Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 Jason wrote: [snip a bunch of questions. Learn yourself. I am not wasting my time] > 20. Would you like to explain the origin of any of the following > twenty-one features of the earth: > > The Grand Canyon and Other Canyons > Mid-Oceanic Ridge > Continental Shelves and Slopes > Ocean Trenches > Seamounts and Tablemounts > Earthquakes > Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor > Submarine Canyons > Coal and Oil Formations > Glaciers and the Ice Ages > Frozen Mammoths > Major Mountain Ranges > Overthrusts > Volcanoes and Lava > Geothermal Heat > Metamorphic Rock > Strata > Plateaus > Salt Domes > Jigsaw Fit of the Continents > Fossil Graveyards > > If so, I will point out some obvious problems with your > explanation and refer you to 77 pages that explain them all as a result of > a global flood. You REALLY think that all this was the result of a global flood? How long ago? IIRC some scientists think there even was one.... Some 4 billion years ago. But that is another matter. > > For the Answers to these questions....... Go to CreationScience.com > > Oh boy. I just wasted my time actually looking at that. You should SEE the crap they propose..... If Jason gets his ideas from that, no wonder. 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 Oh, Jason. You are a nuts case. Evolution is a just theory a respectable and cannot answer all the questions you or anyone can posit. But many of the questions that you posted here have a satisfactory answer so far. And many of propositions you present as a counterpoint to evolution is rather stupid. You have not any way to know, that because of evolution should be millions of organisms more that there are really. You can posit any stupid question you like, and you can misled a ignorant hillybilly or any stupid inhabitant of US or Europe. As for all those supposed enigmas of Grand Cannyon, the midoceanic ridges and others, it is stupid presume it is an anigma at all. You should not waste your time and energies battling against atheist, Jason. Go to preach the gospel to the morons of your home town, Jason. Bramble On 3 jun, 03:41, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 20 Questions for Evolutionists > > 1. Where has macro evolution ever been observed? What's the mechanism > for getting new complexity such as new vital organs? How, for example, > could a caterpillar evolve into a butterfly? > > 2. Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there > if your theory is right? Billions! Not a handful of questionable > transitions. Why don't we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all > living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both? > > 3. Who are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects? The evolutionary > tree that's in the textbook: where's its trunk and where are its branches? > > 4. What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could > ever assemble itself? What about the 4000 books of coded information that > are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells? If astronomers > received an intelligent radio signal from some distant galaxy, most people > would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesn't > the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacteria also > imply an intelligent source? > > 5. How could organs as complicated as the eye or the ear or the brain > of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes? How > could a bacterial motor evolve? > > 6. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? > Why do at least 6 moons revolve backwards? > > 7. Why do we have comets if the solar system is billions of years old? > > 8. Where did all the helium go? > > 9. How did sexual reproduction evolve? > > 10. If the big bang occurred, where did all the information around us > and in us come from? Has an explosion ever produced order? Or as Sir Isaac > Newton said, "Who wound up the clock?" > > 11. Why do so many of the earth's ancient cultures have flood legends? > > 12. Where did matter come from? What about space, time, energy, and > even the laws of physics? > > 13. How did the first living cell begin? That's a greater miracle than > for a bacteria to evolve to a man. How did that first cell reproduce? > > 14. Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did > it not have oxygen? > > 15. Why aren't meteorites found in supposedly old rocks? > > 16. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn't it take > vastly more intelligence to create a human? Do you really believe that > hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough? > > 17. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA--which can > only be produced by DNA? > > 18. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got > there--any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data? Why aren't > students told the scientific reasons for rejecting all the evolutionary > theories for the moon's origin? > > 19. Why won't qualified evolutionists enter into a written, scientific > debate? > > 20. Would you like to explain the origin of any of the following > twenty-one features of the earth: > > The Grand Canyon and Other Canyons > Mid-Oceanic Ridge > Continental Shelves and Slopes > Ocean Trenches > Seamounts and Tablemounts > Earthquakes > Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor > Submarine Canyons > Coal and Oil Formations > Glaciers and the Ice Ages > Frozen Mammoths > Major Mountain Ranges > Overthrusts > Volcanoes and Lava > Geothermal Heat > Metamorphic Rock > Strata > Plateaus > Salt Domes > Jigsaw Fit of the Continents > Fossil Graveyards > > If so, I will point out some obvious problems with your > explanation and refer you to 77 pages that explain them all as a result of > a global flood. > > For the Answers to these questions....... Go to CreationScience.com Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f3t24v$7mv$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <4661add3.268854@news.east.earthlink.net>, >>> luminoso@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:48:06 -0700, bramble >>>> <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 