Guest cactus Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. Come up with a scientifically valid alternative to evolutionary theory and it will be taught alongside evolution. > They don't even like it when college professors teach college students > about creation science. I sure wouldn't want my tuition dollars being spent to teach such drivel. It has no evidence - why should I bother with it if my goal is to learn 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. "Inherit the Wind." It was based on the Scopes Trial in Dayton Tennessee. You might want to learn about it. Trial transcripts are available, John Scopes wrote a memoir, and lots more has been written about it. He was convicted, but the conviction was overturned on a technicality. That has all changed. > The evolutionists are now in control and will not allow intelligent design > to be taught in the public schools system. The evolutionists are the new > fascist. Would you want the Hindu theories of creation taught in public school? If you require the Christian version, you had better allow that one as well. And the Navajo version, the Hopi version, the Inuit Version and the versions that are part of the various African religions' mythologies. No more, no less valid than the Christian version Several days ago, I read about a college professor that was an > advocate of creation science. He was denied tenure (spelling??). Of > course, if he was an advocate of evolution, he would have been granted > tenure. He didn't deserve tenure as a professor of science. He might have fared better as a professor of theology or mythology. Quote
Guest cactus Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. As usual, you refuse to understand the simple meaning of the term "evolution." IT APPLIES ONLY TO LIVING ORGANISMS. Therefore, life cannot "evolve" from anything other than other life. Abiogenesis refers to the origin of life from non-living substances. It's different from evolution. You have been told this countless times, yet you do not even respond to it. Either you are extremely rude, or aggressive about keeping facts out of your prefabricated spoon fed beliefs. 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. So nobody advocates it, those who give credence to evolutionary theory because you misstate their position, and creationists because it is biblical. (I'll bet you don't even get to the point of reading this) I could give other examples such as common descent. > It's the logical conclusion of the advocates of creation science that God > created mankind. It's not logical at all, it's axiomatic. You didn't do well in geometry did you? However, it's the logical conclusion of the advocates of > evolution that God did NOT create mankind. No it isn't. It's your position, or rather, the polemical stance of your lying preachers. We are on different pages and > we both believe we are correct. Believe as you wish. > Jason > > Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 In alt.atheism On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 22:25:01 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >The Scopes Monkey Trial was held in 1925. A high school teacher named John >Scopes was on trial for teaching the theory of evolution in violation of >Tennessee State law. It is now 2007 and the roles of the evolutionists and >Christians have been reversed. No. The christians want crap taught. They want the equivalent of phrenology or astrology to be taught. Evolution is fact. ID is religion in a threadbare disguise of science. 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 Jim07D7 Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >The only children in America that can learn about both the >theory of evolution and the theory of intelligent design are the children >that attend Christian schools. > ID is not a theory, it is creationism, an article of faith. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 In article <XNq8i.24101$YL5.9117@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > Jason wrote: > > 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? > > The fanatics were the ones trying to impose what amounts to a religious > doctrine without scientific support into science classes. They are so > fanatical that they keep trying no matter how they are thwarted: at the > ballot box, in court, or in school boards. You call the judge a fanatic > because he ruled with the Constitution and against forcing non-science > into science classes. > > Why do you ally yourself with the forces of darkness and ignorance? > > > In that case, who > > were the fanatics that wanted to suffocate the children with evolution and > > not allow an alternative theory to be taught? > > I will not allow children to have meritless "intelligent design" drivel > crammed down their throats by Christian fanatics. > > > It's very different in many > > Christian schools. > > Those are private schools. They can teach pretty much what they want. > > In many Christian schools, children are taught > > evolution theory and creation science. > > Too bad for them. > > The children in Christian schools > > actually have more freedom to learn alternative theories than the children > > that are in public schools. > > No they don't. Creationism is their only choice. BTW "intelligent > design" is simply a variant of creationism. What do you think happens > to a student who favors evolutionary theory over creationism? Hint: it > won't be pleasant. Some freedom. > > > 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. > > Of course there is cause for concern. It's the same as not allowing the > Ptolemaic model of the universe to be taught in astronomy class - it > takes time away from