Guest Jason Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 In article <1180742039.381674.35790@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. You can dish it out but can't take it. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 In article <bqc163pt6i3gfpq0oi8u9lp5rr85pmdnh8@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > 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.... No--I was only pointed out one of the major difference between mankind and animals. I also pointed out in another post that mankind worships God and that animals do not worship God. Of course, not all humans worship God. Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 In alt.atheism On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 10:16:34 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> let us all know that: >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. Well yes. 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 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 In alt.atheism On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:28:21 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >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 Liar. See below. >> 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 Don Kresch Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 In alt.atheism On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 19:27:05 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <1180745678.345285.282140@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> 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? >You answered a question with a question. Yes, he did. What of it? > Would you let your students get >away with that? I would. 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 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 In alt.atheism On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:41:41 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >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. >> >I just re-read it. > Then you know that Adam and Eve were created neither perfect nor immortal. 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 Martin Phipps Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 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. > Admit it, Martin, your arguments do not make sense. You have proven time and time again that you are not qualified to judge. > The truth is that > mankind is very unique. Even children know that mankind is vastly > different than animals. Those very same children would be able to recognize that your lack of ability to perform higher reasoning makes you no different than a chimpanzee. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 On Jun 2, 5:18 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f3ppnd$4n...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <chvu53lvdmv8ta1fcnhq5mmrd9me89o...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > > > <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > > >> In alt.atheism On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:00:50 -0700, J...@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. > > My point is that it DID NOT happen by chance. Yes. It did. > There was a designer and a > creator that caused it to happen the way that it did happen. Evolution was > even part of the master plan. When God -- God doesn't exist. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 On Jun 2, 5:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <w7SdndDd_5Vm8f3bnZ2dnUVZ_vumn...@comcast.com>, AT1 > > > > > > > > <notyourbusin...@godblows.net> wrote: > > 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. > > > He may have founded evolution theory, but it has grown and expounded > > beyond his original discovery. No one believes that he was infallable, > > unlike you christers' beliefs that Jesus was. He was simply a man who > > developed a good theory that other scientists have expounded and added to. > > > You're trying to put him in the same light as jesus; as someone that is > > supposedly beyond reproach...thus when you find something that is > > contradictory, you think it proves your BS point. > > > How absurdly, ridiculously wrong you are; yet again. > > People were ridiculing another advocate of creation science No such thing. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 On Jun 2, 8:35 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180735061.142997.73...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > gudl...@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 -- God doesn't exist. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 On Jun 2, 9:26 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180742039.381674.35...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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. > > You can dish it out but can't take it. There's a difference between insulting someone and insulting someone AND LYING. If I said you were a foolish ignorant moron then I would be insulting you but not lying to you. Martin Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:26:47 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0106071826470001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1180742039.381674.35790@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 2, 1:29 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: .... >> > Martin, >> > Admit it, Martin, your arguments do not make sense. >> >> Fuck you. > >You can dish it out but can't take it. I can see why people would get tired of the long string of lies you tell. -- "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 On Jun 2, 10:27 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180745678.345285.282...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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? > > You answered a question with a question. Would you let your students get > away with that? > > > > > > 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. > > How did it happen in relation to birds? > > > > 3. Which evolved first, plants, or the insects that pollinate them? > > > Obviously plants existed before insects. > > Do you have evidence or it is just an educated guess? > > > > 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. > > Do you have evidence? Yes. The links have been posted FIVE TIMES already. Martin Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:29:51 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0106071829510001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <bqc163pt6i3gfpq0oi8u9lp5rr85pmdnh8@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> 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.... > >No--I was only pointed out one of the major difference between mankind and >animals. It's a trivial behavioral difference. >I also pointed out in another post that mankind worships God and >that animals do not worship God. Of course, not all humans worship God. Another trivial difference. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 On Jun 2, 10:27 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180745678.345285.282...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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? > > You answered a question with a question. Would you let your students get > away with that? You're answering my question with a question. Should we let you get away with that? Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 In article <1180745678.345285.282140@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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? You answered a question with a question. Would you let your students get away with that? > > > 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. How did it happen in relation to birds? > > > 3. Which evolved first, plants, or the insects that pollinate them? > > Obviously plants existed before insects. Do you have evidence or it is just an educated guess? > > > 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. Do you have evidence? > > > 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? You done it again--answered a question with a question. > > > 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 Martin, Your answers were the best as of it. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 In article <1180749228.575786.231970@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 2, 10:27 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1180745678.345285.282...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > 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? > > > > You answered a question with a question. Would you let your students get > > away with that? > > You're answering my question with a question. Should we let you get > away with that? > > Martin Martin, I realize that you don't have much respect for my knowledge of science. That is the reason I tried to find some information from someone that has as much knowledge as you. Dr. Steven Weinberg was a Nobel prize winner--his field was physics. I found this information at the American Institute of Physics website: Physics Nobelist takes stand on evolution "By the same standards that are used in the courts, I think it is your responsibility to judge that it is the theory of evolution through natural selection that has won general scientific acceptance. And therefore, it should be presented to students as the consensus view of science, without any alternatives being presented." --Dr. Steven Weinberg The following is a transcript of testimony to the Texas State Board of Education. Dr. Steven Weinberg, professor of physics at the University of Texas at Austin and a Nobel prize winner for electroweak theory, addresses the Board. DR. WEINBERG: Thank you. Hello. Thank you for the opportunity to talk to you. I should say at the outset that I haven't read the textbooks in question and I'm not a biologist. My Nobel Prize is not in biology, but is in physics. But I have been a physicist for a long time. And I think I have a good sense of how science works. It doesn't deal with certainties. We don't register things as facts that we have to swear allegiance to. But as mathematics and experiment progress, certain bodies of understanding become as sure as anything reasonably can be. They attract an overwhelming consensus of acceptance within the scientific community. They are what we teach our students. And the most important thing of all, since our time is so precious to us, they are what we assume as true when we do our own work. Evolution -- the theory of evolution through natural selection has certainly reached that status as a consensus. I've been through these issues not very much professionally in recent years, but I was on a panel of the National Academy of Sciences some years ago that reviewed these issues in order to prepare an amicus brief in a similar argument that was taking place in Arkansas at that time. At that time, it had reached the courts. We know that there is such a thing as inheritable variations in animals and plants. And we know that these change through mutations. And it's mathematically certain that as given inheritable variations, that you will have evolution toward greater adaptation. So that evolution through natural selection occurs can't be in doubt. As I understand it, many who want to put alternative theories into our textbooks argue that, although that may be true, we don't know that that's all that happens, that there is not some intelligent design that also assists the process of evolution. But that's the wrong question. We can never know that there isn't something beyond our theories. And that's not just true with regard to evolution. That's true with regard to everything. We don't know that the theory of physics, as it's currently understood, correctly accounts for everything in the solar system. How could we? It's too complicated. We don't understand the motion of every asteroid in the asteroid belts. Some of them really are doing very complicated things. Do we know that no angel tips the scales toward one asteroid moving a little but further than it otherwise would have in a certain time? No, we can never know. What we have to do is keep comparing what we observe with our theories and keep verifying that the theories work, trying to explain more and more. That's what's happened with evolution and it continues to be successful. There is not one thing that is known to be inexplicable through evolution by natural selection, which is not the same as saying that everything has been explained, because it never will be. The same applies to the weather or the solar system or what have you. But I can say this, and many of the peak scientists here will have said, I am sure, the same thing. You must be bored hearing this again and again. But how can you judge? I'm not a biologist, you're not biologists. There is a natural answer which is very congenial to the American spirit, I think. And that is, well, let the students judge. Why shouldn't they have the chance to judge these issues by themselves? And that, I think, is the argument that many are making. But judge what? Judge the correctness of evolution through natural selection? Judge the correctness of Newton's law or the conservation of energy or the fact that the Earth is round rather than flat? Where do we draw the line between the issues that we leave open to the student's judgment and the issues that we teach as reasonably accepted scientific facts, consensus theories? The courts face a similar question. They often are presented with testimony or testimony is offered, for example, that someone knows that a certain crime wasn't committed because he has psychic powers or someone sues someone in tort because he's been injured by witchcraft. The Court does not allow -- according to current doctrines, the Court does not allow those arguments to go to the jury because the Court would not be doing its job. The Court must decide that those things are not science. And the way the Court does is by asking: What -- do these ideas have general scientific acceptance? Does witchcraft have general scientific acceptance? Well, clearly, it doesn't. And those -- that testimony will not be allowed to go to the jury. How then can we allow ideas which don't have general scientific acceptance to go to high school students, not an adult jury? If we do, we are not -- or you are not doing your job of deciding what is there that is controversial. And that might be an interesting subject to be discussed, as for example the rate of evolution, the question of whether it's smooth, punctuated by jumps or whether it's -- or whether it's just gradual. These are interesting questions which are still controversial which could go to students and give them a chance to exercise their judgment. But you're not doing your job if you let a question like the validity of evolution through natural selection go to the students, anymore than a judge is doing his job or her job if he or she allows the question of witchcraft to go to the jury. And why this particular issue of evolution? Why not the round Earth or Newton's theory or Copernicus, the Earth goes around the sun? Well, I think it's rather disingenuous to say that this is simply because there's a real scientific conflict here, because there is no more of a scientific conflict than with those issues. I do get involved in this issue. I think it's clear that the reason why the issue was raised with regard to evolution is because of an attempt to preserve religious beliefs against the possible impact of the theory of evolution. I don't think teachers have any business either preserving religious beliefs or attacking religious beliefs. I think they should teach science. And science, as the courts understand it, in that other context, is what is generally accepted by scientists. And what is the evidence that evolution through natural selection is generally accepted through science? I don't think -- general acceptance doesn't mean unanimity. I know there are Ph.D. scientists who take an opposite view. There's not one member of the National Academy of Sciences who does. There's not one winner of the National Medal of Science who does. There's not one Nobel Laureate in biology who takes the view that there's any question about the validity of the theory of evolution through natural selection or that there is any alternative theory that's worth discussing. So by the same standards that are used in the courts, I think it is your responsibility to judge that it is the theory of evolution through natural selection that has won general scientific acceptance. And therefore, it should be presented to students as the consensus view of science, without any alternatives being presented. Thank you very much. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 In article <o7i1639pj8mb362i0p3cpj0qcbu2ta9gtg@4ax.com>, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > In alt.atheism On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 19:27:05 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > (Jason) let us all know that: > > >In article <1180745678.345285.282140@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> 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? > >You answered a question with a question. > > Yes, he did. What of it? > > > Would you let your students get > >away with that? > > I would. My teachers and professors expected us to answer the questions with answers and not with questions. Perhaps teachers and professors now allow students to get away with answering questions with questions? For example: the teacher asks little Susan a question: Susan, what is 2 + 2? Susan replies: Teacher, what is 4 + 4? > > > 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 <s9j163tfd53h20c63pfengglsdqakrb69g@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:29:51 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-0106071829510001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <bqc163pt6i3gfpq0oi8u9lp5rr85pmdnh8@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> 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.... > > > >No--I was only pointed out one of the major difference between mankind and > >animals. > > It's a trivial behavioral difference. > > >I also pointed out in another post that mankind worships God and > >that animals do not worship God. Of course, not all humans worship God. > > Another trivial difference. Another major difference: IQ levels--much lower than normal people. also: Animals can not have conversations with people by talking. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 In article <1180748280.414929.8270@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 2, 5:18 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <f3ppnd$4n...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > Jason wrote: > > > > In article <chvu53lvdmv8ta1fcnhq5mmrd9me89o...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > > > > <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > > > > >> In alt.atheism On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:00:50 -0700, J...@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. > > > > My point is that it DID NOT happen by chance. > > Yes. It did. > > > There was a designer and a > > creator that caused it to happen the way that it did happen. Evolution was > > even part of the master plan. When God -- > > God doesn't exist. > > Martin Keep saying it over and over and over and perhaps one day you will believe it. Quote
Deathbringer Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 In article <1180748280.414929.8270@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 2, 5:18 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <f3ppnd$4n...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > Jason wrote: > > > > In article <chvu53lvdmv8ta1fcnhq5mmrd9me89o...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > > > > <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > > > > >> In alt.atheism On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:00:50 -0700, J...@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. > > > > My point is that it DID NOT happen by chance. > > Yes. It did. > > > There was a designer and a > > creator that caused it to happen the way that it did happen. Evolution was > > even part of the master plan. When God -- > > God doesn't exist. > > Martin Keep saying it over and over and over and perhaps one day you will believe it. Gosh, perhaps somebody has ideas that are not exactly the same as your own? Is that even possible? Hmm... Methinks you need to put your hands on your shoulders and pull until you hear the telltale popping sound of your head leaving your own asshole. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 On Jun 2, 11:46 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180748280.414929.8...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 2, 5:18 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <f3ppnd$4n...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > > Jason wrote: > > > > > In article <chvu53lvdmv8ta1fcnhq5mmrd9me89o...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > > > > > <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > > > > >> In alt.atheism On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:00:50 -0700, J...@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. > > > > My point is that it DID NOT happen by chance. > > > Yes. It did. > > > > There was a designer and a > > > creator that caused it to happen the way that it did happen. Evolution was > > > even part of the master plan. When God -- > > > God doesn't exist. > Keep saying it over and over and over and perhaps one day you will believe it. I don't have to believe it. There's proof. God cannot simultaneously be real and fictional. As God is fictional he can't be real. QED. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 On Jun 2, 11:42 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <s9j163tfd53h20c63pfengglsdqakrb...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:29:51 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-0106071829510...@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <bqc163pt6i3gfpq0oi8u9lp5rr85pmd...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:01:10 -0700, in alt.atheism > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> <Jason-0106071801100...@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> >In article <i9c163t9qp9l8uhdkc3a0mmiahrdffg...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > >> ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> >> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:35:24 -0700, in alt.atheism > > >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> >> <Jason-0106071735240...@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> >> >In article <1180735061.142997.73...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > > >> >> >gudl...@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.... > > > >No--I was only pointed out one of the major difference between mankind and > > >animals. > > > It's a trivial behavioral difference. > > > >I also pointed out in another post that mankind worships God and > > >that animals do not worship God. Of course, not all humans worship God. > > > Another trivial difference. > > Another major difference: > IQ levels--much lower than normal people. Make up your mind. Are animals stupid or do they worship your imaginary god? Because you can't have it both ways. > also: Animals can not have conversations with people by talking. Actually parrots can talk and be made to say meaningful things. And chimpanzees can be taught sign language. Yes, parrots and monkeys can learn. That's more than you can do at your age, apparently. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 On Jun 2, 11:23 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <o7i1639pj8mb362i0p3cpj0qcbu2ta9...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > In alt.atheism On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 19:27:05 -0700, J...@nospam.com > > (Jason) let us all know that: > > > >In article <1180745678.345285.282...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > >Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> 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? > > >You answered a question with a question. > > > Yes, he did. What of it? > > > > Would you let your students get > > >away with that? > > > I would. > > My teachers and professors expected us to answer the questions with > answers and not with questions. Perhaps teachers and professors now allow > students to get away with answering questions with questions? > For example: the teacher asks little Susan a question: > > Susan, what is 2 + 2? Susan replies: Teacher, what is 4 + 4? That is hardly a college level question. A college level question would be more complex. Often there are questions that DO need to be resolved BEFORE the original question can be resolved. The question you asked was just such a question. You ASSUME your god exists. Why? We know that the universe exists but there's no evidence for your god so to assume the existance of your god raises more questions than it answers. Where did your God come from? It's obviously been a long time since you were in college. Nowadays an education involves more than simply answering simple questions. Nowadays people are taught to use reasoning. Apparently you never were. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 On Jun 2, 11:18 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180749228.575786.231...@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 2, 10:27 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1180745678.345285.282...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > 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? > > > > You answered a question with a question. Would you let your students get > > > away with that? > > > You're answering my question with a question. Should we let you get > > away with that? > > > Martin > > Martin, > I realize that you don't have much respect for my knowledge of science. > That is the reason I tried to find some information from someone that has > as much knowledge as you. Dr. Steven Weinberg was a Nobel prize > winner--his field was physics. I found this information at the American > Institute of Physics website: > > Physics Nobelist takes stand on evolution > > "By the same standards that are used in the courts, I think it is your > responsibility to judge that it is the theory of evolution through natural > selection that has won general scientific acceptance. And therefore, it > should be presented to students as the consensus view of science, without > any alternatives being presented." > > --Dr. Steven Weinberg I agree with him. Evolution (chemical and biological) is the only viable theory explaning the origin of life on Earth. Period. Martin > The following is a transcript of testimony to the Texas State Board of > Education. Dr. Steven Weinberg, professor of physics at the University of > Texas at Austin and a Nobel prize winner for electroweak theory, addresses > the Board. > > DR. WEINBERG: Thank you. Hello. Thank you for the opportunity to talk to > you. I should say at the outset that I haven't read the textbooks in > question and I'm not a biologist. > > My Nobel Prize is not in biology, but is in physics. But I have been a > physicist for a long time. And I think I have a good sense of how science > works. It doesn't deal with certainties. We don't register things as facts > that we have to swear