31 mayo, 21:21, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>> In article <f3mkof$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. >> If it's a valid theory, no problem. We explained at length what a valid >> scientific theory must be. Which criteria it must fulfill. ID simply and >> plainly fails said criterias. >> >>> They don't even like it when college professors teach college students >>> about creation science. >> See above. >> >> 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. >> NOT in SCIENCE CLASS! It FAILS all criteria. So it is not science! Teach >> it all you like. Around here the class is termed "Religion" (pronounce >> it german). Or "Ethik". (It IS taught, just not in science class.) >> >> The evolutionists are the new >>> fascist. >> lol >> >> Several days ago, I read about a college professor that was an >>> advocate of creation science. He was denied tenure (spelling??). >> That depends what class he wanted to teach. If it was sociology, he can >> be my guest. If it was biology, he is out. Nor science. Simple, actually. >> >> Of >>> course, if he was an advocate of evolution, he would have been granted >>> tenure. >> Depends. If he wanted to teach sociology, What is his qualification? >> >> >> Tokay > > I was told he taught astronomy classes. > > Also a field in which the so called "ID-nuts" don't especially do too good. Astonomy includes how the universe began. He probably "argued" that "goddidit". So no wonder. Also, if he is one of those buggers that believes the universe and/or the earth is only 6000 years old, he runs into tons of trouble. So, no. He is out. 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 Tokay Pino Gris Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 Martin Phipps wrote: > 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 > Give it up. We all tried to explain this to Jason. To no avail. It is not a scientific theory. It does not belong in science class. 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 3 jun, 06:29, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <GOq8i.24102$YL5.14...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, > > > 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 No. He is trying to transmit the idea that the scientific theory of evolution is nothing but horseshit, and that there is a basic reasoning that pointed in the direction of a supreme being that made the Universe. It is supposed that this can be bought by all religions, because it did not enter in particulars about which holy book is the true one y which are the fake holy books and the fake gods. Bramble Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 Jason wrote: > You (and others) have told me that evolution applies only to living > organisms. Maybe that's because it DOES? 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. Jesus-fucking-christ-on-a-stick! How many times do we have to tell you that life does not evolve from non-life? "Evolve" deals with the changes in living organisms. So live CAN'T evolve from non-life. Life FORMED from non-life (and even your bable agrees with that when it says that man was formed from the dust of the earth.) How often are you going to lie? Someone told me that life may have evolved > from amino acids. If someone told you that, they were wrong. A scientist could easily conduct an experiment to > determine whether or not life could evolve from amino acids. No, they couldn't. It's impossible to conduct such an experiment. It may even be difficult (due to time and space constraints) to conduct an experiment showing life FORMING 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. Go learn the difference between "evolve" and "form." And you complain that we show your "scientific knowledge" no respect. Small wonder when you keep spouting the above type crap. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 Martin Phipps wrote: > 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. Yes, Jason has never TALKED to any of us, his IQ seems to be very low and I've never seen him use fire. So I guess he's an animal and not a human. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f3t1ko$i75$01$4@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Mike wrote: >>> Jason wrote: >>>> In article <1180749228.575786.231970@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >>>> Martin >>>> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Jun 2, 10:27 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>> In article <1180745678.345285.282...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >>>>>> Martin >>>>>> >>>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Jun 2, 1:48 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>>> Please answer the questions that I found when I googled "10 >>>> questions for >>>>>>>> evolutionists" >>>>>>>> 10 Questions for Evolutionists Home >>>>>>>> 1. When the "Big Bang" (big bunk!) supposedly began the >>>> universe - what >>>>>>>> banged? Where did that first piece of matter come from, if not >>>> God? Where >>>>>>>> did the energy come from that caused the bang? Where did the space >>>>>>>> come >>>>>>>> from that the bang expanded into? >>>>>>> Where do you think your God came from? >>>>>> You answered a question with a question. Would you let your students >>>>>> get >>>>>> away with that? >>>>> You're answering my question with a question. Should we let you get >>>>> away with that? >>>>> >>>>> Martin >>>> Martin, >>>> I realize that you don't have much respect for my knowledge of science. >>> Oh, we have LOTS of respect for your knowledge of science. The whole >>> problem is that such knowledge is probably limited to about 2 words and >>> then you go off on this side track of religion that is so stupid as to >>> be laughable. >>> >>>> That is the reason I tried to find some information from someone that has >>>> as much knowledge as you. Dr. Steven Weinberg was a Nobel prize >>>> winner--his field was physics. I found this information at the American >>>> Institute of Physics website: >>> <snip speech from Dr. Weinberg> >>> >>> How, exactly, did that help your position? If you actually READ what he >>> said, you'd realize he was