On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 21:55:16 -0700, in alt.fan.pratchett
(Jason) wrote in
:
In article ,
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 15:32:14 -0700, (Jason) wrote:

You mentioned the fossil evidence. I suggest that you read the following
book if you really want to learn about the fossil evidence:
"EVOLUTION: THE FOSSILS STILL SAY NO" by Dr. Duane Gish

Before wasting time or money looking at anything by Gish, it might be
a good idea to read this review of Gish's work:

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html

He's a prevaricating, creationist shill. His work has no value, except
of course, as fiction, and as a "resource" for creationist boobs (if
that's not redundant).

Hello,
Several years ago, I attended a debate between Dr. Gish and a professor
from the local state university. Dr. Gish clearly won the debate.

"Won" is a matter of perception. He did not have the scientific facts on
his side, so whatever he won was merely the result of his ability to
persuade the ignorant that his story was more believable than the person
who did have the facts on his side.

A poster
in another newsgroup told me that he attended another debate. He said that
Dr. Gish lost that debate. I respect Dr. Gish.

You should not. He is not honest. You may respect his religious beliefs,
but he lies, and knows he lies, when he applies those doctrines to
science.

He is now retired. I don't
expect evolutionists to respect Dr. Gish or say possible things about him
or any of the books he has written. I also don't blame evolutionists for
rushing to court whenever a school system wants to teach ID. The
evolutionists don't want their house of cards to come crashing down.

It is not a house of cards. It takes profound ignorance or a completely
dishonest attitude toward science to make that claim.

Of course, they will come up with other reasons to prevent teachers from
teaching ID. History is repeating itself. When Christians had control of
the public school system, they tried (but failed) to prevent teachers from
teaching evolution.

Religious doctrines are not science. They do not belong in a science
classroom, most religious schools don't teach creationism in their
science classes, either.

In article , David Jensen
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 21:55:16 -0700, in alt.fan.pratchett
(Jason) wrote in
:
In article ,
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 15:32:14 -0700, (Jason) wrote:

You mentioned the fossil evidence. I suggest that you read the following
book if you really want to learn about the fossil evidence:
"EVOLUTION: THE FOSSILS STILL SAY NO" by Dr. Duane Gish

Before wasting time or money looking at anything by Gish, it might be
a good idea to read this review of Gish's work:

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html

He's a prevaricating, creationist shill. His work has no value, except
of course, as fiction, and as a "resource" for creationist boobs (if
that's not redundant).

Hello,
Several years ago, I attended a debate between Dr. Gish and a professor
from the local state university. Dr. Gish clearly won the debate.

"Won" is a matter of perception. He did not have the scientific facts on
his side, so whatever he won was merely the result of his ability to
persuade the ignorant that his story was more believable than the person
who did have the facts on his side.

A poster
in another newsgroup told me that he attended another debate. He said that
Dr. Gish lost that debate. I respect Dr. Gish.

You should not. He is not honest. You may respect his religious beliefs,
but he lies, and knows he lies, when he applies those doctrines to
science.

He is now retired. I don't
expect evolutionists to respect Dr. Gish or say possible things about him
or any of the books he has written. I also don't blame evolutionists for
rushing to court whenever a school system wants to teach ID. The
evolutionists don't want their house of cards to come crashing down.

It is not a house of cards. It takes profound ignorance or a completely
dishonest attitude toward science to make that claim.

Of course, they will come up with other reasons to prevent teachers from
teaching ID. History is repeating itself. When Christians had control of
the public school system, they tried (but failed) to prevent teachers from
teaching evolution.

Religious doctrines are not science. They do not belong in a science
classroom, most religious schools don't teach creationism in their
science classes, either.