teaching the current understanding. > > 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. > > No, we just don't want drivel taught unnecessarily. > > > 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? > > The latter. They are wrong, they have no scientific backing for their > beliefs, and they are trying to force their religious views on those who > may not share them. And they want to do it on public school time. The Scopes Monkey Trial was held in 1925. A high school teacher named John Scopes was on trial for teaching the theory of evolution in violation of Tennessee State law. It is now 2007 and the roles of the evolutionists and Christians have been reversed. The evolutionists will not allow the teaching of intelligent design. The evolutionists even have liberal judges on their side. The only children in America that can learn about both the theory of evolution and the theory of intelligent design are the children that attend Christian schools. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 In article <GOq8i.24102$YL5.14629@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > Jason wrote: > > 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. > > Come up with a scientifically valid alternative to evolutionary theory > and it will be taught alongside evolution. > > > They don't even like it when college professors teach college students > > about creation science. > > I sure wouldn't want my tuition dollars being spent to teach such > drivel. It has no evidence - why should I bother with it if my goal is > to learn 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. > > "Inherit the Wind." It was based on the Scopes Trial in Dayton > Tennessee. You might want to learn about it. Trial transcripts are > available, John Scopes wrote a memoir, and lots more has been written > about it. > > He was convicted, but the conviction was overturned on a technicality. > > That has all changed. > > The evolutionists are now in control and will not allow intelligent design > > to be taught in the public schools system. The evolutionists are the new > > fascist. > > Would you want the Hindu theories of creation taught in public school? > If you require the Christian version, you had better allow that one as > well. And the Navajo version, the Hopi version, the Inuit Version and > the versions that are part of the various African religions' > mythologies. No more, no less valid than the Christian version > > > Several days ago, I read about a college professor that was an > > advocate of creation science. He was denied tenure (spelling??). Of > > course, if he was an advocate of evolution, he would have been granted > > tenure. > > He didn't deserve tenure as a professor of science. He might have fared > better as a professor of theology or mythology. The Intelligent Design textbook did not mention any information about the Bible or religious issues. Jason Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 In alt.atheism On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 22:45:32 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >You (and others) have told me that evolution applies only to living >organisms. I don't blame other people and yourself for not wanting to >discuss the time in history when there were NO living organisms on this >planet. The reason is because you have no evidence that indicates that >life evolved from non-life. Where did god come from? 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 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > 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. > > As usual, you refuse to understand the simple meaning of the term > "evolution." IT APPLIES ONLY TO LIVING ORGANISMS. Therefore, life > cannot "evolve" from anything other than other life. > > Abiogenesis refers to the origin of life from non-living substances. > It's different from evolution. > > You have been told this countless times, yet you do not even respond to > it. Either you are extremely rude, or aggressive about keeping facts out > of your prefabricated spoon fed beliefs. > > > 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. > > So nobody advocates it, those who give credence to evolutionary theory > because you misstate their position, and creationists because it is > biblical. > > (I'll bet you don't even get to the point of reading this) > > I could give other examples such as common descent. > > It's the logical conclusion of the advocates of creation science that God > > created mankind. > > It's not logical at all, it's axiomatic. You didn't do well in geometry > did you? > > However, it's the logical conclusion of the advocates of > > evolution that God did NOT create mankind. > > No it isn't. It's your position, or rather, the polemical stance of your > lying preachers. > > We are on different pages and > > we both believe we are correct. > > Believe as you wish. You (and others) have told me that evolution applies only to living organisms. I don't blame other people and yourself for not wanting to discuss the time in history when there were NO living organisms on this planet. The reason is because you have no evidence that indicates that life evolved from non-life. Someone told me that life may have evolved from amino acids. A scientist could easily conduct an experiment to determine whether or not life could evolve from amino acids. I have seen no evidence to indicate that a scientist has proved that life has evolved from amino acids. Unless you can prove that life can evolve from non-life, do not expect the advocates of creation science to accept all aspects of the theory of evolution. jason Quote