arguing AGAINST your stand on things. >> I am pretty sure he regrets having posted this.... >> >> It was a nice article, though. Maybe he should refine his "speed >> reading" some more.... >> >> >> Tokay > > I enjoyed reading it. Now read it again for understanding and NOT just enjoyment. The conclusion was that he was in favor of > intelligent design being taught in the public school system. He was NOT for teaching ID. Instead he was holding exactly the OPPOSITE view. "But you're not doing your job if you let a question like the validity ofevolution 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." It was his > opinion that the students would realize that evolution was the superior > theory. It was his opinion that ID shouldn't even be presented to begin with because it has no science at all behind it. He never even addressed if the students would realize it's the superior theory. I disagree. I believe that many of the students would come to the > conclusion that intelligent design was the superior theory. First it has to be a theory. There is no such thing as the "theory of ID" since ID isn't even scientific. Most > evolutionists do not want intelligent design to be taught since they fear > that many students would realize that intelligent design was the superior > theory. snicker snort chuckle BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!! Damned, I tried to keep a straight face when reading that; honestly, I really did. Jason, have you ever thought of quitting your day job and becoming a comedian? Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 Jason wrote: > The problem is that evolutionists now have total control and will not > allow any alternative theories to be taught in the public school system. The problem is that you are stupid and have no idea what a theory is. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 Jason wrote: > The Intelligent Design textbook did not mention any information about the > Bible or religious issues. Sure it did; right where it said "there was a designed that made it all." That's a religious issue. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 22:45:32 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0206072245320001@66-52-22-4.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: .... >You (and others) have told me that evolution applies only to living >organisms. Yet you insist on ignoring that fact. >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. Once again, you repeat a false statement that you know is false. There is a huge amount of evidence that life began as a natural process. You refuse, dishonestly, to acknowledge that evidence. That particular process is called abiogenesis and it is different from evolution. If you don't want to come across as a religious liar, you will start using scientific words in scientific contexts correctly. >Someone told me that life may have evolved from amino acids. Amino acids are part of life. Once again, you have demonstrated a complete ignorance of the discipline that you fancy you are critiquing. >A scientist could easily conduct an experiment to >determine whether or not life could evolve from amino acids. You don't have any idea what you are talking about. >I have seen >no evidence to indicate that a scientist has proved that life has evolved >from amino acids. You have refused to see any evidence at all. All of this seems to be your attempt to ignore the fact that humans share a common evolutionary ancestry with the other great apes, mammals, animals and all other organisms on earth. That fact is strongly supported by the evidence and you refuse to admit it. You lie about science because you cannot admit that the religious doctrine that you teach has been proven false. >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. I don't expect you to accept any science. I expect you to continue lying about science. You have never disappointed me, nor have the liars at the ICR, CRS, AIG or Discovery Institute. They all are proud of their lies. All of you mock the god you say you worship because all of you call your god a liar. -- "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 19:41:45 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0206071941450001@66-52-22-55.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > 20 Questions for Evolutionists [20 of the most common lies told by anti-science creationists in question form deleted] > For the Answers to these questions....... Go to CreationScience.com > You pointed us to a collection of lies by people who are either ignorant of science or are intentionally telling lies about science because they find it more convenient to sucker religious people into paying them to tell lies. Either way, they are acting in a criminal fashion, confidence men taking money under false pretenses. You should feel shame in supporting their criminal enterprise. -- "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 12:13:09 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0306071213090001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <f3ue0d$7q7$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris ><tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> >> [snip a bunch of questions. Learn yourself. I am not wasting my time] >> >> > 20. Would you like to explain the origin of any of the following >> > twenty-one features of the earth: >> > >> > The Grand Canyon and Other Canyons >> > Mid-Oceanic Ridge >> > Continental Shelves and Slopes >> > Ocean Trenches >> > Seamounts and Tablemounts >> > Earthquakes >> > Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor >> > Submarine Canyons >> > Coal and Oil Formations >> > Glaciers and the Ice Ages >> > Frozen Mammoths >> > Major Mountain Ranges >> > Overthrusts >> > Volcanoes and Lava >> > Geothermal Heat >> > Metamorphic Rock >> > Strata >> > Plateaus >> > Salt Domes >> > Jigsaw Fit of the Continents >> > Fossil Graveyards >> > >> > If so, I will point out some obvious problems with your >> > explanation and refer you to 77 pages that explain them all as a result of >> > a global flood. >> >> You REALLY think that all this was the result of a global flood? >> How long ago? >> IIRC some scientists think there even was one.... Some 4 billion years ago. >> But that is another matter. > >Yes, I believe there was a global flood. So what? The evidence tells us that you are wrong. >I don't know how many years ago that it happened. I doubt that anyone knows >the time period that it took place. Scientists know that it never happened. The evidence is quite clear that there was no global flood. >> > For the Answers to these questions....... Go to CreationScience.com >> >> Oh boy. I just wasted my time actually looking at that. You should SEE >> the crap they propose..... >> >> If Jason gets his ideas from that, no wonder. Jason is a huge fan of anti-science religious sites. They tell the lies he likes. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 12:08:44 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0306071208450001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <f3ueed$8qe$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris ><tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: .... >> Also a field in which the so called "ID-nuts" don't especially do too >> good. Astonomy includes how the universe began. He probably "argued" >> that "goddidit". So no wonder. Also, if he is one of those buggers that >> believes the universe and/or the earth is only 6000 years old, he runs >> into tons of trouble. >> So, no. He is out. >> >> Tokay > >Tokay, >He did not get tenure but is still a professor. If they fire him, he could >get a job as a professor at a Christian college where they don't >discriminate against the advocates of creation science. Real colleges don't teach religious lies as science. I don't think you can find a single church-related college that would want the lies of 'creation science' taught in science class. The 'Bible colleges' you are thinking of have are not real colleges. >Discrimination is >suppose to be illegal but I guess that some of the members of this >newsgroup appear to believe that it's acceptable for public colleges to >discriminate against professors that are advocates of creation science by >not granting them tenure. How would you feel if a Christian college >refused to grant tenure to a biology professor since he was an advocate of >evolution? Once again, you defame those who disagree with you. There was no illegal discrimination and the man did not fail to get tenure because of his religious beliefs. Stop telling lies. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >Millions of parents are now home schooling their children or placing them >in Christian schools where they are free to learn about Christianity, >evolution and intellegent design. The most egregious misspelling in the above sentence is your typo "free" where "forced" is obviously meant. <...> Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 In article <1180874480.306174.139510@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, bramble <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Bramble, Millions of parents are now home schooling their children or placing them in Christian schools where they are free to learn about Christianity, evolution and intellegent design. Millions of rich parents send their children to college prep. schools. The end result is that the public schools in many large cities are failures. I once had a boss that taught school in the Harlem district. He told me that most of his students did not want to learn and it was difficult to teach the children that did want to learn. He told me they had fights at least once a week in that school. I have read that children in American public schools now score much lower than children from other countries in various subjects--esp. math and science. I read that about half of the students that are taking engineering classes in most of the American colleges are from countries other than America. In other words, our schools are failing. The child that won the national spelling contest was not educated at a public school. He was educated in a home school. One of the reasons the public schools are failing is because many Christian students and the children of rich people are not in those public schools. I don't blame those parents for giving up on the public schools. It's my guess that public school students in the 1940's and 1950's scored higher than children from other countries--even in math and science. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 In article <1180862637.657471.263860@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Martin, You are making an assumption. He may or may not have had more expertise than other professors. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 In article <f3ueed$8qe$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f3t24v$7mv$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <4661add3.268854@news.east.earthlink.net>, > >>> luminoso@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:48:06 -0700, bramble > >>>> <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 31 mayo, 21:21, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>>>> In article <f3mkof$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. > >> If it's a valid theory, no problem. We explained at length what a valid > >> scientific theory must be. Which criteria it must fulfill. ID simply and > >> plainly fails said criterias. > >> > >>> They don't even like it when college professors teach college students > >>> about creation science. > >> See above. > >> > >> 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. > >> NOT in SCIENCE CLASS! It FAILS all criteria. So it is not science! Teach > >> it all you like. Around here the class is termed "Religion" (pronounce > >> it german). Or "Ethik". (It IS taught, just not in science class.) > >> > >> The evolutionists are the new > >>> fascist. > >> lol > >> > >> Several days ago, I read about a college professor that was an > >>> advocate of creation science. He was denied tenure (spelling??). > >> That depends what class he wanted to teach. If it was sociology, he can > >> be my guest. If it was biology, he is out. Nor science. Simple, actually. > >> > >> Of > >>> course, if he was an advocate of evolution, he would have been