Hello,
Thanks for your post. Needless to say, I disagree with you. I only wish
that you had attended one of the debates before he retired. Dr. Gish is a
very kind and wonderful person. He treated the professor with the utmost
respect. The professor was making a fool of himself by showing disrespect
for Dr. Gish.
I realize that debates are not like college football games--there is not
always a clear winner. For example, if we attended the same debate, you
might say the professor won and I would say that Dr. Gish won. I will
become an evolutionist whenever a scientist can do an experiment that
proves that life can evolve from non-life. Until that happens, I will
remain to be an advocate for the IDers and the creation science movement.m

Jason

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 11:11:33 -0700, in alt.fan.pratchett
(Jason) wrote in
:
In article , David Jensen
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 21:55:16 -0700, in alt.fan.pratchett
(Jason) wrote in
:
....
He is now retired. I don't
expect evolutionists to respect Dr. Gish or say possible things about him
or any of the books he has written. I also don't blame evolutionists for
rushing to court whenever a school system wants to teach ID. The
evolutionists don't want their house of cards to come crashing down.

It is not a house of cards. It takes profound ignorance or a completely
dishonest attitude toward science to make that claim.

Of course, they will come up with other reasons to prevent teachers from
teaching ID. History is repeating itself. When Christians had control of
the public school system, they tried (but failed) to prevent teachers from
teaching evolution.

Religious doctrines are not science. They do not belong in a science
classroom, most religious schools don't teach creationism in their
science classes, either.

Hello,
Thanks for your post. Needless to say, I disagree with you. I only wish
that you had attended one of the debates before he retired. Dr. Gish is a
very kind and wonderful person. He treated the professor with the utmost
respect. The professor was making a fool of himself by showing disrespect
for Dr. Gish.

I have no respect for Gish because he has shown that he should not be
respected. He is dishonest and repeats falsehoods after he has been
corrected on them. There are many such people who act as if they are
respectful, but are picking your pocket while they do so. They deserve
public condemnation.

Please read _Elmer Gantry_. Religious confidence men have been around a
long time, taking advantage of those who want to believe in something.

I realize that debates are not like college football games--there is not
always a clear winner. For example, if we attended the same debate, you
might say the professor won and I would say that Dr. Gish won. I will
become an evolutionist whenever a scientist can do an experiment that
proves that life can evolve from non-life. Until that happens, I will
remain to be an advocate for the IDers and the creation science movement.m

We already know that life can come from non-life, so apparently you have
no objections to evolution, even though evolution is about the changes
in life over time, not the beginning of life on earth.

Go to talk.origins and see why science supporters are so upset with
those who lie about science and manipulate religious believers.

In article ,
says...
In article , David Jensen
wrote:


Hello,
Thanks for your post. Needless to say, I disagree with you. I only wish
that you had attended one of the debates before he retired. Dr. Gish is a
very kind and wonderful person. He treated the professor with the utmost
respect. The professor was making a fool of himself by showing disrespect
for Dr. Gish.

So? A snake oil salesman can be awfully nice while he cons you.


I realize that debates are not like college football games--there is not
always a clear winner. For example, if we attended the same debate, you
might say the professor won and I would say that Dr. Gish won. I will
become an evolutionist whenever a scientist can do an experiment that
proves that life can evolve from non-life. Until that happens, I will
remain to be an advocate for the IDers and the creation science movement.

You keep repeating this mantra, yet never respond to critiques of your
view point.

So you don't want to be challenged or will admit their are better ways
of tackling the questions of science than believing in ID.

bel



m

Jason

In article , David Jensen
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 11:11:33 -0700, in alt.fan.pratchett
(Jason) wrote in
:
In article , David Jensen
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 21:55:16 -0700, in alt.fan.pratchett
(Jason) wrote in
:
...
He is now retired. I don't
expect evolutionists to respect Dr. Gish or say possible things about him
or any of the books he has written. I also don't blame evolutionists for
rushing to court whenever a school system wants to teach ID. The
evolutionists don't want their house of cards to come crashing down.

It is not a house of cards. It takes profound ignorance or a completely
dishonest attitude toward science to make that claim.

Of course, they will come up with other reasons to prevent teachers from
teaching ID. History is repeating itself. When Christians had control of
the public school system, they tried (but failed) to prevent teachers from
teaching evolution.

