Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1180715154.425005.80810@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, bramble > <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 > > Bramble, > Sorry that you had such a bad experience in the orphanage. > Please answer the questions that I found when I googled "10 questions for > evolutionists" > > 10 Questions for Evolutionists Home [snip] You googled it and didn't come up with these questions yourself, so I can do the same. Read a science book. All in there. I don't care which one, as long as it is a SCIENCE book. Mostly biology, some physics, some astrophysics. I am not going to waste time here typing this AGAIN! You won't read it anyway. Tokay -- In case of atomic attack, the federal ruling against prayer in schools will be temporarily canceled. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 On 1 Jun., 19:25, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <v8bv53p0hl0lhao6igf98vtvf50c5dj...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > > > > > > <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > In alt.atheism On Thu, 31 May 2007 21:22:47 -0700, J...@nospam.com > > (Jason) let us all know that: > > > >In article <egvu53t51qd4idp1259l0j184bg8jdv...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > > ><ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > > >> In alt.atheism On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:30:31 -0700, J...@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" > > No--however, he was the founder of evolution theory.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 On 1 Jun., 19:29, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180693578.732681.27...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, 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 > > Martin, > Admit it, Martin, your arguments do not make sense. The truth is that > mankind is very unique. Even children know that mankind is vastly > different than animals. Except those who are educated and are not idiots. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f3ppnd$4ng$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> 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: >>>>> 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. >> "f [the sun's forming] happened once--scientists should be able to >> cause it to happen again [should be able to make another sun.]" >> >> Once you figure out what's wrong with the above statement, you'll begin >> to realize what's wrong with yours. > > I fully realize your point but you still have not realized my point. You > believe this (eg solar system, earth, sun, earth, life, mankind, etc) > happened by chance. NO DAMNIT! Chance has nothing to DO with it! AGAIN! Natural Laws! If you talk about chance you have not even begun to understand this debate! > > My point is that it DID NOT happen by chance. There was a designer and a > creator that caused it to happen the way that it did happen. "Goddidit". Great. Then what? I would ask for evidence, even a shred, but this is useless. You haven't any. Period. Evolution was > even part of the master plan. When God created mankind, plants and > animals--he created within those plants and animals (and even mankind) the > ability to adapt and change to various types of environment. Darwin used > this name for God--"creator". > Great. "Goddidit". Thats the "God of the gaps". Getting smaller every day. Do you even have s shred of evidence for this claim? I mean yourself? Not a link to some ID-nonsense homepage? Ah, never mind. You don't. Why did I even ask? Tokay -- In case of atomic attack, the federal ruling against prayer in schools will be temporarily canceled. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1180717090.777257.145820@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > bramble <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 > > Bramble, > You need to re-read the first chapter of the book of Genesis. Adam and Eve > were perfect and they were made in the image of God. They lost that > perfection after they sinned. You may not realize it, but you are the one > that is trapped. When are you going to answer the 10 questions? > jason > > Don't bother to answer them. I am very sure he wouldn't understand the answers in any case. I am also sure he doesn't even understand the questions. He googled them. He didn't get these questions himself. If he wants to know, let him look for himself. Let him do his own research. He can use google. That's a start. If he would be really looking for answers, he can find them all himself. They are all there. Why do his research for him? He is not even doing the research for his own "side" of the debate. Either that or let him die stupid. He doesn't even want to know. So let him say "goddidit" and be done with it. He is not worth the trouble. And if you are lucky (like me) he lives very far away. Preferably on another planet. But I will settle for another country. If humans were all like him, we'd still be sitting in cold caves. Hoping like mad that the sun will come up tomorrow. Actually PRAYING that the sun will come up. And, Jason? How many times do we have to tell you "THE BIBLE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND!" Tokay -- In case of atomic attack, the federal ruling against prayer in schools will be temporarily canceled. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <Xns994298509D6Efreddybear@66.150.105.47>, Fred Stone > <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote: > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> news:Jason-0106071219240001@66-52-22-14.