Guest cactus Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <XNq8i.24101$YL5.9117@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, > bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> 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? >> The fanatics were the ones trying to impose what amounts to a religious >> doctrine without scientific support into science classes. They are so >> fanatical that they keep trying no matter how they are thwarted: at the >> ballot box, in court, or in school boards. You call the judge a fanatic >> because he ruled with the Constitution and against forcing non-science >> into science classes. >> >> Why do you ally yourself with the forces of darkness and ignorance? >> >> >> In that case, who >>> were the fanatics that wanted to suffocate the children with evolution and >>> not allow an alternative theory to be taught? >> I will not allow children to have meritless "intelligent design" drivel >> crammed down their throats by Christian fanatics. >> >> >> It's very different in many >>> Christian schools. >> Those are private schools. They can teach pretty much what they want. >> >> In many Christian schools, children are taught >>> evolution theory and creation science. >> Too bad for them. >> >> The children in Christian schools >>> actually have more freedom to learn alternative theories than the children >>> that are in public schools. >> No they don't. Creationism is their only choice. BTW "intelligent >> design" is simply a variant of creationism. What do you think happens >> to a student who favors evolutionary theory over creationism? Hint: it >> won't be pleasant. Some freedom. >> >> >> 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. >> Of course there is cause for concern. It's the same as not allowing the >> Ptolemaic model of the universe to be taught in astronomy class - it >> takes time away from teaching the current understanding. >> >> 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. >> No, we just don't want drivel taught unnecessarily. >> >>> 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? >> The latter. They are wrong, they have no scientific backing for their >> beliefs, and they are trying to force their religious views on those who >> may not share them. And they want to do it on public school time. > > The Scopes Monkey Trial was held in 1925. A high school teacher named John > Scopes was on trial for teaching the theory of evolution in violation of > Tennessee State law. It is now 2007 and the roles of the evolutionists and > Christians have been reversed. Not all Christians are creationists, Jason. You are insulting a great many fine Christians with that little remark. And the roles have not changed. The fundamentalist literalists have been attacking the teaching of evolution in schools since that time, and reasonable people (look up what the Kentucky legislature did after the Scopes trial) have been holding them at bay ever since. Nothing has changed, and probably nothing will. The evolutionists will not allow the > teaching of intelligent design. Not in science class because it's not science. The evolutionists even have liberal judges > on their side. They have the judicial system on their side because of the constitutional issues. I don't believe that Judge Brevard Hand is anything like a liberal. The only children in America that can learn about both the > theory of evolution and the theory of intelligent design are the children > that attend Christian schools. And thus be it ever. > > Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On Jun 3, 8:14 am, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f3rg71$rer$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > >> 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. > > >>> 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? > > > My point is that they can not have converations with people BY TALKING. > > I hope you do not fix this on language. Language, i.e. sounds. We are > communicating by internet. No sound? He does have a point though: we have not heard him talk and so far we have no reason to think he is intelligent either. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On Jun 3, 9:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <kb14639jhm2blku18rlfbu04og9sink...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 13:34:34 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-0206071334340...@66-52-22-85.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <4661add3.268...@news.east.earthlink.net>, > > >lumin...@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:48:06 -0700, 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 > > > >> >> 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. > > > No, the problem is that you refuse to accept scientific discoveries and > > are stamping your feel like a toddler who can't have his way. Your > > claims about the history of life on earth are false. Repeating them will > > not make them true. > > > >They don't even like it when college professors teach college students > > >about creation 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. 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??). Of > > >course, if he was an advocate of evolution, he would have been granted > > >tenure. > > > Your understanding of the case is wrong. Please, stop offering your > > opinion about things that you are ignorant of. > > Since you know more than I do about that story--do you believe the > professor would have been denied or granted tenure if he had been an > advocate of evolution? Considering the "expertise" of those who advocate creationism, it would be one less reason NOT to hire him on, wouldn't it? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On Jun 3, 9:27 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180829807.585708.38...