Religious doctrines are not science. They do not belong in a science
classroom, most religious schools don't teach creationism in their
science classes, either.

Hello,
Thanks for your post. Needless to say, I disagree with you. I only wish
that you had attended one of the debates before he retired. Dr. Gish is a
very kind and wonderful person. He treated the professor with the utmost
respect. The professor was making a fool of himself by showing disrespect
for Dr. Gish.

I have no respect for Gish because he has shown that he should not be
respected. He is dishonest and repeats falsehoods after he has been
corrected on them. There are many such people who act as if they are
respectful, but are picking your pocket while they do so. They deserve
public condemnation.

Please read _Elmer Gantry_. Religious confidence men have been around a
long time, taking advantage of those who want to believe in something.

I realize that debates are not like college football games--there is not
always a clear winner. For example, if we attended the same debate, you
might say the professor won and I would say that Dr. Gish won. I will
become an evolutionist whenever a scientist can do an experiment that
proves that life can evolve from non-life. Until that happens, I will
remain to be an advocate for the IDers and the creation science movement.m

We already know that life can come from non-life, so apparently you have
no objections to evolution, even though evolution is about the changes
in life over time, not the beginning of life on earth.

Go to talk.origins and see why science supporters are so upset with
those who lie about science and manipulate religious believers.

Hello,
When I was in college, the professor told the class that the first cell
(or cells) evolved from non-life in a "primordial pond". So please check
your facts before posting false information. The members of the creation
science movement and ID movement acknowledge that plants and animals can
change in life over time. The evolutionists call it micro-evolution and we
call it adaption or micro-evolution. I have already visited the
talk.origins website.
Jason

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.

In article ,
Phoenix wrote:

In article ,
says...
In article , David Jensen
wrote:


Hello,
Thanks for your post. Needless to say, I disagree with you. I only wish
that you had attended one of the debates before he retired. Dr. Gish is a
very kind and wonderful person. He treated the professor with the utmost
respect. The professor was making a fool of himself by showing disrespect
for Dr. Gish.

So? A snake oil salesman can be awfully nice while he cons you.


I realize that debates are not like college football games--there is not
always a clear winner. For example, if we attended the same debate, you
might say the professor won and I would say that Dr. Gish won. I will
become an evolutionist whenever a scientist can do an experiment that
proves that life can evolve from non-life. Until that happens, I will
remain to be an advocate for the IDers and the creation science movement.

You keep repeating this mantra, yet never respond to critiques of your
view point.

So you don't want to be challenged or will admit their are better ways
of tackling the questions of science than believing in ID.

Hello,
There are OTHER ways of tackling the questions of science than believing
in ID but it does not mean there are BETTER ways.
If you ask your questions, I'll try to answer them. Most people make
points in their posts without asking questions. In many cases, I agree
with their points.
Jason

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.

Jason ,
I previously asked some questions which you have chosen to ignore. While I
believe that you ignored them because you don't know how to answer, how can
we have a scientific discussion if you ignore scientific questions? So let
me reiterate a little.

You dismiss discussion of what you call microevolution, which you agree
with, but have rejected what you call macroevolution, which Darwin called
origin of species. So, what defines "species" and what differentiates one
from another? If it will help, we could consider a species of Finch on a
Galapagos Island from a very similar species of Finch on a nearby island (I
am trying to pick up on this ideosynchratic capitalization). Or, you pick
some similar case where, according to evolution theory, there are two very
similar species. What is the testable ID explanation for such a case?

Secondly, and I will shorten the list to make it easier for you, what is an
example of something that exists in nature (i.e. is observable) and cannot
be explained through evolution but for which there is a clear ID
explanation.

Looking forward to your reply.

Steve

We can save the question of what is the critical number of scientists that
support some particular belief for later.

Hello,
When I was in college, the professor told the class that the first cell
(or cells) evolved from non-life in a "primordial pond". So please check
your facts before posting false information. The members of the creation
science movement and ID movement acknowledge that plants and animals can
change in life over time. The evolutionists call it micro-evolution and we
call it adaption or micro-evolution. I have already visited the
talk.origins website.
Jason

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 11:11:33 -0700, (Jason) wrote:

I will
become an evolutionist whenever a scientist can do an experiment that
proves that life can evolve from non-life. Until that happens, I will
remain to be an advocate for the IDers and the creation science movement.