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net: >> >>> In article <1180717090.777257.145820@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, >>> bramble <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> 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 >>> Bramble, >>> You need to re-read the first chapter of the book of Genesis. Adam and >>> Eve were perfect and they were made in the image of God. They lost >>> that perfection after they sinned. You may not realize it, but you are >>> the one that is trapped. When are you going to answer the 10 >>> questions? jason >>> >> When are you going to address my answers, Jason? > > I read the answers. It appeared to me that you were making educated > guesses related to most of the answers. Do you have evidence related to > all of answers or do you just have guesses? Whenever I make a statement in > a post such as "God created mankind; some plants; and some animals"--there > is always someone asking me for evidence that it happened that way. If > people except me to provide evidence, do I have the right to ask you to > provide evidence for your statements and answers? > jason We all did so without end. How many times do you expect us do type it in again? You are not worth the trouble. Tokay -- In case of atomic attack, the federal ruling against prayer in schools will be temporarily canceled. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f3mkof$hbv$01$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <1180589009.623007.230250@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On May 31, 1:33 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> In article <1180580639.377592.70...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> On May 31, 9:41 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>> In article <465def83$0$9953$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, "Christopher >>>>>>> Morris" <Drac...@roadrunner.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:Jason-3005071302390001@66-52-22-22.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>>>>>>> Do you believe that journal editors should have a >>>>>>>>> bias against authors of articles that are advocates of >>> creation science. >>>>>>>> They have a bias against poor research not based on factual evidence. >>>>> There is a >>>>>>>> difference. >>>>>>> We have a difference of opinion. For example, if I wrote an article and >>>>>>> mentioned creation science several times in the article, the journal >>>>>>> editors would probably tell me to rewrite the article and remove all >>>>>>> references to creation science. On the other hand, if you wrote an >>> article >>>>>>> and mentioned evolution several times, I doubt that the ediitors would >>>>>>> tell you to remove all references to evolution. Do you see my >>> point? There >>>>>>> is a bias in favor of evolution and against creation science. The reason >>>>>>> is because the editors and members of the peer review committee are >>>>>>> advocates of evolution. >>>>>> Whether you write about creationism or evolution, in either case your >>>>>> claims need to be supported by evidence. Evolution is supported by >>>>>> evidence. Creationism isn't. It's that simple. It's only a bias in >>>>>> favour of the scientific method. >>>>> Do you think that the 40 doctorate-holding scientists mentioned in the >>>>> book entitled, "On the Seventh Day" Edited by J.F. Ashton would agree >>>>> that creationism is NOT supported by evidence? >>>> It either is supported by evidence or it isn't. And it isn't. It >>>> isn't a matter of opinion. No experiment has ever been conducted to >>>> demonstrate the existance of any god -nor could any experiment ever be >>>> conducted to test anything supernatural- let alone test the hypothesis >>>> that any god was responsible for the creation of any form of life on >>>> Earth, let alone man. What they may believe is irrelevant: it doesn't >>>> change the fact that there is absolutely NO evidence supporting >>>> creationism. >>>> >>>> Martin >>> Martin, >>> The only evidence that I have seen is in relation to the fossil record. >>> Two different books have been written by advocates of creationism in >>> relation to the fossil record. One of the authors discusses the complete >>> absence of any true evolutionary transitional forms in the fossil record. >> And that is WRONG! >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils >> >> No way around it. The fossils are there . If you like it or not. >> >> >>> I have read one of those books. I suggest that you read the last paragraph >>> of Chapter 14 of Darwin's famous book--he discusses something about life >>> being "breathed into a few forms or into one." Darwin also mentioned the >>> "Creator" in that same chapter. It was apparent to me that Darwin believed >>> in God and was familiar with the lst chapter of Genesis and probably >>> believed it was true but I am not 100 percent certain. I typed Darwin God >>> into the google search engine and was able to find lots of evidence >>> indicating that Darwin (at least during several years of his life) was a >>> Christian. I don't know whether or not he was Christian during the last >>> several years of his life. There was one site indicating that Darwin may >>> have had a deathbed confession of his love of God. >> Far as I know, this "deathbed conversion" is a hoax. But never mind, it >> actually has nothing to do with it. Whether or not Darwin was a >> Christian does not invalidate his work. >> >> So, what do you want to prove there? That Darwin was a christian? There >> hardly was a way around that in those times. But what does that say >> about his work? Nothing, that's what. >> >> >> Tokay > > 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. And? What does that say about his work? Actually I couldn't care less if Darwin believed the universe came to be in a big sneeze. What matters is his work. This is science, you dimwit! I don't care if Darwin was a christian. I am more in agreement with Darwin than I am with > Evolutionists that believe that mankind evolved from a one celled life > form. You should maybe read a bit more than just the last chapter of Darwins book. 