Guest Don Kresch Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 In alt.atheism On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:23:13 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >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. So what? > Perhaps teachers and professors now allow >students to get away with answering questions with questions? They should if the questions are like the ones you ask. Hint: you got asked the question because you have the onus of proof. 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 bramble Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 On 1 jun, 20:11, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180716486.667819.173...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > > bramble <leopoldo.perd...@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's possible that he always believed in > God even if he did not always go to church every Sunday. 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 there is not any need of thinking that Darwin was an atheist the way some people nowadays are. The religous feeling was so strong in those times, at least among educated people, that is no rare that he would keep using the word creator, god, or whatever. It is a habit. I still exclame from time to time, "oh,my god!" Depending to who I could be speaking to, I could even say, "God created all humans equal". So habits are habits, and there is not any need to confess to anyone that I am atheist. In fact, I behave as if I were a believer. And I think, this is valid for a lot of people. Many people, perhaps two thirds of them, are matter of fact atheists. But lacking a bent for philosophy they never elaborate a system of thought to become atheists. In any case, they don't want to stand out as thinking different to others. That is the reason why most people pertains to the dominant religion of the country. In a catholic country they are catholics, in a muslim one they are muslim, and so on. To understand this sociological fact, you have to know something about the social experiment of psychologist Solomon Asch, about how most people accept the blatant wrong opinions of other people about reality. You can read about this in the wikipedia "Asch conformity experiments". People confronted with wrong declarations of others about which line is bigger, A or B, declare the same wrong opinion. Only a minorty of the people tested dare to challenge the wrong opinion of others. To produce these results, the experimenters needed some helpers that were giving wrong results before the real person to be tested was asked. So, you know why most people confess they believe in god. It shows he complies with the dominant wrong ideas people are declaring. In a way, the real miracle is that a small minority dare to challenge the believe in god that most people seem to uphold. They had been badly pissed by some religious people. A few of the atheist I heard talking in "alt.atheism" were sons of JW, or mormon, fathers, that sufocated them since childhood. It is all right to press religion a little, but you cannot sufocate the child with so much religious fanaticism. You have to accept he has a bit of freedom, he could sometimes reject a sunday service, just to prove he has a free will. So normal religious people, can tame any child into compliance of the main tennets of the faith. The trouble always come from fanatics. And fanaticism begets rejection and hate. I have not any problems with ordinary religious people. But we are living now an assault from fanatics, as in other times we were suffering from the communism fanaticism. All doctrines carried to the extreme are wrong and beget a feeling of rejection. Bramble Quote
Guest bramble Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 On 1 jun, 20:19, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180717090.777257.145...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > bramble <leopoldo.perd...@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 this is nothing but a fable, Jason. This story of Garden of Eden makes not any sense. I have not any ten questions to answer, Jason. I have not doubts on religious grounds. If god wanted to speak with men, he had failed. He has sent us a varied bunch of swindlers and conmen. This is all the prove I got about god being an invention of human mind. Bramble Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <w7SdndDd_5Vm8f3bnZ2dnUVZ_vumnZ2d@comcast.com>, AT1 > <notyourbusiness@godblows.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> 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. >>>> >>>> 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 and myself. Oh, well. Even if you don't try to ridicule them, we end up doing it. Or better, they ridicule themselves. I mean, come on. Anyone with half a braincell can see that they ignore observations. I > posted the information about Darwin to let people know that the founder of > evolution also appeared to believe that there was a "creator" involved in > relation to the life on this planet. Well, apart from the fact that is does not matter, Darwin also would have rejected it if any "supernatural" influence was need within his work. Let's see... From a letter to Sir Charles Lyell: "If I were convinced that I required such additions [divine creation] to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish.... I would give nothing for the theory of Natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent" [1] Some of the other members of this > newsgroup tried to convince me that life evolved from non-life. First, scratch out your eyes. We have been constantly saying that you mix up the theory of evolution and the theory of abiogenesis. Obviously you have trouble reading. SECONDLY, you believe that as well. First there was no life, then now there is life. So? Without > evidence, I don't believe it and I doubt that Darwin believed it. We have given you evidence. I, for one, am fed up with typing more and more links to evidence, explaining evidence, explaining how it works. You fail to read it, obviously. You disgust me. > Evolution is mainly about how animals and plants can change and adapt to > various types of environments. The advocates of creation science call it > adaption. "Creation" and "science" don't go together. Tokay [1] R.Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 355 -- By the time we hit fifty, we have learned our hardest lessons. We have found out that only a few things are really important. We have learned to take life seriously, but never ourselves. Marie Dressler Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. > > WHAT is the major difference? Fire? Or more general "tool use"? Fire is a tool in the end, you know? And good that not all humans worship god. Otherwise you would be sitting in a cave! Praying that the sun will come up in the morning! And also! praying that this "god" will send you another fire! Because yours has gone out because you did not understand it! Actually, fire and the use of NEED the scientific process in a way. "Oh look, fire! God has sent us fire! Ohhhh.... Nice... Oh, now it is gone. Let us pray for more fire...." Luckily, there were was some guy that thought differently. Along the lines of: "Hm, the tree burns... Hm. And the "fire" uses up the wood. So fire needs wood. So, if I throw more wood into the fire, will it burn longer? Let's test that....." Tokay -- By the time we hit fifty, we have learned our hardest lessons. We have found out that only a few things are really important. We have learned to take life seriously, but never ourselves. Marie Dressler Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. > > Actually, they can. You should really start reading some scientific stuff. They taught some bonobos to use a kind of sign language. So they can't "talk" by language. But conversation is not limited to sound. What was your point again? Tokay -- By the time we hit fifty, we have learned our hardest lessons. We have found out that only a few things are really important. We have learned to take life seriously, but never ourselves. Marie Dressler Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 Free Lunch wrote: > 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. More than that. He disgusts me. It disgusts me to think that someone of the same species as me is actually that stupid. Oh, I hope (and I think I am right) that in the millennia to come, the human race and evolution will some day (millions of years from now) divide into two species. You see, the women I would like to know better (and have kids with) must have a certain minimum of brain capacity. If she hands me a "watchtower", she is out. If she mumbles about creationism, she is out. Tokay -- By the time we hit fifty, we have learned our hardest lessons. We have found out that only a few things are really important. We have learned to take life seriously, but never ourselves. Marie Dressler Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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? I would EXPECT them to do that. If a student can come up with a good next question, he shows that he understood my question and took it a step further. That rates an "A" (or a "1" here, or "15 points", depending on what grade he is in.) [snip] Tokay -- By the time we hit fifty, we have learned our hardest lessons. We have found out that only a few things are really important. We have learned to take life seriously, but never ourselves. Marie Dressler Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. Neither do I. > 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 will snip the rest. I agree. Ehm, why did you post this? I mean, nice of you to do so, but why? Did you READ the speech? Not "speed read". Thanks for making our argument for us, but why? Dr. Weinberg was making a point by saying that Intelligent Design is witchcraft and should therefor not be taught as an alternative. And? He is right, you know. Oh, IF you first teach kids what science is and what evidence is and how the process of science works and what exactly a scientific theory is, you can spend a little time showing them the "evidence" of "intelligent design". As an example what is NOT science. But first, they need to know what science is. Tokay -- By the time we hit fifty, we have learned our hardest lessons. We have found out that only a few things are really important. We have learned to take life seriously, but never ourselves. Marie Dressler Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. > No. We just got fed up typing the same stuff again and again. You disgust me. Tokay -- By the time we hit fifty, we have learned our hardest lessons. We have found out that only a few things are really important. We have learned to take life seriously, but never ourselves. Marie Dressler Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. You must be the famous Dr. Dolittle who can speak with the animals and know what they do and don't worship. > Of course, not all humans worship God. So does that mean those humans are not human? Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 Martin Phipps 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. > Damn, Martin, are you THAT desperate for sex??????????? Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 Martin Phipps wrote: > 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. You got to remember, he drove/drives a cab for a living. I doubt VERY much he even made it past high school. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. Oh, we have LOTS of respect for your knowledge of science. The whole problem is that such knowledge is probably limited to about 2 words and then you go off on this side track of religion that is so stupid as to be laughable. > 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: <snip speech from Dr. Weinberg> How, exactly, did that help your position? If you actually READ what he said, you'd realize he was arguing AGAINST your stand on things. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 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. No, you don't or else you wouldn't have kept coming up with the same nonsense. You > believe this (eg solar system, earth, sun, earth, life, mankind, etc) > happened by chance. No, I don't. I also don't believe it was designed. > 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. 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". Are you going to address the topic you started above or are you going to continue with these red herrings? Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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 >>> 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. Apparently not for comprehension (as usual.) Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." If they were perfect and "made in the image of God" then why did they not have this "[knowledge of] good and evil" BEFORE eating of the tree? Wouldn't a perfect being have perfect knowledge? Sounds like god actually made them rather stupid to begin with (Say, Jason, don't you claim YOU were made by god? Hmm, explains a lot.) Quote