Ok, so on the one hand we have evolution. Since nobody was there at
the beginning, we can't watch a video and see it happen, so there's no
direct proof. Thus you say it must be wrong.

On the other hand we have ID. Since nobody was there at the beginning,
we can't watch a video and see it happen, so there's no direct proof.
Shouldn't you be just as unwilling to believe this version?

Besides, there are other forms of evidence than standing there
yourself and seeing it happen. While there's lots of evidence that
supprts the theory of evolution, the only evidence for ID I've seen so
far is "some people wrote about it in some books." If you've ever read
some fiction books, you know that just because some things are written
down, they don't have to be true. This means that you're left with no
evidence for ID at all.

Sure, this doesn't mean evolution has to be the 100% definite certain
truth, but at least there are enough grounds to give this theory a
place at schools. On the other hand, ID ID lacks any such grounds, and
therefore it shouldn't. At least not as science.
--
Watashi wa neko desu nyo.

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 17:50:13 -0700, in alt.fan.pratchett
(Jason) wrote in
:
In article , David Jensen
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 11:11:33 -0700, in alt.fan.pratchett
(Jason) wrote in
:
In article , David Jensen
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 21:55:16 -0700, in alt.fan.pratchett
(Jason) wrote in
:
...
He is now retired. I don't
expect evolutionists to respect Dr. Gish or say possible things about him
or any of the books he has written. I also don't blame evolutionists for
rushing to court whenever a school system wants to teach ID. The
evolutionists don't want their house of cards to come crashing down.

It is not a house of cards. It takes profound ignorance or a completely
dishonest attitude toward science to make that claim.

Of course, they will come up with other reasons to prevent teachers from
teaching ID. History is repeating itself. When Christians had control of
the public school system, they tried (but failed) to prevent teachers from
teaching evolution.

Religious doctrines are not science. They do not belong in a science
classroom, most religious schools don't teach creationism in their
science classes, either.

Hello,
Thanks for your post. Needless to say, I disagree with you. I only wish
that you had attended one of the debates before he retired. Dr. Gish is a
very kind and wonderful person. He treated the professor with the utmost
respect. The professor was making a fool of himself by showing disrespect
for Dr. Gish.

I have no respect for Gish because he has shown that he should not be
respected. He is dishonest and repeats falsehoods after he has been
corrected on them. There are many such people who act as if they are
respectful, but are picking your pocket while they do so. They deserve
public condemnation.

Please read _Elmer Gantry_. Religious confidence men have been around a
long time, taking advantage of those who want to believe in something.

I realize that debates are not like college football games--there is not
always a clear winner. For example, if we attended the same debate, you
might say the professor won and I would say that Dr. Gish won. I will
become an evolutionist whenever a scientist can do an experiment that
proves that life can evolve from non-life. Until that happens, I will
remain to be an advocate for the IDers and the creation science movement.m

We already know that life can come from non-life, so apparently you have
no objections to evolution, even though evolution is about the changes
in life over time, not the beginning of life on earth.

Go to talk.origins and see why science supporters are so upset with
those who lie about science and manipulate religious believers.

Hello,
When I was in college, the professor told the class that the first cell
(or cells) evolved from non-life in a "primordial pond". So please check
your facts before posting false information.

How am I providing false information. The theory of evolution by
variation and natural selection is a theory of the variation of _life_.
It seems that the general consensus is that life existed well before
cells did, so I'm not certain where you got the idea that cells evolved
from non-life. Your professor may have been confused or you may have
misunderstood him.

The members of the creation
science movement and ID movement acknowledge that plants and animals can
change in life over time. The evolutionists call it micro-evolution and we
call it adaption or micro-evolution. I have already visited the
talk.origins website.

