Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 On Jun 1, 10:01 am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > 1:26. Genesis 2 is a completely different creation story from > a completely different source. Genesis 1 refers to El / Anu, the "creator of the universe", but Genesis 2 refers to Yahweh / Enki, the "creator of man". Both gods are originally from Sumerian tradition, although there may be some influences from Egyptian tradition. (I haven't seen evidence of any, however.) Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 In article <1180665384.990205.44670@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 1, 9:51 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <rfmu5354f5q2vk8e79vq5hvlcaca018...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:59:17 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > <Jason-3105071359170...@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > >In article <f3n78i$u06$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > ><tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > > > >> Jason wrote: > > > >> > In article <f3mjpn$jkv$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > >> > <tokay.gris.b...@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? > > > > The way that the advocates of creation science deal with it is by saying > > that the same God created humans and also created apes. He used some of > > the same sorts of features such as similar tooth patterns. However, humans > > do not share evoluitionary heritage with other organisms such as apes. We > > are unique. Humans can use fire and animals do not use fire. > > Animals can use tools. (Birds build nests. Beavers build dams.) > Animals can use language. (Whales can communicate over long distances > because low pitch sounds can travel farther through water than through > air. Chimpanzees can be taught to use sign language.) Animals can > express feelings. (Cats purr when they are happy. Dogs wag their > tails when they are happy.) Animals can form social groups. (Dogs > form packs. Bees build hives. Ants build colonies.) There is > absolutely no reason to separate humans from other animals. > > Martin Martin, Do wild animals use fire? Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 In article <egvu53t51qd4idp1259l0j184bg8jdvmeb@4ax.com>, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > In alt.atheism On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:30:31 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > (Jason) let us all know that: > > > >I have stated in other posts that the main source of disagreement is in > >relation to abiogenesis and common descent. I have also stated that I > >believe that God created mankind; some animals; some plants and after the > >creation process was finished--that evolution kicked in. Even Darwin > >mentioned the 'Creator" in his famous book. Darwin used these words in the > >last paragraph of chapter 14: > >"...breathed into a few forms or into one..." That appears to me to be > >related to information in the first chapter of Genesis. > > > > Yes or no question: Is Darwin the be-all/end-all of evolution? > > > Don > --- > aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde > Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. > > "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" > Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" He developed the theory of evolution. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 In article <chvu53lvdmv8ta1fcnhq5mmrd9me89or6l@4ax.com>, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > In alt.atheism On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:00:50 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > (Jason) let us all know that: > > >In article <dmmu53hmcmrn2d1vrccfbnad32l5acnl94@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> 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. > > > >Answer this question: > >Has any scientist done an experiment which has indicated that a one-celled > >life form can evolve from non-life? > > Answer this question: is there anything to prevent it from > happening? And please don't say the law of biogenesis, since there's > no such thing. > > Don > --- > aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde > Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. > > "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" > Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" No--but if it happened once--scientists should be able to cause it to happen again. Quote
Guest cactus Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <dcs7i.12702$RX.6014@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>, > bm1@nonespam.com 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. >> >> 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? >> >> 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 it were an invalid conclusion, yes. >> >> Do you believe that journal editors should have a >>> bias against authors of articles that are advocates of creation science. >> Only to the extent that they try to publish bad science. > > Have you considered that it may have been a valid conclusion related to > creation science? If there were, the paper would have been published. The author of the article must have believed his > conclusion was valid--otherwise--he would not have included it in the > original version of the article. I have never understood why creationists do what they do. I'm caught between considering him a deliberate liar and someone so deluded that he should not be allowed to drive. I do not blame the author for being upset > when he was ordered to change the conclusion. No one likes editors. > > Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 In alt.atheism On Thu, 31 May 2007 21:22:47 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <egvu53t51qd4idp1259l0j184bg8jdvmeb@4ax.com>, Don Kresch ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> In alt.atheism On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:30:31 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >> >I have stated in other posts that the main source of disagreement is in >> >relation to abiogenesis and common descent. I have also stated that I >> >believe that God created mankind; some animals; some plants and after the >> >creation process was finished--that evolution kicked in. Even Darwin >> >mentioned the 'Creator" in his famous book. Darwin used these words in the >> >last paragraph of chapter 14: >> >"...breathed into a few forms or into one..." That appears to me to be >> >related to information in the first chapter of Genesis. >> > >> >> Yes or no question: Is Darwin the be-all/end-all of evolution? >> >He developed the theory of evolution. Yes or no question: Is Darwin the be-all/end-all of evolution? I'll keep asking until you give a yes or no answer. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 In alt.atheism On Thu, 31 May 2007 21:25:06 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <chvu53lvdmv8ta1fcnhq5mmrd9me89or6l@4ax.com>, Don Kresch ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> In alt.atheism On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:00:50 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >In article <dmmu53hmcmrn2d1vrccfbnad32l5acnl94@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> 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. >> > >> >Answer this question: >> >Has any scientist done an experiment which has indicated that a one-celled >> >life form can evolve from non-life? >> >> Answer this question: is there anything to prevent it from >> happening? And please don't say the law of biogenesis, since there's >> no such thing. >> >No--but if it happened once--scientists should be able to cause it to >happen again. Not if they don't know the precise conditions. And since the conditions have long since changed, it may not be possible currently. Who knows. Of course, there's still no such thing as the law of biogenesis. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 On 31 Maj, 23:11, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180640688.930970.157...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > gudl...@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. A bias you claim exists, but, for which you have offered no evidece beyond saying it happened. >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.- The point being that you have nothing to base your accusations on. You must have an incredible tolerance for cognitive dissonance. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 On 31 Maj, 23:15, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180640399.836673.240...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 31 Maj, 21:45, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1180627943.271932.200...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > snip > > > > 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.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 On 31 Maj, 23:24, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180640792.590095.319...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@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? Their record in that area is fairly average. They, like other countries, act in what they perceive as their best interest. >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. The two are inseparable. It is hard to run factories under water or to export food that cannot be grown. It is also hard to sell to countries in economic collapse. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 On 31 Maj, 23:35, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180641387.036483.169...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > gudl...@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.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 On 1 Jun., 01:30, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Wed, 30 May 2007 22:17:06 -0700, in alt.atheism > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-3005072217060...@66-52-22-111.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > >In article <1fas53hfdrfd84vu4re8vqbj6dim61l...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > >> On Wed, 30 May 2007 19:33:01 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-3005071933010...@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >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: > > >> ... > > >> >> >> > 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.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 On 1 Jun., 03:51, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <rfmu5354f5q2vk8e79vq5hvlcaca018...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:59:17 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-3105071359170...@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <f3n78i$u06$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > ><tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > > >> > In article <f3mjpn$jkv$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > >> > <tokay.gris.b...@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? > > The way that the advocates of creation science deal with it is by saying > that the same God created humans and also created apes. He used some of > the same sorts of features such as similar tooth patterns. However, humans > do not share evoluitionary heritage with other organisms such as apes. We > are unique. Humans can use fire and animals do not use fire. There are > lots of other differences. The main difference is that humans can have > fellowship with God. In Genesis 2:26 God said: "Let us make man in our > image, according to Our likeness." God did not say anything like that > about animals--including apes. We are unique and a special creation. > jason- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 On Thu, 31 May 2007 23:44:20 -0700, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: - Refer: <1180680260.723362.46850@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> >On 1 Jun., 03:51, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> In article <rfmu5354f5q2vk8e79vq5hvlcaca018...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:59:17 -0700, in alt.atheism >> > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> > <Jason-3105071359170...