Guest John Siegel Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 Free Lunch 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. But one that points to the superiority of animals over Jason Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0106072046140001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. Most of us who are here believe it. It is the only logical and reasonable conclusion. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message 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. Jason, to be quite honest with you you're too stupid to understand evolution. If you would like to research evolution I suggest you begin with a search of any on line scientific journal such as Nature or Science. There you will be able to find all of the evidence you need. Quote
Guest Luminoso Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:48:06 -0700, 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 >> >> 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 not 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. There is a myth propagated by the extreme 'creationist' faction that it's impossible to be both "religious" and an "evolutionist". Very likely Darwin -was- religious, his culture was saturated with religious ideas and perspectives. It would have been very unusual for him -not- to have been religious in some way. But he couldn't have been a strict "CHRISTIAN". His studies showed that the proposed scheme of creation in the christian bible was flat wrong. No "Zap ! There's an elephant, Zap ! There's a chicken". A long and winding road instead. So Darwin had to be something other than a strict "christian". A "bad christian" perhaps, a deist maybe. What he had learned was incompatible with christian dogma, but not with the idea of -some- kind of god-entity kick-starting life on earth. The kind of reason & evidence-based thinking that Darwin helped along eventually spawned a crop of unbelievers, but AT THE TIME and given the cultural environment true athiests were few and far between (and they usually didn't advertise themselves). As for the thread title, yes, there may be an "alternative" to evolution. Alas it would have to involve aliens or 'gods' constantly bringing new forms of life to earth over a very long period. The 'intermediate forms' not being 'intermediate' but simply genetically-engineered lifeforms that didn't adapt well, thus requiring a series of "improved" versions to be constructed. That scenerio, while not impossible, seems -extremely- unlikely. If there are aliens involved, more likely an alien stopped-off here to take a crap and some of its bacteria managed to survive, and subsequently evolve. There would be a certain poetic justice in discovering that egomaniacal humans were spawned from a floater left by some grey-skinned alien :-) Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 In article <1180776532.883015.87460@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, bramble <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: > On 1 jun, 20:11, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1180716486.667819.173...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > bramble <leopoldo.perd...@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's possible that he always believed in > > God even if he did not always go to church every Sunday. 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 > > > there is not any need of thinking that Darwin was an atheist the way > some people nowadays are. The religous feeling was so strong in those > times, at least among educated people, that is no rare that he would > keep using the word creator, god, or whatever. It is a habit. I > still exclame from time to time, "oh,my god!" Depending to who I > could be speaking to, I could even say, "God created all humans > equal". So habits are habits, and there is not any need to confess to > anyone that I am atheist. In fact, I behave as if I were a believer. > And I think, this is valid for a lot of people. Many people, perhaps > two thirds of them, are matter of fact atheists. But lacking a bent > for philosophy they never elaborate a system of thought to become > atheists. In any case, they don't want to stand out as thinking > different to others. That is the reason why most people pertains to > the dominant religion of the country. > In a catholic country they are catholics, in a muslim one they are > muslim, and so on. To understand this sociological fact, you have to > know something about the social experiment of psychologist Solomon > Asch, about how most people accept the blatant wrong opinions of > other people about reality. You can read about this in the wikipedia > "Asch conformity experiments". People confronted with wrong > declarations of others about which line is bigger, A or B, declare the > same wrong opinion. Only a minorty of the people tested dare to > challenge the wrong opinion of others. To produce these results, the > experimenters needed some helpers that were giving wrong results > before the real person to be tested was asked. > So, you know why most people confess they believe in god. It shows he > complies with the dominant wrong ideas people are declaring. > In a way, the real miracle is that a small minority dare to > challenge the believe in