You haven't addressed speciation or admitted to have learned anything
from www.talkorigins.org

[once again, I urge you to discuss this on talk.origins, the new
follow-up]

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 17:53:12 -0700, in alt.fan.pratchett
(Jason) wrote in
:
In article ,
Phoenix wrote:

In article ,
says...
In article , David Jensen
wrote:


Hello,
Thanks for your post. Needless to say, I disagree with you. I only wish
that you had attended one of the debates before he retired. Dr. Gish is a
very kind and wonderful person. He treated the professor with the utmost
respect. The professor was making a fool of himself by showing disrespect
for Dr. Gish.

So? A snake oil salesman can be awfully nice while he cons you.


I realize that debates are not like college football games--there is not
always a clear winner. For example, if we attended the same debate, you
might say the professor won and I would say that Dr. Gish won. I will
become an evolutionist whenever a scientist can do an experiment that
proves that life can evolve from non-life. Until that happens, I will
remain to be an advocate for the IDers and the creation science movement.

You keep repeating this mantra, yet never respond to critiques of your
view point.

So you don't want to be challenged or will admit their are better ways
of tackling the questions of science than believing in ID.

Hello,
There are OTHER ways of tackling the questions of science than believing
in ID but it does not mean there are BETTER ways.

ID is not a scientific explanation, so the question does not arise.

If you ask your questions, I'll try to answer them. Most people make
points in their posts without asking questions. In many cases, I agree
with their points.

It all depends on what you are trying to do. You have failed to answer
specific questions that people have asked you. Why?

On 10/23/2005 8:50 PM Jason mumbled something about the following:
In article , David Jensen
wrote:


On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 11:11:33 -0700, in alt.fan.pratchett
(Jason) wrote in
:

In article , David Jensen
wrote:


On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 21:55:16 -0700, in alt.fan.pratchett
(Jason) wrote in
:

...

He is now retired. I don't
expect evolutionists to respect Dr. Gish or say possible things about him
or any of the books he has written. I also don't blame evolutionists for
rushing to court whenever a school system wants to teach ID. The
evolutionists don't want their house of cards to come crashing down.

It is not a house of cards. It takes profound ignorance or a completely
dishonest attitude toward science to make that claim.


Of course, they will come up with other reasons to prevent teachers from
teaching ID. History is repeating itself. When Christians had control of
the public school system, they tried (but failed) to prevent teachers from
teaching evolution.

Religious doctrines are not science. They do not belong in a science
classroom, most religious schools don't teach creationism in their
science classes, either.

Hello,
Thanks for your post. Needless to say, I disagree with you. I only wish
that you had attended one of the debates before he retired. Dr. Gish is a
very kind and wonderful person. He treated the professor with the utmost
respect. The professor was making a fool of himself by showing disrespect
for Dr. Gish.

I have no respect for Gish because he has shown that he should not be
respected. He is dishonest and repeats falsehoods after he has been
corrected on them. There are many such people who act as if they are
respectful, but are picking your pocket while they do so. They deserve
public condemnation.

Please read _Elmer Gantry_. Religious confidence men have been around a
long time, taking advantage of those who want to believe in something.


I realize that debates are not like college football games--there is not
always a clear winner. For example, if we attended the same debate, you
might say the professor won and I would say that Dr. Gish won. I will
become an evolutionist whenever a scientist can do an experiment that
proves that life can evolve from non-life. Until that happens, I will
remain to be an advocate for the IDers and the creation science movement.m

We already know that life can come from non-life, so apparently you have
no objections to evolution, even though evolution is about the changes
in life over time, not the beginning of life on earth.

Go to talk.origins and see why science supporters are so upset with
those who lie about science and manipulate religious believers.


Hello,
When I was in college, the professor told the class that the first cell
(or cells) evolved from non-life in a "primordial pond". So please check
your facts before posting false information. The members of the creation
science movement and ID movement acknowledge that plants and animals can
change in life over time. The evolutionists call it micro-evolution and we
call it adaption or micro-evolution. I have already visited the
talk.origins website.