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 Read the book, damnit! NOT just the last chapter! Have a dictionary at hand in case any words with more than one syllable are in it. Tokay -- In case of atomic attack, the federal ruling against prayer in schools will be temporarily canceled. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1180716486.667819.173330@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > bramble <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 > > Bramble, > Yes, you are correct related to the life and times of Darwin. However, my > point was that lots of people seem to think that Darwin was a atheist his > entire life--that is NOT true. IT DOESN'T MATTER! It's possible that he always believed in > God even if he did not always go to church every Sunday. Who cares? I only read the > last chapter of his book and noticed that he used the term Creator at > least one time in that chapter. I don't know whether or not he used the > term in other chapters of his book. He also used these words in the last > paragraph of Chapter 14--"...having been originally breathed into a few > forms or into one...." I read that paragraph two times and it was > difficult to figure out his point. However, those words are similar to the > information that is in the first chapter of Genesis. It's my opinion, > based upon what I read in Chapter 14 of Darwin's book, that Darwin > believed that God created life on this planet. Of course, he also believed > that evolution kicked in after the creation process was finished. > Jason Oh, hell. Ok, you can say "goddidit" all you like. Just don't call it science. Now go away. Tokay -- In case of atomic attack, the federal ruling against prayer in schools will be temporarily canceled. Quote
Guest Fred Stone Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in news:Jason-0106071409060001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net: > In article <Xns994298509D6Efreddybear@66.150.105.47>, Fred Stone > <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote: > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> news:Jason-0106071219240001@66-52-22-14.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net: >> >> > In article <1180717090.777257.145820@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, >> > bramble <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> 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 >> > >> > Bramble, >> > You need to re-read the first chapter of the book of Genesis. Adam >> > and Eve were perfect and they were made in the image of God. They >> > lost that perfection after they sinned. You may not realize it, but >> > you are the one that is trapped. When are you going to answer the >> > 10 questions? jason >> > >> >> When are you going to address my answers, Jason? > > I read the answers. It appeared to me that you were making educated > guesses related to most of the answers. Do you have evidence related > to all of answers or do you just have guesses? Whenever I make a > statement in a post such as "God created mankind; some plants; and > some animals"--there is always someone asking me for evidence that it > happened that way. If people except me to provide evidence, do I have > the right to ask you to provide evidence for your statements and > answers? You haven't actually provided any evidence, Jason, so asking for evidence would be hypocritical of you. -- 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 Free Lunch Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 10:29:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0106071029480001@66-52-22-14.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1180693578.732681.27980@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: .... >> Admit it, Jason, your arguments are spurious at best. >> >> Martin > >Martin, >Admit it, Martin, your arguments do not make sense. The truth is that >mankind is very unique. Even children know that mankind is vastly >different than animals. What a perfect example of a spurious argument. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:35:24 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0106071735240001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1180735061.142997.73300@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: .... >> Except those who are educated and are not idiots. > >Visit a large city zoo and you will notice that they keep the apes and >monkeys in cages. When I visited the San Diego Zoo, they kept the gorilla >in a facility that made it impossible for him to escape or throw fecal >material at the crowd. Perhaps God should have created and designed >monkeys and apes to be vastly different than humans so as not to confuse >the advocates of evolution. >Jason > What does California keep in the cages at San Quentin? Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 On Jun 2, 1:29 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180693578.732681.27...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, 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 > > Martin, > Admit it, Martin, your arguments do not make sense. Fuck you. Quote