@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> > >In article <f3n78i$u06$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >> > ><tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: >> >> > >> Jason wrote: >> > >> > In article <f3mjpn$jkv$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >> > >> > <tokay.gris.b...@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? >> >> The way that the advocates of creation science deal with it is by saying >> that the same God created humans and also created apes. He used some of >> the same sorts of features such as similar tooth patterns. However, humans >> do not share evoluitionary heritage with other organisms such as apes. We >> are unique. Humans can use fire and animals do not use fire. There are >> lots of other differences. The main difference is that humans can have >> fellowship with God. In Genesis 2:26 God said: "Let us make man in our >> image, according to Our likeness." God did not say anything like that >> about animals--including apes. We are unique and a special creation. >> jason- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 On Jun 1, 12:19 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180665384.990205.44...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 1, 9:51 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <rfmu5354f5q2vk8e79vq5hvlcaca018...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:59:17 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > > <Jason-3105071359170...@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > >In article <f3n78i$u06$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > > ><tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > > > >> Jason wrote: > > > > >> > In article <f3mjpn$jkv$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > > >> > <tokay.gris.b...@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? > > > > The way that the advocates of creation science deal with it is by saying > > > that the same God created humans and also created apes. He used some of > > > the same sorts of features such as similar tooth patterns. However, humans > > > do not share evoluitionary heritage with other organisms such as apes. We > > > are unique. Humans can use fire and animals do not use fire. > > > Animals can use tools. (Birds build nests. Beavers build dams.) > > Animals can use language. (Whales can communicate over long distances > > because low pitch sounds can travel farther through water than through > > air. Chimpanzees can be taught to use sign language.) Animals can > > express feelings. (Cats purr when they are happy. Dogs wag their > > tails when they are happy.) Animals can form social groups. (Dogs > > form packs. Bees build hives. Ants build colonies.) There is > > absolutely no reason to separate humans from other animals. > Do wild animals use fire? To do what? Animals don't have to cook their food and their fur keeps them warm. Plenty of animals sleep in caves or dig holes under ground. One could argue then that animals, like humans, also build homes. Admit it, Jason, your arguments are spurious at best. Martin Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 On 1 Jun., 12:04, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: > On Thu, 31 May 2007 23:44:20 -0700, gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > - Refer: <1180680260.723362.46...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> > > > > > > >On 1 Jun., 03:51, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> In article <rfmu5354f5q2vk8e79vq5hvlcaca018...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > >> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:59:17 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> > <Jason-3105071359170...@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> > >In article <f3n78i$u06$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > >> > ><tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > >> > >> Jason wrote: > >> > >> > In article <f3mjpn$jkv$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > >> > >> > <tokay.gris.b...@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? > > >> The way that the advocates of creation science deal with it is by saying > >> that the same God created humans and also created apes. He used some of > >> the same sorts of features such as similar tooth patterns. However, humans > >> do not share evoluitionary heritage with other organisms such as apes. We > >> are unique. Humans can use fire and animals do not use fire. There are > >> lots of other differences. The main difference is that humans can have > >> fellowship with God. In Genesis 2:26 God said: "Let us make man in our > >> image, according to Our likeness." God did not say anything like that > >> about animals--including apes. We are unique and a special creation. > >> jason- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 On 1 Jun., 12:26, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 1, 12:19 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > In article <1180665384.990205.44...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 1, 9:51 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <rfmu5354f5q2vk8e79vq5hvlcaca018...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:59:17 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > > > <Jason-3105071359170...@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > > >In article <f3n78i$u06$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > > > ><tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > > > > >> Jason wrote: > > > > > >> > In article <f3mjpn$jkv$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > > > >> > <tokay.gris.b...