Evolutionists don't call it micro-evolution, creationists and IDers do.
Evolutionists don't call it macro-evolution, creationists and IDers do.
Evolution isn't about the creation of life, but creationists and IDers
claim it is.
Now, what about evolution do you not believe? Or is it that you don't
have a clue what you are babbling on about and want to parrot what your
faith tells you instead.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS ??? BS ???

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply

In article ,
says...
In article ,
Phoenix wrote:

In article ,
says...
In article , David Jensen
wrote:


Hello,
Thanks for your post. Needless to say, I disagree with you. I only wish
that you had attended one of the debates before he retired. Dr. Gish is a
very kind and wonderful person. He treated the professor with the utmost
respect. The professor was making a fool of himself by showing disrespect
for Dr. Gish.

So? A snake oil salesman can be awfully nice while he cons you.


I realize that debates are not like college football games--there is not
always a clear winner. For example, if we attended the same debate, you
might say the professor won and I would say that Dr. Gish won. I will
become an evolutionist whenever a scientist can do an experiment that
proves that life can evolve from non-life. Until that happens, I will
remain to be an advocate for the IDers and the creation science movement.

You keep repeating this mantra, yet never respond to critiques of your
view point.

So you don't want to be challenged or will admit their are better ways
of tackling the questions of science than believing in ID.

Hello,
There are OTHER ways of tackling the questions of science than believing
in ID but it does not mean there are BETTER ways.

So far, you've not presented one reason as to why ID is better. No one
has. So I'm led through the evidence at hand that ID is an inferior why
to interpret science.

And I beg you, don't bring His Politeness Gish back into this. He isn't
near qualified to make theories about the fossil record or anything
else.


If you ask your questions, I'll try to answer them. Most people make
points in their posts without asking questions. In many cases, I agree
with their points.

I've asked slews and slews of questions of you, to no avail.

bel


Jason

In article ,
says...
In article , David Jensen
wrote:

We already know that life can come from non-life, so apparently you have
no objections to evolution, even though evolution is about the changes
in life over time, not the beginning of life on earth.

Go to talk.origins and see why science supporters are so upset with
those who lie about science and manipulate religious believers.

Hello,
When I was in college, the professor told the class that the first cell
(or cells) evolved from non-life in a "primordial pond". So please check
your facts before posting false information.

If you had continued in the biological sciences, you would have come
accross a large number of THEORIES about the origin of life.

Your precious primordial ooze is only one.


The members of the creation
science movement and ID movement acknowledge that plants and animals can
change in life over time. The evolutionists call it micro-evolution and we
call it adaption or micro-evolution. I have already visited the
talk.origins website.

Evolutionists have never used the term micro-evolution. Are you
listening? Do you care?

bel


Jason

In alt.fan.pratchett David Jensen wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 21:55:16 -0700, in alt.fan.pratchett
(Jason) wrote in
:

Several years ago, I attended a debate between Dr. Gish and a professor
from the local state university. Dr. Gish clearly won the debate.

"Won" is a matter of perception. He did not have the scientific facts on
his side, so whatever he won was merely the result of his ability to
persuade the ignorant that his story was more believable than the person
who did have the facts on his side.

Heh. I once won a debate where I argued that Santa Claus existed. Winning
a single debate proves only that you're a better debater than the other
guy.


mcv.
--
"Serenity is a very personal work with political resonance and a
heartfelt message about the human condition and stuff blowing up.
'Cause let's face it, nobody cares about that 'human condition'
stuff... in fact if you notice it, try to keep it to yourself."
-- Joss Whedon on his new film

Michel wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 11:11:33 -0700, (Jason) wrote:

I will
become an evolutionist whenever a scientist can do an experiment that
proves that life can evolve from non-life. Until that happens, I will
remain to be an advocate for the IDers and the creation science movement.

Ok, so on the one hand we have evolution. Since nobody was there at
the beginning, we can't watch a video and see it happen, so there's no
direct proof. Thus you say it must be wrong.

On the other hand we have ID. Since nobody was there at the beginning,
we can't watch a video and see it happen, so there's no direct proof.
Shouldn't you be just as unwilling to believe this version?