allegiance to. > > But as mathematics and experiment progress, certain bodies of > understanding become as sure as anything reasonably can be. They attract > an overwhelming consensus of acceptance within the scientific community. > They are what we teach our students. > > And the most important thing of all, since our time is so precious to us, > they are what we assume as true when we do our own work. Evolution -- the > theory of evolution through natural selection has certainly reached that > status as a consensus. > > I've been through these issues not very much professionally in recent > years, but I was on a panel of the National Academy of Sciences some years > ago that reviewed these issues in order to prepare an amicus brief in a > similar argument that was taking place in Arkansas at that time. At that > time, it had reached the courts. We know that there is such a thing as > inheritable variations in animals and plants. And we know that these > change through mutations. And it's mathematically certain that as given > inheritable variations, that you will have evolution toward greater > adaptation. So that evolution through natural selection occurs can't be in > doubt. > > As I understand it, many who want to put alternative theories into our > textbooks argue that, although that may be true, we don't know that that's > all that happens, that there is not some intelligent design that also > assists the process of evolution. But that's the wrong question. We can > never know that there isn't something beyond our theories. And that's not > just true with regard to evolution. That's true with regard to everything. > We don't know that the theory of physics, as it's currently understood, > correctly accounts for everything in the solar system. How could we? It's > too complicated. We don't understand the motion of every asteroid in the > asteroid belts. Some of them really are doing very complicated things. Do > we know that no angel tips the scales toward one asteroid moving a little > but further than it otherwise would have in a certain time? No, we can > never know. > > What we have to do is keep comparing what we observe with our theories and > keep verifying that the theories work, trying to explain more and more. > That's what's happened with evolution and it continues to be successful. > There is not one thing that is known to be inexplicable through evolution > by natural selection, which is not the same as saying that everything has > been explained, because it never will be. The same applies to the weather > or the solar system or what have you. > > But I can say this, and many of the peak scientists here will have said, I > am sure, the same thing. You must be bored hearing this again and again. > But how can you judge? I'm not a biologist, you're not biologists. > There is a natural answer which is very congenial to the American spirit, > I think. And that is, well, let the students judge. Why shouldn't they > have the chance to judge these issues by themselves? And that, I think, is > the argument that many are making. > > But judge what? Judge the correctness of evolution through natural > selection? Judge the correctness of Newton's law or the conservation of > energy or the fact that the Earth is round rather than flat? Where do we > draw the line between the issues that we leave open to the student's > judgment and the issues that we teach as reasonably accepted scientific > facts, consensus theories? > > The courts face a similar question. They often are presented with > testimony or testimony is offered, for example, that someone knows that a > certain crime wasn't committed because he has psychic powers or someone > sues someone in tort because he's been injured by witchcraft. The Court > does not allow -- according to current doctrines, the Court does not allow > those arguments to go to the jury because the Court would not be doing its > job. The Court must decide that those things are not science. And the way > the Court does is by asking: What -- do these ideas have general > scientific acceptance? Does witchcraft have general scientific acceptance? > Well, clearly, it doesn't. And those -- that testimony will not be allowed > to go to the jury. > How then can we allow ideas which don't have general scientific acceptance > to go to high school students, not an adult jury? If we do, we are not -- > or you are not doing your job of deciding what is there that is > controversial. And that might be an interesting subject to be discussed, > as for example the rate of evolution, the question of whether it's smooth, > punctuated by jumps or whether it's -- or whether it's just gradual. These > are interesting questions which are still controversial which could go to > students and give them a chance to exercise their judgment. > > But you're not doing your job if you let a question like the validity of > evolution through natural selection go to the students, anymore than a > judge is doing his job or her job if he or she allows the question of > witchcraft to go to the jury. And why this particular issue of evolution? > Why not the round Earth or Newton's theory or Copernicus, the Earth goes > around the sun? Well, I think it's rather disingenuous to say that this is > simply because there's a real scientific conflict here, because there is > no more of a scientific conflict than with those issues. > > I do get involved in this issue. I think it's clear that the reason why > the issue was raised with regard to evolution is because of an attempt to > preserve religious beliefs against the possible impact of the theory of > evolution. > > I don't think teachers have any business either preserving religious > beliefs or attacking religious beliefs. I think they should teach science. > > And science, as the courts understand it, in that other context, is what > is generally accepted by scientists. And what is the evidence that > evolution through natural selection is generally accepted through science? > I don't think -- general acceptance doesn't mean unanimity. > > I know there are Ph.D. scientists who take an opposite view. > > There's not one member of the National Academy of Sciences who does. > > There's not one winner of the National Medal of Science who does. > > There's not one Nobel Laureate in biology who takes the view that there's > any question about the validity of the theory of evolution through natural > selection or that there is any alternative theory that's worth discussing. > So by the same standards that are used in the courts, I think it is your > responsibility to judge that it is the theory of evolution through natural > selection that has won general scientific acceptance. And therefore, it > should be presented to students as the consensus view of science, without > any alternatives being presented. > > Thank you very much. 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.