@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? > > > > > The way that the advocates of creation science deal with it is by saying > > > > that the same God created humans and also created apes. He used some of > > > > the same sorts of features such as similar tooth patterns. However, humans > > > > do not share evoluitionary heritage with other organisms such as apes. We > > > > are unique. Humans can use fire and animals do not use fire. > > > > Animals can use tools. (Birds build nests. Beavers build dams.) > > > Animals can use language. (Whales can communicate over long distances > > > because low pitch sounds can travel farther through water than through > > > air. Chimpanzees can be taught to use sign language.) Animals can > > > express feelings. (Cats purr when they are happy. Dogs wag their > > > tails when they are happy.) Animals can form social groups. (Dogs > > > form packs. Bees build hives. Ants build colonies.) There is > > > absolutely no reason to separate humans from other animals. > > Do wild animals use fire? > > To do what? Animals don't have to cook their food and their fur keeps > them warm. Plenty of animals sleep in caves or dig holes under > ground. One could argue then that animals, like humans, also build > homes. > > Admit it, Jason, your arguments are spurious at best. > > Martin- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest James Burns Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <465F44A7.9020708@osu.edu>, James Burns > <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote: > >>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 > > > Jim, > Let's say that you took a one-celled life form and placed it > in a special environment similar to the primordial pond. How > long do you think is would take for humans to evolve from > that one celled life form? I don't even understand why you're asking these questions. You said you didn't believe it could /ever/ happen. Why do you care how long it would take? So, yes, it took billions of years for us to evolve from a single-celled lifeform. And there is no guarantee that anything that looked like humans would evolve if we could "rewind the tape" of history and play it again. Also, billions of years is a long, long time; we probably aren't able to imagine how long, even if we can deal with it mathematically. All of this is fascinating. But what was your /point/? > There are one celled > life creatures such as parameciums and amoebae that have never > even evolved into multi-celled creatures. Again, what is your point? The paramecia and amoebae have a different history. Why should it be the same history? Your history is different from every other human being. Can I prove that you cannot be sitting at a computer reading my post by pointing at all the other humans that are doing something else? Jim Burns Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-3105071331110001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1180607019.955565.27480@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> On 31 Maj, 07:17, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1fas53hfdrfd84vu4re8vqbj6dim61l...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > > On Wed, 30 May 2007 19:33:01 -0700, in alt.atheism >> > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> > > <Jason-3005071933010...@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> > > >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: >> > >> > > ... >> > >> > > >> >> > 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 >> > > >> >> re= >> alize >> > > >> >> that blows your idea of a fantasy spirit god (creation science) >> > > >> >> o= >> ut of >> > > >> >> the water. >> > >> > > >> >No--it does not--I know of at least 90 people that have Ph.D >> > > >> >degree= >> s in >> > > >> >various fields of science. They are all advocates of creation >> > > >> >scien= >> ce. >> > >> > > >> 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 >> > > >> ignora= >> nt >> > > >> 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= >> .- 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. Prove there was a "creation process". -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >> >Answer this question: >> >Has any scientist done an experiment which has indicated that a one-celled >> >life form can evolve from non-life? >> .... > >No--but if it happened once--scientists should be able to cause it to >happen again. So your disbelief has to be provisional. Quote
Guest bramble Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 On 31 mayo, 20:45, 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.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 > > Bramble, > Evolutionists that are atheists are in control and are now making the > rules. We are fighting an uphill battle. > Jason That means, you have to write your own magazines and make your own creationist science. It is the same case, if we, atheists, wanted to write in religious or creationist magazines. Unless I was total stupid making a ridiculous case of atheism, you would not print it in your journals. You had a time in which you were ruling the world, making laws to burn witches, or sodomites, burning a fire mark in the forehead of blasphems and so on. Till no so far ago, you were putting in prison the sodomites, and the whores, and so on. I remember a RCC orphanage in which I spent 9 years with indelible horror. All the boys that were prisoners there, had such a revulsion of religion that they all become matter of fact atheists; even if most of them had not the philosophical mind needed to reason why. There are two sides in this war. On side are the Forces of Darkeness and Evil, called religious people and Christians. On the other side are camping the Forces of the Light and the Goodness. This side is when I am. Bramble Quote
Guest bramble Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 On 31 mayo, 20:53, 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. 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. > Jason No need to reject that. A crationist is not a scientist, but a sort of flat earther. Bramble Quote
