is not scientific. There is also evidence that your doctrine did not take into account. One of the claims of the anti-science creationists is that humans do not share evolutionary heritage with other organisms. The evidence disagrees with that claim. How do you deal with this evidence? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 On Wed, 30 May 2007 22:17:06 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <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 >> <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. > Jason, admit it, you've never looked at any evidence. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 On Thu, 31 May 2007 11:17:06 -0400, in alt.atheism "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in <5c876rF2vdjujU1@mid.individual.net>: > >"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. Don't be wimpy like Jason. He's just admitting total ignorance. Jason, there is absolutely no evidence that any gods exist. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 On Thu, 31 May 2007 14:35:46 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3105071435460001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1180641387.036483.169950@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> On 31 Maj, 22:31, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1180607019.955565.27...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >> > > On 31 Maj, 07:17, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > > In article <1fas53hfdrfd84vu4re8vqbj6dim61l...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> snip >> >> > > > I have seen no evidence indicating that mankind evolved from >living cells= >> > > .- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >> > >> > > You have never seen a human? >> > >> > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >> > >> > When you see a human, you think that the human evolved from a living cell. >> > When I see a human, I think that God created mankind; some plants and some >> > animals. After the creation process was finished--evolution kicked in.- >> >> I see. When you said you accepted evolution you were lying - how very >> surprising! > >Re-read my statement--I stated: "After the creation process was >finished--EVOLUTION kicked in". I have stated in other posts that the main >area of disagreement is with abiogenesis and common descent. > Because you refuse to actually look at the evidence that shows that your story is totally bogus. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 On Wed, 30 May 2007 22:29:22 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3005072229220001@66-52-22-111.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1180580853.524170.81300@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 31, 10:33 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <a57s539daat6ed7ur8fecr7s2g90tfs...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > > On Wed, 30 May 2007 18:46:59 -0700, in alt.atheism >> > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> > > <Jason-3005071846590...@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> > > >In article <WZKdnd2en990icPbnZ2dnUVZ_t_in...@comcast.com>, AT1 >> > > ><notyourbusin...@godblows.net> wrote: >> > >> > > >> Jason wrote: >> > > >> > In article <1180513708.967942.322...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, >> > Martin >> > > >> > Phipps <martinphip...@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. >> >> ie all of it. >> >> Martin > >I disagree. When I learned about the primordial pond in 1971, one of the >students asked the professor a very important question. The question was: >"Is there any evidence indicating that the first living cells evolved in >the primordial pond?" The professor stated, "No, just accept it." > >I have no reason to accept it without evidence. I have no reason to accept your story without evidence. You have demonstrated a religious bias against evidence, honesty or knowledge. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 On Thu, 31 May 2007 00:41:12 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3105070041120001@66-52-22-17.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1180588130.684307.78270@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: .... >> I don't give a rat's ass anymore. You've admitted to being closed >> minded. Just because you are closed minded doesn't mean scientists >> are. You have denied time and time again that there is any evidence >> supporting evolution or abiogenesis. We show you the evidence and yet >> you continue deny that it exists. That constitutes lying. The onus >> is on you to prove that anything supernatural exists, let alone your >> god, and then further prove that your god had anything whatsover with >> the existance of any living thing whatsoever, let alone mankind. You >> have NO evidence at all. You haven't even tried to present any: all >> you've done is reject the evidence presented to you by us while all >> the while claiming that there is a bias against creationism. You've >> already told us that nothing will change your mind. What could be >> more biased than that? Please don't lecture others about bias: it's >> pure hypocrisy when you do that. >> >> Martin > >Martin, >I have suggested several books for you to read but I doubt that you have >read them. The evidence that I have is in those books. I have referred you >to the ICR website and I doubt that you visited it. You are correct, I >will not change my mind until I have concrete evidence that causes me to >change my mind. The ICR is a religious conspiracy of liars. You refuse to accept that fundamental fact. There is no reason for any Christian to be misled by any of the lies that the ICR teaches. The ICR is wrong and you have been misled by accepting the lies they tell. Sadly, you repeat their lies and refuse to learn why the ICR is dishonest. They may not have stolen money from you, but they have taken your integrity. -- "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 On Wed, 30 May 2007 22:55:08 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3005072255080001@66-52-22-111.