god that most people seem to uphold. They > had been badly pissed by some religious people. A few of the atheist > I heard talking in "alt.atheism" were sons of JW, or mormon, fathers, > that sufocated them since childhood. > It is all right to press religion a little, but you cannot sufocate > the child with so much religious fanaticism. You have to accept he > has a bit of freedom, he could sometimes reject a sunday service, just > to prove he has a free will. So normal religious people, can tame any > child into compliance of the main tennets of the faith. The trouble > always come from fanatics. And fanaticism begets rejection and hate. > I have not any problems with ordinary religious people. But we are > living now an assault from fanatics, as in other times we were > suffering from the communism fanaticism. All doctrines carried to the > extreme are wrong and beget a feeling of rejection. > Bramble Bramble, Thanks for your post. My point was that Darwin appeared to me to believe that the creator created life on this planet. Children should not be forced to worship God. Several years ago, some advocates intelligent design wanted to teach both evolution and intelligent design in science classes. I thought it was great idea to present two separate theories to high schoold students. The intelligent design textbook did NOT mention God or anything about the Bible. The advocates of evolution done everything in their power to prevent that state from teaching intelligent design in science classes. The judge listened to the evidence and ruled that intelligent design theory could NOT be taught in public schools in that state. I ask you --who were the fanatics in that case? In that case, who were the fanatics that wanted to suffocate the children with evolution and not allow an alternative theory to be taught? It's very different in many Christian schools. In many Christian schools, children are taught evolution theory and creation science. The children in Christian schools actually have more freedom to learn alternative theories than the children that are in public schools. If evolutionists were certain that their theory was far superior to intelligent design theory, they would not be concerned when alternative theories such as intelligent design were taught in various states. It appeared to me that the evolutionists were concerned that the children in public schools would realize that intelligent design made more sense than evolution theory. I ask you--who are the fanatics--the evolutionists that refuse to allow any states to teach alternative theories or is it the advocates of intelligent design that want children to about two theories--the theory or evolution and the theory of intelligent design? jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 In article <f3rfma$o9p$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <w7SdndDd_5Vm8f3bnZ2dnUVZ_vumnZ2d@comcast.com>, AT1 > > <notyourbusiness@godblows.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> 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. > >>>> > >>>> 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 and myself. > > Oh, well. Even if you don't try to ridicule them, we end up doing it. Or > better, they ridicule themselves. I mean, come on. Anyone with half a > braincell can see that they ignore observations. > > > I > > posted the information about Darwin to let people know that the founder of > > evolution also appeared to believe that there was a "creator" involved in > > relation to the life on this planet. > > Well, apart from the fact that is does not matter, Darwin also would > have rejected it if any "supernatural" influence was need within his work. > Let's see... > From a letter to Sir Charles Lyell: > "If I were convinced that I required such additions [divine creation] to > the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish.... I > would give nothing for the theory of Natural selection, if it requires > miraculous additions at any one stage of descent" > [1] > > > Some of the other members of this > > newsgroup tried to convince me that life evolved from non-life. > > First, scratch out your eyes. We have been constantly saying that you > mix up the theory of evolution and the theory of abiogenesis. Obviously > you have trouble reading. > SECONDLY, you believe that as well. First there was no life, then now > there is life. So? > > Without > > evidence, I don't believe it and I doubt that Darwin believed it. > > We have given you evidence. I, for one, am fed up with typing more and > more links to evidence, explaining evidence, explaining how it works. > You fail to read it, obviously. > You disgust me. > > > Evolution is mainly about how animals and plants can change and adapt to > > various types of environments. The advocates of creation science call it > > adaption. > > "Creation" and "science" don't go together. > > > Tokay > > > > [1] R.Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 355 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We are on different pages and will never resolve our differences. I have been told by various people that we have living cells so the logical conclusion is that living cells evolved from non-life. That may the logical conclusion of the advocates of evolution but it is not the logical conclusion of the advocates of creation science or the advocates of intelligent design. I could give other examples such as common descent. It's the logical conclusion of the advocates of creation science that God created mankind. However, it's the logical conclusion of the advocates of evolution that God did NOT create mankind. We are on different pages and we both believe we are correct. Jason Quote