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 3, 3:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > It's the logical conclusion of the advocates of creation science that God > > > created mankind. > > > You keep saying that Jason and eventually you might believe it. > That was a good one. I do believe it. Considering the fact that almost everything you have ever told us has been a lie, why should we believe you when you claim to actually believe your religion? Perhaps you are taking Pascal's Wager and saying you believe in God JUST IN CASE it might be true. When we can't even be sure if even you believe the crap you spew, why on Earth should we believe ANYTHING you say? Martin Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On 2 Jun., 03:01, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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?- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On 2 Jun., 03:04, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <Xns9942C9AA24005freddyb...@66.150.105.47>, Fred Stone > > > > > > <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >news:Jason-0106071409060001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net: > > > > In article <Xns994298509D6Efreddyb...@66.150.105.47>, Fred Stone > > > <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >>news:Jason-0106071219240001@66-52-22-14.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net: > > > >> > 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 > > > >> 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. One person has repeatedly posted evidence, and you continue to ignore it; yet you have the nerve to call others liars. > > > > > > > -- > > 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."- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On 3 Jun., 07:29, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <GOq8i.24102$YL5.14...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, > > > > > > > > b...@nonespam.com wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <4661add3.268...@news.east.earthlink.net>, > > > lumin...@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:48:06 -0700, 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 > > > >>>> 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. > > > Come up with a scientifically valid alternative to evolutionary theory > > and it will be taught alongside evolution. > > > > They don't even like it when college professors teach college students > > > about creation science. > > > I sure wouldn't want my tuition dollars being spent to teach such > > drivel. It has no evidence - why should I bother with it if my goal is > > to learn 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. > > > "Inherit the Wind." It was based on the Scopes Trial in Dayton > > Tennessee. You might want to learn about it. Trial transcripts are > > available, John Scopes wrote a memoir, and lots more has been written > > about it. > > > He was convicted, but the conviction was overturned on a technicality. > > > That has all changed. > > > The evolutionists are now in control and will not allow intelligent design > > > to be taught in the public schools system. The evolutionists are the new > > > fascist. > > > Would you want the Hindu theories of creation taught in public school? > > If you require the Christian version, you had better allow that one as > > well. And the Navajo version, the Hopi version, the Inuit Version and > > the versions that are part of the various African religions' > > mythologies. No more, no less valid than the Christian version > > > Several days ago, I read about a college professor that was an > > > advocate of creation science. He was denied tenure (spelling??). Of > > > course, if he was an advocate of evolution, he would have been granted > > > tenure. > > > He didn't deserve tenure as a professor of science. He might have fared > > better as a professor of theology or mythology. > > The Intelligent Design textbook did not mention any information about the > Bible or religious issues. > Jason- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On Jun 3, 9:35 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f3t1ko$i75$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > > > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > Mike wrote: > > > 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? > > >> 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. > > > I am pretty sure he regrets having posted this.... > > > It was a nice article, though. Maybe he should refine his "speed > > reading" some more.... > I enjoyed reading it. The conclusion was that he was in favor of > intelligent design being taught in the public school system. He said, "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." (Emphasis mine.) Congratulations, Jason, you have just proven yourself to be functionally illiterate. > It was his > opinion that the students would realize that evolution was the superior > theory. I disagree. It was his opinion that there was no point even bothering to present "intelligent" design in class. He said, "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." dis Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On 3 Jun., 07:45, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > 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. > > > As usual, you refuse to understand the simple meaning of the term > > "evolution." IT APPLIES ONLY TO LIVING ORGANISMS. Therefore, life > > cannot "evolve" from anything other than other life. > > > Abiogenesis refers to the origin of life from non-living substances. > > It's different from