Guest Fred Stone Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in news:Jason-0106071804200001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net: > In article <Xns9942C9AA24005freddybear@66.150.105.47>, Fred Stone > <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote: > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> news:Jason-0106071409060001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net: >> >> > In article <Xns994298509D6Efreddybear@66.150.105.47>, Fred Stone >> > <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> news:Jason-0106071219240001@66-52-22-14.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net: >> >> >> >> > In article >> >> > <1180717090.777257.145820@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, >> >> > bramble <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> 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 >> >> > >> >> > Bramble, >> >> > You need to re-read the first chapter of the book of Genesis. >> >> > Adam and Eve were perfect and they were made in the image of >> >> > God. They lost that perfection after they sinned. You may not >> >> > realize it, but you are the one that is trapped. When are you >> >> > going to answer the 10 questions? jason >> >> > >> >> >> >> When are you going to address my answers, Jason? >> > >> > I read the answers. It appeared to me that you were making educated >> > guesses related to most of the answers. Do you have evidence >> > related to all of answers or do you just have guesses? Whenever I >> > make a statement in a post such as "God created mankind; some >> > plants; and some animals"--there is always someone asking me for >> > evidence that it happened that way. If people except me to provide >> > evidence, do I have the right to ask you to provide evidence for >> > your statements and answers? >> >> You haven't actually provided any evidence, Jason, so asking for >> evidence would be hypocritical of you. >> > > Several people told me that the advocates of evolution had evidence. I > guess they were lying to me. > Lots of people have told me that Christians are hypocrites. You're just one more example, Jason. -- 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 Free Lunch Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:01:10 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0106071801100001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <i9c163t9qp9l8uhdkc3a0mmiahrdffg6v1@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:35:24 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0106071735240001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <1180735061.142997.73300@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, >> >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> ... >> >> >> Except those who are educated and are not idiots. >> > >> >Visit a large city zoo and you will notice that they keep the apes and >> >monkeys in cages. When I visited the San Diego Zoo, they kept the gorilla >> >in a facility that made it impossible for him to escape or throw fecal >> >material at the crowd. Perhaps God should have created and designed >> >monkeys and apes to be vastly different than humans so as not to confuse >> >the advocates of evolution. >> >Jason >> > >> What does California keep in the cages at San Quentin? > >People that do not obey the laws. Do wild monkeys and gorillas use fire? Does your entire theology rely on the fact that humans learned to tame fire and other animals did not? Wow.... Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:04:20 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0106071804200001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <Xns9942C9AA24005freddybear@66.150.105.47>, Fred Stone ><fstone69@earthling.com> wrote: > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> news:Jason-0106071409060001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net: >> >> > In article <Xns994298509D6Efreddybear@66.150.105.47>, Fred Stone >> > <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> news:Jason-0106071219240001@66-52-22-14.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net: >> >> >> >> > In article <1180717090.777257.145820@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, >> >> > bramble <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> 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 >> >> > >> >> > Bramble, >> >> > You need to re-read the first chapter of the book of Genesis. Adam >> >> > and Eve were perfect and they were made in the image of God. They >> >> > lost that perfection after they sinned. You may not realize it, but >> >> > you are the one that is trapped. When are you going to answer the >> >> > 10 questions? jason >> >> > >> >> >> >> When are you going to address my answers, Jason? >> > >> > I read the answers. It appeared to me that you were making educated >> > guesses related to most of the answers. Do you have evidence related >> > to all of answers or do you just have guesses? Whenever I make a >> > statement in a post such as "God created mankind; some plants; and >> > some animals"--there is always someone asking me for evidence that it >> > happened that way. If people except me to provide evidence, do I have >> > the right to ask you to provide evidence for your statements and >> > answers? >> >> You haven't actually provided any evidence, Jason, so asking for >> evidence would be hypocritical of you. > > >Several people told me that the advocates of evolution had evidence. I >guess they were lying to me. Jason, people have pointed you to resources about evolution, places that discuss the evidence, but you refused to look. You are nothing but a fake, a liar, an enemy of knowledge. You mock your god with the false doctrines you preach. Jesus tells us that He has no use for your intentional ignorance: -- The Parable of the Talents Matthew 25:14 "Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. 