granted > >>> tenure. > >> Depends. If he wanted to teach sociology, What is his qualification? > >> > >> > >> Tokay > > > > I was told he taught astronomy classes. > > > > > > Also a field in which the so called "ID-nuts" don't especially do too > good. Astonomy includes how the universe began. He probably "argued" > that "goddidit". So no wonder. Also, if he is one of those buggers that > believes the universe and/or the earth is only 6000 years old, he runs > into tons of trouble. > So, no. He is out. > > Tokay Tokay, He did not get tenure but is still a professor. If they fire him, he could get a job as a professor at a Christian college where they don't discriminate against the advocates of creation science. Discrimination is suppose to be illegal but I guess that some of the members of this newsgroup appear to believe that it's acceptable for public colleges to discriminate against professors that are advocates of creation science by not granting them tenure. How would you feel if a Christian college refused to grant tenure to a biology professor since he was an advocate of evolution? Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 In article <f3ue0d$7q7$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > [snip a bunch of questions. Learn yourself. I am not wasting my time] > > > 20. Would you like to explain the origin of any of the following > > twenty-one features of the earth: > > > > The Grand Canyon and Other Canyons > > Mid-Oceanic Ridge > > Continental Shelves and Slopes > > Ocean Trenches > > Seamounts and Tablemounts > > Earthquakes > > Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor > > Submarine Canyons > > Coal and Oil Formations > > Glaciers and the Ice Ages > > Frozen Mammoths > > Major Mountain Ranges > > Overthrusts > > Volcanoes and Lava > > Geothermal Heat > > Metamorphic Rock > > Strata > > Plateaus > > Salt Domes > > Jigsaw Fit of the Continents > > Fossil Graveyards > > > > If so, I will point out some obvious problems with your > > explanation and refer you to 77 pages that explain them all as a result of > > a global flood. > > You REALLY think that all this was the result of a global flood? > How long ago? > IIRC some scientists think there even was one.... Some 4 billion years ago. > But that is another matter. Yes, I believe there was a global flood. I don't know how many years ago that it happened. I doubt that anyone knows the time period that it took place. > > > > > > > For the Answers to these questions....... Go to CreationScience.com > > > > > > Oh boy. I just wasted my time actually looking at that. You should SEE > the crap they propose..... > > If Jason gets his ideas from that, no wonder. > > > Tokay Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 In article <1180864433.482133.263330@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 3, 9:37 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <f3t1f1$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 Martin, You have told me that life evolved from non-life. Yes, spell it out for me. Explain how life evolved from non-life. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 In article <1180863203.738843.244120@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > 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 gori= > lla > > > >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 confu= > se > > > >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=F8rselstegn - > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > Does using fire mean that you are not related to other apes? No > Jason, it does not mean that. You zoo example was completely > meaningless. These are some of the differences: the use of fire burying the dead the ability to communicate by talking differences in DNA differences in IQ the ability to worship Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: <...> > >I attended a Christian college for two years. One of the biology >professors was a Christian and was an advocate of creation science. He >taught evolution theory. He did not teach creation science to his >students. He did have a special session each quarter where he taught the >basics of creation science. None of his students were required to attend >and none of the students that attended the special session were required >to take tests. As far as I know, the other biology professors did not >discriminate against him. I visited his office and had a conversation with >him. He was not my biology professor. I doubt that he would have been >allowed to teach the special creation science session if he had worked in >a state university. >Jason Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, has been the location of a presentation by Duane Gish, presenting the case for scientific creationism. "Gish is [or was] the vice president of the Institute for Creation Research and was touted in fliers for the event as "one of the world's leading experts on Scientific Creationism."" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish http://www.ftvc.org/news0900.html Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 13:12:56 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0306071312560001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <9j1663pg2co5elm1hpf7umont827mertl3@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 12:08:44 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0306071208450001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <f3ueed$8qe$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >> ><tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >> >> ... >> >> >> Also a field in which the so called "ID-nuts" don't especially do too >> >> good. Astonomy includes how the universe began. He probably "argued" >> >> that "goddidit". So no wonder. Also, if he is one of those buggers that >> >> believes the universe and/or the earth is only 6000 years old, he runs >> >> into tons of trouble. >> >> So, no. He is out. >> >> >> >> Tokay >> > >> >Tokay, >> >He did not get tenure but is still a professor. If they fire him, he could >> >get a job as a professor at a Christian college where they don't >> >discriminate against the advocates of creation science. >> >> Real