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1180579251.037007.263540@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@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 > >I have not seen the evidence. I thought about the amoebas and various >other one celled creatures we looked at under microscopes when I was in >high school. I was fascinated by those one celled creatures. After reading >one of your interesting posts, I thought about the possibility of mankind >evolving from a one celled life form. I have seen no evidence indicating >that it happened that way. It would take billions and billions of years >and still might not happen. One celled creatures like amoebas have been on >this earth for millions of years, I have not seen evidence indicating that >they have evolved into multi-celled life forms. It appears to me that if >they have not evolved in several million years, why would I believe that >other one celled life forms evolved into mankind during those several >million years. Just because you believe it happened, don't expect me to >believe it. Even Darwin--I think that it's in the last chapter of his >famous book--believed that God created plants and animals and then that >evolution took over. That's much easier for me to believe than to believe >that mankind evolved from a one celled life form. >jason Since you have made it clear that you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to evolution, who are you to defame scientists? Did your god tell you that you must lie to go to heaven? Did you get bribed by the ICR to sell their lies? What is it that persuades you to repeat lies even though you have no idea what the lies are about or why you are telling them? You mock your god. -- "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 On Thu, 31 May 2007 00:33:15 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3105070033150001@66-52-22-17.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1180588981.121184.229710@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 31, 1:55 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1180579251.037007.263...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, 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. >> >> > I have not seen the evidence. I thought about the amoebas and various >> > other one celled creatures we looked at under microscopes when I was in >> > high school. I was fascinated by those one celled creatures. After reading >> > one of your interesting posts, I thought about the possibility of mankind >> > evolving from a one celled life form. I have seen no evidence indicating >> > that it happened that way. It would take billions and billions of years >> > and still might not happen. One celled creatures like amoebas have been on >> > this earth for millions of years, I have not seen evidence indicating that >> > they have evolved into multi-celled life forms. It appears to me that if >> > they have not evolved in several million years, why would I believe that >> > other one celled life forms evolved into mankind during those several >> > million years. Just because you believe it happened, don't expect me to >> > believe it. >> >> You don't have to believe anything but you should stop LYING, saying >> that no evidence supporting evolution exists. The genetic code in >> mankind is the same found in monkeys, birds, lizards, fish, frogs, >> insects, plants, etc. and, yes, even in single celled creatures. An >> animal cell is an animal cell is an animal cell and even that can be >> shown to have developed from ordinary bacteria through viral >> eukaryogenesis and endosymbiosis. >> >> When a mountain of evidence supports a theory, faith is not required. >> When absolutely NO evidence supports a hypotheisis, a great deal of >> faith is required to believe it. You are the one who requires faith, >> not us. Don't lecture us on believing anything without evidence: it >> is pure hypocrisy on your part. >> >> Martin > >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. You haven't read those books so you don't know what they really say. >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. You are a victim of lies from an organization that claims to be Christian but is most involved in getting Christians to give them money. -- "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 31, 2007 Posted May 31, 2007 On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:41:51 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3105071341520001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <f3ml0u$qtv$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <rlrh5395kqg7dlt21rumfrodta0cdq7h86@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Sat, 26 May 2007 18:57:12 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-2605071857120001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >>> In article <f3abu2$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. > >However, some things can be duplicated in a lab. > But you've already admitted today that you have no idea when. If your god were real, he would be really pissed at the lies you are telling about him. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 On Thu, 31 May 2007 16:07:41 +0200, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: - Refer: <f3ml66$iha$01$2@news.t-online.com> >Masked Avenger wrote: >> Jason wrote: >> >> < snip > >> >>> >>> Martin, >>> There are at least 90 people that know just as much about science as you >>> know. At least 40 of them have Ph.D degrees in various fields of science. >> >> and there are thousands ........ tens of thousands ....... of Scientists >> who say those '90' are wrong ! ....... >> you are supporting a minuscule mob of 'faith' based crackpots ...... and >> apparently proud of it ...... >> >> idiot ... >> >>> They probably have seen the same evidence that you have seen. They >>> continue to be advocates of creationism. I will continue to be an >>> advocate >>> of creationism until I am 100 percent sure that you are correct and that >>> those 90 people are wrong. >>> jason >> >> >> the majority says YOU are wrong ......... I say you are a dangerous >> lunatic ..... >> > >Be careful. Argument by numbers is dangerous. I agree, of course. But >the reason is not that so many think that way. I agree. It would not matter if there were 90,000 or 90 million. They would still have zero evidence for their delusions. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:51:58 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: - Refer: <f3mnef$t1o$2@news04.infoave.net> >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. Ooh look! A birdie! (I offer that as a potential distraction/red herring for Jason to use, as he appears to be recycling his stock of lies.) -- Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 [snips] On Thu, 31 May 2007 14:32:31 -0700, Jason wrote: > If it will make you feel better about yourself to believe that I > intentionally told a lie--than believe whatever you choose to believe. The alternative is to conclude you're so abysmally stupid you could actually believe $400 would pay all her expenses for the timeframe involve. So, do you prefer we think of you as a liar, or simply as retarded? -- Sorry, not my table. - Fredric Rice 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.