15 To one he gave five talents[a] of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16 The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. 17 So also, the one with the two talents gained two more. 18 But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money. 19 "After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20 The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.' 21 "His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!' 22 "The man with the two talents also came. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have gained two more.' 23 "His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!' 24 "Then the man who had received the one talent came. 'Master,' he said, 'I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25 So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.' 26 "His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27 Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest. 28 " 'Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. 29 For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30 And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' Quote
Guest Charles & Mambo Duckman Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 Jason wrote: >>>Admit it, Martin, your arguments do not make sense. The truth is that >>>mankind is very unique. Even children know that mankind is vastly >>>different than animals. >> >> >>Except those who are educated and are not idiots. > > > Visit a large city zoo and you will notice that they keep the apes and > monkeys in cages. When I visited the San Diego Zoo, they kept the gorilla > in a facility that made it impossible for him to escape or throw fecal > material at the crowd. Perhaps God should have created and designed > monkeys and apes to be vastly different than humans so as not to confuse > the advocates of evolution. > Jason Just when you think he can't possibly say something more stupid, he never ceases to amaze. Jason, Old Faithful. -- Come down off the cross We can use the wood Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 In article <ls41639rbuuaqhv911eovke4f0mldi6r70@4ax.com>, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > In alt.atheism On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 10:25:47 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > (Jason) let us all know that: > > >In article <v8bv53p0hl0lhao6igf98vtvf50c5dj2j0@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > > >> 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. > > >No--however, he was the founder of evolution theory. > > Ok. Good. > > Now then: since he's not the be-all/end-all of evolution, why > do you treat him as if he is? I don't treat him as the be-all/end-all of evolution--instead, I treat him as the founder of evolution theory. > > Don't say you don't. That's what : > > > > > > 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. > > > means. > > > 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 Jason Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 In article <1180735061.142997.73300@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > On 1 Jun., 19:29, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1180693578.732681.27...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, 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 > > > > Martin, > > Admit it, Martin, your arguments do not make sense. The truth is that > > mankind is very unique. Even children know that mankind is vastly > > different than animals. > > > Except those who are educated and are not idiots. Visit a large city zoo and you will notice that they keep the apes and monkeys in cages. When I visited the San Diego Zoo, they kept the gorilla in a facility that made it impossible for him to escape or throw fecal material at the crowd. Perhaps God should have created and designed monkeys and apes to be vastly different than humans so as not to confuse the advocates of evolution. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 In article <m25163l3vbd8ptfp0sa4hqgope04cll9kv@4ax.com>, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > In alt.atheism On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:19:24 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > (Jason) let us all know that: > > >In article <1180717090.777257.145820@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > >bramble <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> 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 > > > >Bramble, > >You need to re-read the first chapter of the book of Genesis. Adam and Eve > >were perfect and they were made in the image of God. > > You need to re-read Genesis 3:22. > > > 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" I just re-read it. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 16:47:55 -0500, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: - Refer: <hv4163dje644i2q2g0ramj1dhotis3jdje@4ax.com> >In alt.atheism On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 10:50:21 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >(Jason) let us all know that: > >>10 Questions for Evolutionists >> >> >> >> 1. When the "Big Bang" > > That's cosmology, not biology. > > Where did god come from? Infantile human imaginations. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 11:40:40 -0700, AT1 <notyourbusiness@godblows.net> wrote: - Refer: <Z5ydnbYsF4q79f3bnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@comcast.com> >Jason wrote: >> In article <79su531jk0i30mn360rlq1bu3nevi17431@4ax.com> >[snip] >> Has any scientist done an experiment which has indicated that a one-celled >> life form can evolve from the sort of life you mentioned in your post? >> >> > >Would you stop asking this inane, ridiculous question? If no one has >answered it by now (which in fact they have, you're just ignoring their >answers), they're not going to. > >Seriously, you need to piss off. You're not changing anyone's mind in >here, and no one is going to change your mind--about any of the issues. > Why do you keep coming in here and peddling your garbage when you're >clearly not welcome? Take your crap to one of the newsgroups where >ignorant people such as yourself hang out, and blather on in harmony. > >Why? Why? Why? He is such a miserably pathetic weedy individual that the only power-trip available to him is to annoy adults. -- Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 On Jun 2, 1:48 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Please answer the questions that I found when I googled "10 questions for > evolutionists" > > 10 Questions for Evolutionists Home > > 1. When the "Big Bang" (big bunk!) supposedly began the universe - what > banged? Where did that first piece of matter come from, if not God? Where > did the energy come from that caused the bang? Where did the space come > from that the bang expanded into? Where do you think your God came from? > 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). See bats. > 3. Which evolved first, plants, or the insects that pollinate them? Obviously plants existed before insects. > 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? The protein, then RNA then DNA. AS YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN TOLD. > 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? If man came from dust then how come we still have dust? If Christianity was derived from Judaism then how come we still have Jews? > 6. How did life learn to reproduce itself, or even know there was a need to? Life is, by definition, organic molecules that reproduce themselves. > 7. With whom did the first cell capable of reproduction mate? A single cell is not a person so you surely mean "with what" not "with whom". It turns out that single cell organisms are capable of sexual reproduction. When we had more advanced life forms, cells became specialized into male sperm and female egg cells. (See http://www.news-medical.net/?id=7508 , http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4466393 and http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761572784/Reproduction.html ) >From the last link: "A number of single-celled organisms multiply by conjugation. In this process, which is analogous to fertilization, two similar unicellular organisms fuse, exchange nuclear materials, and then break apart. Each organism then reproduces by fission; occasionally, after conjugation, the participating organisms do not reproduce, the process in these instances seeming merely to revitalize the organisms. Conjugation is the most primitive method of sexual reproduction by which organisms having genetic characteristics derived from two parents are produced." > 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? Are you insane? One celled organisms do not "plan to have children". Nor do plants and fungi make conscious decisions. Even animals (including humans) act on an instinct that causes their genes to get passed on to the next generation. Without this instinct, a species dies out. Natural selection requires that animals actively breed. > 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? Start with single celled organisms. The beauty of a bilipid membrane (which can form spontaneously in the lab, by the way) is that it is permeable, allowing nutrients (ie food) into the cell. These nutrients, water, minerals and amino acids are all available spontaneously in the environment: no god is needed to provide them. This is your starting point. Thus, what came first was 1) the food to be injested. Next would have come 2) the ability to find food, because obviously even a single celled organism has a better chance of surviving if it can somehow search out food. With multi-celled organisms you have cells specialized to do different things: some would be involved in the food searching process and some would be involved in the food gathering process and some would be involved in the food digesting process so we have 3) the digestive system already. Note that in the case of plants, they are able to make most of their own food through photosynthesis. (Fungi take nutrients from living plants and animals.) It wasn't until animals came along that you had animals that could eat plants (or other animals) and it would have been necessary for anything to actually digest anything else. Now, look at worms: their entire digestive system consists of a single tube with one end being the mouth and the other end being the anus: every animal's digestive system (including man's) is essentially a variation on this theme. Obviously the digestive system existed before 4) "digestive juices" (saliva and stomach acid) and the digestive juices were never strong enough to dissolve the animal itself. (Although it does sometimes happen: it is called a stomach ulcer.) Indeed, you are forgetting about teeth: teeth would have developed in parallel with the rest our digestive system so that food could be