A while back he wrote '*Art, I do believe that God created the earth;
the solar system; Adam; Eve; lots of plants and animals...'

Adam and Eve, note. *Not* people, humans, humanity, mankind or any
other generic term.
The reason he believes in ID is because it matches his Christian faith,
and the reason he doesn't support evolution is because it is
incompatable with that faith. Not all Christians find their faith to be
incompatable with evolution, but some very definitely do.
To say... 'Well ID doesn't mention God' when it is clear that, at least
for some of its supporters, it's just a search and replace job and a
way of getting round the law is somewhat dishonest.
IMO, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and
lays eggs like a duck - it's a duck.

Jason wrote:
In article , David Jensen

snip
We already know that life can come from non-life, so apparently you
have no objections to evolution, even though evolution is about the
changes in life over time, not the beginning of life on earth.

Go to talk.origins and see why science supporters are so upset with
those who lie about science and manipulate religious believers.

Hello,
When I was in college, the professor told the class that the first
cell (or cells) evolved from non-life in a "primordial pond". So
please check your facts before posting false information. The members
of the creation science movement and ID movement acknowledge that
plants and animals can change in life over time. The evolutionists
call it micro-evolution and we call it adaption or micro-evolution. I
have already visited the talk.origins website.
Jason

What kinds of 'micro-evolution' do you believe in? Do you believe that
one species of finch can diversify into several species, that dogs evolved
from wolves, that house cats and tigers evolved from a common
ancestor? Do you class those as micro-evolution? How about the micro-
evolution of apes and humans from a common ape-like ancestor? Where
do *you* draw the line between micro- and macro-evolution? Remember,
from a scientific point of view it's all the same process, just as the
formation of a small channel due to water flowing over rock and the
formation of the Grand Canyon are the same process, not micro-erosion
and macro-erosion.

Diane L.

In article , "Diane
L" wrote:

Jason wrote:
In article , David Jensen

snip
We already know that life can come from non-life, so apparently you
have no objections to evolution, even though evolution is about the
changes in life over time, not the beginning of life on earth.

Go to talk.origins and see why science supporters are so upset with
those who lie about science and manipulate religious believers.

Hello,
When I was in college, the professor told the class that the first
cell (or cells) evolved from non-life in a "primordial pond". So
please check your facts before posting false information. The members
of the creation science movement and ID movement acknowledge that
plants and animals can change in life over time. The evolutionists
call it micro-evolution and we call it adaption or micro-evolution. I
have already visited the talk.origins website.
Jason

What kinds of 'micro-evolution' do you believe in? Do you believe that
one species of finch can diversify into several species, that dogs evolved
from wolves, that house cats and tigers evolved from a common
ancestor? Do you class those as micro-evolution? How about the micro-
evolution of apes and humans from a common ape-like ancestor? Where
do *you* draw the line between micro- and macro-evolution? Remember,
from a scientific point of view it's all the same process, just as the
formation of a small channel due to water flowing over rock and the
formation of the Grand Canyon are the same process, not micro-erosion
and macro-erosion.

Diane L.

Diane,
You asked some interesting questions. I did not respond to some of the
other posts since I would merely have to cover the same ground that has
been covered before in other posts. Your questions cover new ground so
I'll try to provide a short answer. Over the years, I have watched various
nature shows on television and have seen some very unique species of
various animals on those shows. There is no way to give you a detailed
answer regarding certains plants and animals without conducting research.
I'll just give you a general answer that should cover most animals and
some plants. Let's use as an example a unique animal such as a sea turtle
species that is very different than any other sea turtles that have ever
been seen in nature or in the fossil evidence. I seem to recall that
Darwin discovered such a species of turtles. The special unique species of
sea turtles is an excelllent example of micro-evolution. The sea turtle
species evolved or adapted to special envir. conditions. Those in the ID
movement or creation science movement support micro-evolution (aka
adaption). I should note that the special species of sea turtles are still
turtles and they did not evolve into a unique species of deer.
Jason

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.