Guest Fred Stone Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in news:Jason-0106071050210001@66-52-22-14.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net: > 10 Questions for Evolutionists > > > > 1. When the "Big Bang" (big bunk!) supposedly began the universe - > what banged? Nothing. > Where did that first piece of matter come from, if not God? Nowhere. > Where did the energy come from that caused the bang? The total energy of the Universe is zero. > Where did the space come from that the bang expanded into? The bang didn't expand into anything. Space IS everything that there is. > 2. How did legs evolve into wings without first being part leg and > part > wing, which would be inferior for locomotion to either fully > implemented? Wouldn't this make extinction more likely as the creature > would have a harder time getting food and evading predators? (The same > question can be asked of scales and feathers, or gills and lungs, and > other organs). Bipedalism evolved first. > 3. Which evolved first, plants, or the insects that pollinate them? Non-insect pollinated plants evolved before insects did. > 4. Which came first, the DNA message, the RNA carrier, or the > protein, > when producing each of them requires the others to already be there? RNA does not require DNA or protein. > 5. Why would the amoeba even bother to evolve into "advanced" > creatures > like the dodo and dinosaurs that went extinct, when the amoeba is > still around? Why are your cousins still around since you were born? > 6. How did life learn to reproduce itself, or even know there was a > need to? How did rocks learn to fall off of cliffs? > 7. With whom did the first cell capable of reproduction > mate? Asexual reproduction came before sexual reproduction. > 8. Why would anything naturally reproduce when it would only > create competition for food, environment, resources, and a need to > provide and work for them? When it began there was an abundance of food, environment and resources to be had. > 9. Which came first, the digestive system, the food to be digested, > the knowledge of the need for food, the ability to find food, to know > what food is, what to consume and how to consume it, the digestive > juices, or the body's ability to resist being destroyed by the same > acids that digest food? The food came first. The primitive digestive system is nothing more than an ability to assimilate whatever food happens to bump into the proper receptor. Digestive juices are much later. > 10. How did whales know to be purposely born breach (upside down) so > as not to drown during birth? Mammals are born headfirst (except > partial-birth abortions, where they are turned around on purpose so > they can be killed by having their brains sucked out). Did all the > baby whales drown until evolution figured out that they couldn't be > born like other mammals? Remember, they had less than a generation to > make the evolutionary correction, one generation of drowning whales > would've caused extinction. There would have been lots of generations of mammals that took to the sea before one of them managed to give birth there successfully. Sea lions and seals still come to shore to give birth, after all. > These ought to be a challenge for most > evolutionists who can't usually explain "which came first, the chicken > or the egg?" > Not such a challenge at all. -- Fred Stone aa# 1369 "When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that seemed like posturing." -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest bramble Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 On 31 mayo, 21:21, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f3mkof$hbv$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <1180589009.623007.230...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > Phipps <martinphip...@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 > > My point was that the so called founder of evolution theory was a > Christian at least during some years of his life. I only read the last > chapter of his book and it was apparent that he had an excellent > understanding of the book of Genesis. He mentioned the term "creator" > several different times. I am more in agreement with Darwin than I am with > Evolutionists that believe that mankind evolved from a one celled life > form. It's my opinion that Darwin did NOT believe that. I read the last > paragraph three times and it was difficult to understand the point that he > was making. However, he did use these words in that sentence: > "...having been originally BREATHED INTO A FEW FORMS OR INTO ONE." That > appeared to me to be related to God breathing life into people. That is > very different than believing that mankind evolved from a one celled life > form. > Jason Of course, Jason. He was living in a Christian world. He had to tread very carefully as not to have problems. That is why, he let in his first book the man outside of the picture. It was a time in which there was a certain degree of freedom. If Darwin had lived a hundred years earlier, he could have dared to write this book. So in spite of being the author of the book, Origins of species, he had to behave as any other high class gentleman of his time, going to church on sundays. In any case, only a few of the gentlemen had knowledge of this book; most of the gentlemen of that time were virtually illiterate. The only papers they understood more or less were the account sheets of earnings and expenses of their states. So, only the people involved in reading books and argue with other academics and philosophers were aware of the existence of this book. So, you are now making a lot noise about nothing. It recalled me of RCC bishops defaming "The Da Vince Code" novel. The more they talk about this book, the most people buy it. Bramble Quote
Guest bramble Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 On 31 mayo, 21:31, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180607019.955565.27...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > > 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. Jason, Jason, my dear. If any god wanted to create humans beings, he created a too excessive Universe for such a trifle as some million human beings. If he wanted to make us happy, he did too many errors, to achieve such an aim. If he wanted to make us at his own image, a perfect animal machine, he made rather imperfect, for an almighty god. If he is benevolent he is not almighty, and not omnisciente. If god were omnisciente, he would had not created the man in any case. You are in a philosophical cule-de-sack, Jason. You are trapped and you know it. Bramble 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.