broken down into tiny peices and digested more easily. Animals with weak stomach acids digest food slowly: man has developed strong stomach acids allowing us to digest food quickly and thus enabling us to eat a greater quantity of food. In the process we also had to develop the 5) ability to resist being destroyed by the same acids. Animals instinctively know to search for food and some animals may spend all their time searching for food whether they are hungry or not. With more complex brains, animals became capable of knowing when they were hungry, ie they acquired 6)the knowledge of the need for food which would then immediately required them to 7) know what food is and 8) what to consume and how to consume it. We know from history that people -as intelligent as we are- haven't always known what foods were safe and many people would have been poisoned trying out new types of food: the survivors would have known better. Animals, of course, have to rely on instinct, especially with regards to their senses of smell and taste which help them to decide if food is good to eat. > 10. How did whales know to be purposely born breach (upside down) so as > not to drown during birth? Those who weren't born this way were more likely to drown and thus breach births were an evolutionary advantage. > 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? No. It may have been necessary for early whales (like seals) to return to land to give birth. The breach birth adaption would have developed first, making birth in water possible. > Remember, they had less than a generation to make the > evolutionary correction, one generation of drowning whales would've caused > extinction. These ought to be a challenge for most evolutionists who > can't usually explain "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" The egg. Anymore questions? When are you going to answer any of ours? Oh that's right: you can't! Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 On Jun 2, 1:48 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 10 Questions for Evolutionists Home > > 1. When the "Big Bang" (big bunk!) supposedly began the universe - what > banged? Where did that first piece of matter come from, if not God? Where > did the energy come from that caused the bang? Where did the space come > from that the bang expanded into? Where do you think your God came from? > 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). See bats. > 3. Which evolved first, plants, or the insects that pollinate them? Obviously plants existed before insects. > 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? The protein, then RNA then DNA. AS YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN TOLD. > 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? If man came from dust then how come we still have dust? If Christianity was derived from Judaism then how come we still have Jews? > 6. How did life learn to reproduce itself, or even know there was a need to? Life is, by definition, organic molecules that reproduce themselves. > 7. With whom did the first cell capable of reproduction mate? A single cell is not a person so you surely mean "with what" not "with whom". It turns out that single cell organisms are capable of sexual reproduction. When we had more advanced life forms, cells became specialized into male sperm and female egg cells. (See http://www.news-medical.net/?id=7508 , http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4466393 and http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761572784/Reproduction.html ) >From the last link: "A number of single-celled organisms multiply by conjugation. In this process, which is analogous to fertilization, two similar unicellular organisms fuse, exchange nuclear materials, and then break apart. Each organism then reproduces by fission; occasionally, after conjugation, the participating organisms do not reproduce, the process in these instances seeming merely to revitalize the organisms. Conjugation is the most primitive method of sexual reproduction by which organisms having genetic characteristics derived from two parents are produced." > 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? Are you insane? One celled organisms do not "plan to have children". Nor do plants and fungi make conscious decisions. Even animals (including humans) act on an instinct that causes their genes to get passed on to the next generation. Without this instinct, a species dies out. Natural selection requires that animals actively breed. > 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? Start with single celled organisms. The beauty of a bilipid membrane (which can form spontaneously in the lab, by the way) is that it is permeable, allowing nutrients (ie food) into the cell. These nutrients, water, minerals and amino acids are all available spontaneously in the environment: no god is needed to provide them. This is your starting point. Thus, what came first was 1) the food to be injested. Next would have come 2) the ability to find food, because obviously even a single celled organism has a better chance of surviving if it can somehow search out food. With multi-celled organisms you have cells specialized to do different things: some would be involved in the food searching process and some would be involved in the food gathering process and some would be involved in the food digesting process so we have 3) the digestive system already. Note that in the case of plants, they are able to make most of their own food through photosynthesis. (Fungi take nutrients from living plants and animals.) It wasn't until animals came along that you