colleges don't teach religious lies as science. I don't think you >> can find a single church-related college that would want the lies of >> 'creation science' taught in science class. The 'Bible colleges' you are >> thinking of have are not real colleges. >> >> >Discrimination is >> >suppose to be illegal but I guess that some of the members of this >> >newsgroup appear to believe that it's acceptable for public colleges to >> >discriminate against professors that are advocates of creation science by >> >not granting them tenure. How would you feel if a Christian college >> >refused to grant tenure to a biology professor since he was an advocate of >> >evolution? >> >> Once again, you defame those who disagree with you. There was no illegal >> discrimination and the man did not fail to get tenure because of his >> religious beliefs. Stop telling lies. > >I attended a Christian college for two years. A real college that was associated with a Christian denomination like SMU or Notre Dame or a Bible College that has no use for science like Bob Jones? >One of the biology >professors was a Christian and was an advocate of creation science. He >taught evolution theory. He did not teach creation science to his >students. Good for him. > He did have a special session each quarter where he taught the >basics of creation science. None of his students were required to attend >and none of the students that attended the special session were required >to take tests. As far as I know, the other biology professors did not >discriminate against him. I visited his office and had a conversation with >him. He was not my biology professor. I doubt that he would have been >allowed to teach the special creation science session if he had worked in >a state university. Because special creation is contrary to the evidence. Do you want other lies taught in college as well? How does astrology fit into your curriculum? Maybe you want dowsing taught? Would witchcraft fit in? Magic? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 12:42:43 -0700, in alt.atheism Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote in <615663l15ik3mdb5s0bm2rg636pnmqfevk@4ax.com>: >Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > ><...> >> >>I attended a Christian college for two years. One of the biology >>professors was a Christian and was an advocate of creation science. He >>taught evolution theory. He did not teach creation science to his >>students. He did have a special session each quarter where he taught the >>basics of creation science. None of his students were required to attend >>and none of the students that attended the special session were required >>to take tests. As far as I know, the other biology professors did not >>discriminate against him. I visited his office and had a conversation with >>him. He was not my biology professor. I doubt that he would have been >>allowed to teach the special creation science session if he had worked in >>a state university. >>Jason > >Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, has been the location of >a presentation by Duane Gish, presenting the case for scientific >creationism. "Gish is [or was] the vice president of the Institute for >Creation Research and was touted in fliers for the event as "one of >the world's leading experts on Scientific Creationism."" > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish >http://www.ftvc.org/news0900.html > Gish, of course, is 100% bogus, but he still gets a chance to sell his lies at a public college. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 3, 2007 Posted June 3, 2007 In article <9j1663pg2co5elm1hpf7umont827mertl3@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 12:08:44 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-0306071208450001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <f3ueed$8qe$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > ><tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > > ... > > >> Also a field in which the so called "ID-nuts" don't especially do too > >> good. Astonomy includes how the universe began. He probably "argued" > >> that "goddidit". So no wonder. Also, if he is one of those buggers that > >> believes the universe and/or the earth is only 6000 years old, he runs > >> into tons of trouble. > >> So, no. He is out. > >> > >> Tokay > > > >Tokay, > >He did not get tenure but is still a professor. If they fire him, he could > >get a job as a professor at a Christian college where they don't > >discriminate against the advocates of creation science. > > Real colleges don't teach religious lies as science. I don't think you > can find a single church-related college that would want the lies of > 'creation science' taught in science class. The 'Bible colleges' you are > thinking of have are not real colleges. > > >Discrimination is > >suppose to be illegal but I guess that some of the members of this > >newsgroup appear to believe that it's acceptable for public colleges to > >discriminate against professors that are advocates of creation science by > >not granting them tenure. How would you feel if a Christian college > >refused to grant tenure to a biology professor since he was an advocate of > >evolution? > > Once again, you defame those who disagree with you. There was no illegal > discrimination and the man did not fail to get tenure because of his > religious beliefs. Stop telling lies. I attended a Christian college for two years. One of the biology professors was a Christian and was an advocate of creation science. He taught evolution theory. He did not teach creation science to his students. He did have a special session each quarter where he taught the basics of creation science. None of his students were required to attend and none of the students that attended the special session were required to take tests. As far as I know, the other biology professors did not discriminate against him. I visited his office and had a conversation with him. He was not my biology professor. I doubt that he would have been allowed to teach the special creation science session if he had worked in a state university. Jason Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.