Guest Fred Stone Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in news:Jason-0206071334340001@66-52-22-85.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net: > In article <4661add3.268854@news.east.earthlink.net>, > luminoso@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote: > >> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:48:06 -0700, 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 >> >> >> >> >> 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 not 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. >> >> >> There is a myth propagated by the extreme 'creationist' faction >> that it's impossible to be both "religious" and an "evolutionist". >> Very likely Darwin -was- religious, his culture was saturated >> with religious ideas and perspectives. It would have been very >> unusual for him -not- to have been religious in some way. >> >> But he couldn't have been a strict "CHRISTIAN". His studies >> showed that the proposed scheme of creation in the christian >> bible was flat wrong. No "Zap ! There's an elephant, Zap ! >> There's a chicken". A long and winding road instead. >> >> So Darwin had to be something other than a strict "christian". >> A "bad christian" perhaps, a deist maybe. What he had learned >> was incompatible with christian dogma, but not with the idea >> of -some- kind of god-entity kick-starting life on earth. >> >> The kind of reason & evidence-based thinking that Darwin helped >> along eventually spawned a crop of unbelievers, but AT THE TIME >> and given the cultural environment true athiests were few and >> far between (and they usually didn't advertise themselves). >> >> As for the thread title, yes, there may be an "alternative" >> to evolution. Alas it would have to involve aliens or 'gods' >> constantly bringing new forms of life to earth over a very >> long period. The 'intermediate forms' not being 'intermediate' >> but simply genetically-engineered lifeforms that didn't adapt >> well, thus requiring a series of "improved" versions to be >> constructed. >> >> That scenerio, while not impossible, seems -extremely- unlikely. >> If there are aliens involved, more likely an alien stopped-off >> here to take a crap and some of its bacteria managed to survive, >> and subsequently evolve. There would be a certain poetic justice >> in discovering that egomaniacal humans were spawned from a >> floater left by some grey-skinned alien :-) > > The problem is that evolutionists now have total control and will not > allow any alternative theories to be taught in the public school > system. There aren't any alternative theories. > They don't even like it when college professors teach college > students about creation science. "Creation" isn't a science. > Many years ago, there was a famous > movie about the Scopes Monkey Trial. I saw that movie. The Christians > were accused of not allowing a teacher to teach students about > evoluton. That has all changed. The evolutionists are now in control > and will not allow intelligent design to be taught in the public > schools system. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. > The evolutionists are the new fascist. Several days > ago, I read about a college professor that was an advocate of creation > science. He was denied tenure (spelling??). He didn't deserve tenure. > Of course, if he was an > advocate of evolution, he would have been granted tenure. > Of course. Evolution is a science. Religion is not. -- 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 Jason Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 In article <f3rg3h$rer$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > 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. > > > > > > WHAT is the major difference? Fire? Or more general "tool use"? Fire is > a tool in the end, you know? > > And good that not all humans worship god. Otherwise you would be sitting > in a cave! Praying that the sun will come up in the morning! > And also! praying that this "god" will send you another fire! Because > yours has gone out because you did not understand it! > > Actually, fire and the use of NEED the scientific process in a way. > "Oh look, fire! God has sent us fire! Ohhhh.... Nice... > Oh, now it is gone. Let us pray for more fire...." > > Luckily, there were was some guy that thought differently. > Along the lines of: > "Hm, the tree burns... Hm. And the "fire" uses up the wood. So fire > needs wood. So, if I throw more wood into the fire, will it burn longer? > Let's test that....." > > Tokay Tokay, The advocates of creation science believe that God created mankind. God also created apes and used similar features in apes such as eyes and teeth structure. The Bible (esp. the first book of Genesis) mentions that mankind was a special creation. For that reason, apes and mankind are different. The use of fire and the desire to worship God are two of the major differences. Perhaps God should have made apes to be vastly different than humans so as not to confuse people like yourself. When I saw a gorilla at the San Diego Zoo, I saw some of the similarities but I also saw many differences. The tour guide told us that he was present when the two gorillas became upset. They tried to throw fecal material at the crowd and tried to escape from the facility. As a result, they re-designed the facility to make it impossible for them to escape or to throw fecal material at the members of the crowd. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 In article <f3rg71$rer$02$2@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > 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. > > > > > > Actually, they can. You should really start reading some scientific > stuff. They taught some bonobos to use a kind of sign language. So they > can't "talk" by language. But conversation is not limited to sound. > What was your point again? > > > Tokay My point is that they can not have converations with people BY TALKING. Of course, they can communicate. One lady had a bird feeder outside her window. When the bird feeder became empty, the birds would peck on her window to let her know that she needed to refill the bird feeder. After she refilled the feeder, the birds would stop pecking on her window. Dogs let their owners know when they are hungry. Yes, apes can use sign language. Do you think that an ape would be able to win a chess game with a 12 year old child? Do you think that an ape would be able to figure out the solution to an algebra problem? One of the other differences is a low IQ. jason 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.