had animals that could eat plants (or other animals) and it would have been necessary for anything to actually digest anything else. Now, look at worms: their entire digestive system consists of a single tube with one end being the mouth and the other end being the anus: every animal's digestive system (including man's) is essentially a variation on this theme. Obviously the digestive system existed before 4) "digestive juices" (saliva and stomach acid) and the digestive juices were never strong enough to dissolve the animal itself. (Although it does sometimes happen: it is called a stomach ulcer.) Indeed, you are forgetting about teeth: teeth would have developed in parallel with the rest our digestive system so that food could be broken down into tiny peices and digested more easily. Animals with weak stomach acids digest food slowly: man has developed strong stomach acids allowing us to digest food quickly and thus enabling us to eat a greater quantity of food. In the process we also had to develop the 5) ability to resist being destroyed by the same acids. Animals instinctively know to search for food and some animals may spend all their time searching for food whether they are hungry or not. With more complex brains, animals became capable of knowing when they were hungry, ie they acquired 6)the knowledge of the need for food which would then immediately required them to 7) know what food is and 8) what to consume and how to consume it. We know from history that people -as intelligent as we are- haven't always known what foods were safe and many people would have been poisoned trying out new types of food: the survivors would have known better. Animals, of course, have to rely on instinct, especially with regards to their senses of smell and taste which help them to decide if food is good to eat. > 10. How did whales know to be purposely born breach (upside down) so as > not to drown during birth? Those who weren't born this way were more likely to drown and thus breach births were an evolutionary advantage. > 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? No. It may have been necessary for early whales (like seals) to return to land to give birth. The breach birth adaption would have developed first, making birth in water possible. > Remember, they had less than a generation to make the > evolutionary correction, one generation of drowning whales would've caused > extinction. These ought to be a challenge for most evolutionists who > can't usually explain "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" The egg. Anymore questions? When are you going to answer any of ours? Oh that's right: you can't! Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 In article <i9c163t9qp9l8uhdkc3a0mmiahrdffg6v1@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:35:24 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-0106071735240001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <1180735061.142997.73300@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > > ... > > >> Except those who are educated and are not idiots. > > > >Visit a large city zoo and you will notice that they keep the apes and > >monkeys in cages. When I visited the San Diego Zoo, they kept the gorilla > >in a facility that made it impossible for him to escape or throw fecal > >material at the crowd. Perhaps God should have created and designed > >monkeys and apes to be vastly different than humans so as not to confuse > >the advocates of evolution. > >Jason > > > What does California keep in the cages at San Quentin? People that do not obey the laws. Do wild monkeys and gorillas use fire? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 In article <Xns9942C9AA24005freddybear@66.150.105.47>, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote: > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > news:Jason-0106071409060001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net: > > > In article <Xns994298509D6Efreddybear@66.150.105.47>, Fred Stone > > <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> news:Jason-0106071219240001@66-52-22-14.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net: > >> > >> > In article <1180717090.777257.145820@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > >> > bramble <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> 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 > >> > > >> > Bramble, > >> > You need to re-read the first chapter of the book of Genesis. Adam > >> > and Eve were perfect and they were made in the image of God. They > >> > lost that perfection after they sinned. You may not realize it, but > >> > you are the one that is trapped. When are you going to answer the > >> > 10 questions? jason > >> > > >> > >> When are you going to address my answers, Jason? > > > > I read the answers. It appeared to me that you were making educated > > guesses related to most of the answers. Do you have evidence related > > to all of answers or do you just have guesses? Whenever I make a > > statement in a post such as "God created mankind; some plants; and > > some animals"--there is always someone asking me for evidence that it > > happened that way. If people except me to provide evidence, do I have > > the right to ask you to provide evidence for your statements and > > answers? > > You haven't actually provided any evidence, Jason, so asking for > evidence would be hypocritical of you. Several people told me that the advocates of evolution had evidence. I guess they were lying to me. > > -- > 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." 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.