evolution. > > > You have been told this countless times, yet you do not even respond to > > it. Either you are extremely rude, or aggressive about keeping facts out > > of your prefabricated spoon fed beliefs. > > > 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. > > > So nobody advocates it, those who give credence to evolutionary theory > > because you misstate their position, and creationists because it is > > biblical. > > > (I'll bet you don't even get to the point of reading this) > > > I could give other examples such as common descent. > > > It's the logical conclusion of the advocates of creation science that God > > > created mankind. > > > It's not logical at all, it's axiomatic. You didn't do well in geometry > > did you? > > > However, it's the logical conclusion of the advocates of > > > evolution that God did NOT create mankind. > > > No it isn't. It's your position, or rather, the polemical stance of your > > lying preachers. > > > We are on different pages and > > > we both believe we are correct. > > > Believe as you wish. > > You (and others) have told me that evolution applies only to living > organisms. I don't blame other people and yourself for not wanting to > discuss the time in history when there were NO living organisms on this > planet. First of all people have discussed that, so, as usual, you are lying. The reason is because you have no evidence that indicates that > life evolved from non-life. Someone told me that life may have evolved > from amino acids. A scientist could easily conduct an experiment to > determine whether or not life could evolve from amino acids. I have seen > no evidence to indicate that a scientist has proved that life has evolved > from amino acids. Unless you can prove that life can evolve from non-life, > do not expect the advocates of creation science to accept all aspects of > the theory of evolution. And you continue to dishonestly confuse evolution with abiogenesis. > jason- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On Jun 3, 9:37 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f3t1f1$i75$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > > > > > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <f3rg71$rer$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > >> 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. > > > >>> 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. > > > I hope you do not fix this on language. Language, i.e. sounds. We are > > communicating by internet. No sound? > > > > 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? > > > Hardly. But that is not the question. > > > 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 > > > Ah, so the difference is one of IQ? > > > You are on very thin ice, let me tell you..... > > I have provided three separate reasons. The point is, Jason, that your IQ is hardly that much more than that of an ape, based on what you've posted here. I'm sure an ape could also learn to cut and paste, especially if there was no requirement for him to understand what he was cutting and pasting. You really do need to have things spelled out for you, don't you? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On Jun 3, 11:01 am, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > It took 20 billion years to go from hydrogen to humans. Correction. 13.7 billion years give or take a couple of hundred million years. (See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe ) Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On Jun 3, 11:47 am, cactus <b...@nonespam.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > 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. > > As usual, you refuse to understand the simple meaning of the term > "evolution." IT APPLIES ONLY TO LIVING ORGANISMS. Therefore, life > cannot "evolve" from anything other than other life. > > Abiogenesis refers to the origin of life from non-living substances. > It's different from evolution. The problem is that he doesn't understand the term "theory of evolution": it refers to Darwin's theory of natural selection, a theory that was originally only intended to be applied to biological systems (although it has since been applied to cultural systems with memes taking the place of genes). Evolution is also a fact: the fact is that we evolved from single celled life; the theory is that this occured through natural selection. It is also a fact that animal cells appeared in the first place: the theory of how this would have happened is called viral eukaryogenesis (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_eukaryogenesis ). Before that we had only viruses and bacteria. Even viruses and bacteria are subject to natural seclection. Where did DNA come from? One theory is that RNA came first. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#Evolution_of_DNA-based_metabolism ) This is called the "RNA World Hypothesis" (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis ) Unfortunately, there are no fossils of ancient viruses and bacteria so this part can't be proven. There are therefore several competing theories of abiogenesis. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life ) See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Major_Transitions_in_Evolution which has links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_multicellularity > You have been told this countless times, yet you do not even respond to > it. Either you are extremely rude, or aggressive about keeping facts out > of your prefabricated spoon fed beliefs. He shouldn't even be here: he announced three weeks ago that he was "giving up" and that he wasn't going to post "to this newsgroup anymore". He then continued right on posting and to the same thread. He also claimed that he "would be willing" to be an advocate of evolution "if there was any evidence" but then recently said that "nothing can change [his] mind" so apparently eveidence was never an issue. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On Jun 3, 1:29 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > The Intelligent Design textbook did not mention any information about the > Bible or religious issues. How can ID even be called a "theory" when there is no mechanism to explain how it is supposed to work? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On Jun 3, 1:45 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > You (and others) have told me that evolution applies only to living > organisms. I don't blame other people and yourself for not wanting to > discuss the time in history when there were NO living organisms on this > planet. The reason is because you have no evidence that indicates that > life evolved from non-life. Amazing. In 1953, the Miller-Uley experiment showed that amino acids could form spontaneously from elements present in the "primorial soup". (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment ) Other experiments showed that bilipid membranes can form spontaneously. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_bilayer ) Sidney Fox's research showed that amino acids can spontaneously form protein chains. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_W._Fox ) Protein chains can then guide the formation of RNA chains just as RNA chains are known to guide the formation of protein chains. (See http://www.hhmi.org/news/lindquist2.html ). German scientists have already produced molecules in the laboratory that are capable of reproducing themselves and are therefore alive. (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/217054.stm ). RNA is commonly believed to have existed before DNA, which then emerged much later. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis ). Primative cells would have formed as a way to prevent the contents of the cell from drying out. (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stm ). The simplest cells would have been prokaryote cells (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote ) which would have been the ancestors of modern bacteria and archaea while more advanced eukaryotic cells (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryotic ) would have been the ancestors of modern animal, plant and fungis cells. Eukaryotic cells could have formed through a process known as viral eukaryogenesis (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_eukaryogenesis ) in which a virus forms an endosymbiosic relationship with a host prokaryote cell. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory ) Mitochondria and plastids are also believed to have arisen as a result of endosymbiosis, the evidence being that mitochondria and plastids share characteristics with bacteria cells, the only difference being that they cannot survive independent of the rest of the cell, but that's fine because human cells cannot survive independent of the rest of the body either. In both cases, the parts have evolved to depend on the whole. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_multicellularity ). > Someone told me that life may have evolved > from amino acids. A scientist could easily conduct an experiment to > determine whether or not life could evolve from amino acids. I have seen > no evidence to indicate that a scientist has proved that life has evolved > from amino acids. You're a liar. The evidence has been posted ten times now. You admitted to not looking at more than "a couple" of the links. > Unless you can prove that life can evolve from non-life, > do not expect the advocates of creation science to accept all aspects of > the theory of evolution. And now that we have, what will you do? Admit that your god doesn't exist? Your religion will disappear when the last true believer dies. It's too bad that I won't live to see it. Perhaps my children will though. That is something to work towards. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On Jun 3, 1:45 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > You (and others) have told me that evolution applies only to living > organisms. I don't blame other people and yourself for not wanting to > discuss the time in history when there were NO living organisms on this > planet. The reason is because you have no evidence that indicates that > life evolved from non-life. Someone told me that life may have evolved > from amino acids. A scientist could easily conduct an experiment to > determine whether or not life could evolve from amino acids. I have seen > no evidence to indicate that a scientist has proved that life has evolved > from amino acids. Unless you can prove that life can evolve from non-life, > do not expect the advocates of creation science to accept all aspects of > the theory of evolution. Here's a couple more links presenting the evidence for abiogenesis in more detail. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html Martin Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <XNq8i.24101$YL5.9117@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, > bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> 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? >> The fanatics were the ones trying to impose what amounts to a religious >> doctrine without scientific support into science classes. They are so >> fanatical that they keep trying no matter how they are thwarted: at the >> ballot box, in court, or in school boards. You call the judge a fanatic >> because he ruled with the Constitution and against forcing non-science >> into science classes. >> >> Why do you ally yourself with the forces of darkness and ignorance? >> >> >> In that case, who >>> were the fanatics that wanted to suffocate the children with evolution and >>> not allow an alternative theory to be taught? >> I will not allow children to have meritless "intelligent design" drivel >> crammed down their throats by Christian fanatics. >> >> >> It's very different in many >>> Christian schools. >> Those are private schools. They can teach pretty much what they want. >> >> In many Christian schools, children are taught >>> evolution theory and creation science. >> Too bad for them. >> >> The children in Christian schools >>> actually have more freedom to learn alternative theories than the children >>> that are in public schools. >> No they don't. Creationism is their only choice. BTW "intelligent >> design" is simply a variant of creationism. What do you think happens >> to a student who favors evolutionary theory over creationism? Hint: it >> won't be pleasant. Some freedom. >> >> >> 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. >> Of course there is cause for concern. It's the same as not allowing the >> Ptolemaic model of the universe to be taught in astronomy class - it >> takes time away from teaching the current understanding. >> >> 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. >> No, we just don't want drivel taught unnecessarily. >> >>> 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? >> The latter. They are wrong, they have no scientific backing for their >> beliefs, and they are trying to force their religious views on those who >> may not share them. And they want to do it on public school time. > > The Scopes Monkey Trial was held in 1925. A high school teacher named John > Scopes was on trial for teaching the theory of evolution in violation of > Tennessee State law. It is now 2007 and the roles of the evolutionists and > Christians have been reversed. The evolutionists will not allow the > teaching of intelligent design. The evolutionists even have liberal judges > on their side. "Liberal judges"? Oh boy. Maybe you should look at the judge in the Dover trial... Judge John E. Jones III Guess who appointed him? I will give you another hint.... He is about as "nonliberal" as you can get.... Look for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_E._Jones_III The only children in America that can learn about both the > theory of evolution and the theory of intelligent design are the children > that attend Christian schools. Poor kids... If you know what a scientific theory is, you also know that "ID" or "creationism" does not qualify. Tokay -- Weinberg's Second Law: If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization. Quote
Guest bramble Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On 2 jun, 20:04, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180776532.883015.87...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, bramble > > 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 Oh, dear: Look. In schools we are not teaching religion, but Science. Science is basically postulating a naturalistic explanation of Nature. In some countries, they were teaching the state religion. In the class of religion they teach all that about genesis and the rest. God made the world in sis day and rested the seventh. OK? Now, if you have not an state religion, it is absurd to teach in a public school any "crationism". This is not science anyway. The question is that all this is an irrelvant question, a sort of red herring. The only you are trying to prove, is your political power to impose a change in school. Next thing you will be claiming the right to put a cross in the wall of the classroom, the ten commandments on the playing yard, the prayer before starting a class, and before matches of football, and all that. It is not a question of freedom. If children want to hear about god, they should go to their church, or to any other, or to sunday school. What do you want? To transform the US in a fundi religious country like Saudi Arabia, or Iran? Are you feeling envy for all the power the religious clerics got there? If US is a great power is due in part to techological widzardry. And this comes to us, through scientifical thought. If the European nations would had been subjected to rule of religious fanaticism, there would have not born out any scientifical and technological progress. This happened in the past centuries in Islamic countries. So keep religion out of class room, teach this at home, and in your churchs. It is a lot much better. You have not any need to flex your political muscles trying to impose religion in schools. You know something about Europe? We used to teach religion in the classrooms not long ago. And the rate of atheism is much higher in Europe than in America. I remember, a novel, "The Key's of Saint Peter" that was making fun of catholic superstitions. This happened in the 60's and ordered all the priest to read a paper comdemning this novel, and warning the fidels that they will commit a mortal sin if they read it. The result? This novel sold well over 600 thousands volumes only in Italy. In those years, a very good book used to sell over 20 or 30 thousand volumes. I was an atheist almost sleeping happily, and living in Europe. All this fanatical assault you are trying to make in the US had awakened me, and in a way it has enraged me. I am almost in a path of war against religious fanaticism. You see. Keep a low profile, and do not make too much noise with your silly propositions. Keep religion out of the classrooms. Bramble Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.