In article , mcv
wrote:

In alt.fan.pratchett David Jensen wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 21:55:16 -0700, in alt.fan.pratchett
(Jason) wrote in
:

Several years ago, I attended a debate between Dr. Gish and a professor
from the local state university. Dr. Gish clearly won the debate.

"Won" is a matter of perception. He did not have the scientific facts on
his side, so whatever he won was merely the result of his ability to
persuade the ignorant that his story was more believable than the person
who did have the facts on his side.

Heh. I once won a debate where I argued that Santa Claus existed. Winning
a single debate proves only that you're a better debater than the other
guy.


mcv.

mcv,
Great point. You are right. In the debate that I attended, he was the
clear winner since he was a better (and more experienced) debater than the
college professor. The college professor made a common error--he showed
disrespect to Dr. Gish several times during the debate. The crowd was
shocked whenever it happened. Dr. Gish never showed disrespect to the the
professor.
Jason

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.

In article ,
Phoenix wrote:

In article ,
says...
In article , David Jensen
wrote:

We already know that life can come from non-life, so apparently you have
no objections to evolution, even though evolution is about the changes
in life over time, not the beginning of life on earth.

Go to talk.origins and see why science supporters are so upset with
those who lie about science and manipulate religious believers.

Hello,
When I was in college, the professor told the class that the first cell
(or cells) evolved from non-life in a "primordial pond". So please check
your facts before posting false information.

If you had continued in the biological sciences, you would have come
accross a large number of THEORIES about the origin of life.

Your precious primordial ooze is only one.


The members of the creation
science movement and ID movement acknowledge that plants and animals can
change in life over time. The evolutionists call it micro-evolution and we
call it adaption or micro-evolution. I have already visited the
talk.origins website.

Evolutionists have never used the term micro-evolution. Are you
listening? Do you care?

bel

bel,
What is the current theory related to how life evolved from non-life? When
I was in college, the "primordial ooze" was the only theory. If I heard
another professor in another class discuss the primordial ooze, I would
raise my hand and ask, "How did the primordial ooze come to be?" The
professor would probaby say, "The big bang" which is another unproven
theory.
Jason

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.

Jason wrote:

... Let's use as an example a unique animal such as a sea turtle
species that is very different than any other sea turtles that have ever
been seen in nature or in the fossil evidence. I seem to recall that
Darwin discovered such a species of turtles. The special unique species of
sea turtles is an excelllent example of micro-evolution. The sea turtle
species evolved or adapted to special envir. conditions. Those in the ID
movement or creation science movement support micro-evolution (aka
adaption).

By your way of thinking, how did that specific species of turtle come
into being, different from all other species of turtle?

How did turtles come into being, different from other reptiles?

How did reptiles come into being, different from other vertebrates?

I should note that the special species of sea turtles are still
turtles and they did not evolve into a unique species of deer.
...

Huh? Is there someone out there who argues that deer evolved
from turtles? I rather doubt it.

NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.

Regarding respect for folks here on UseNet, how about moving this
to the talk.origins newsgroup?

--

FF

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 08:22:21 -0700, in alt.fan.pratchett
(Jason) wrote in
:
In article , "Diane
L" wrote:

Jason wrote:
In article , David Jensen

snip
We already know that life can come from non-life, so apparently you
have no objections to evolution, even though evolution is about the
changes in life over time, not the beginning of life on earth.

Go to talk.origins and see why science supporters are so upset with
those who lie about science and manipulate religious believers.

Hello,
When I was in college, the professor told the class that the first
cell (or cells) evolved from non-life in a "primordial pond". So
please check your facts before posting false information. The members
of the creation science movement and ID movement acknowledge that
plants and animals can change in life over time. The evolutionists
call it micro-evolution and we call it adaption or micro-evolution. I
have already visited the talk.origins website.
Jason

What kinds of 'micro-evolution' do you believe in? Do you believe that
one species of finch can diversify into several species, that dogs evolved
from wolves, that house cats and tigers evolved from a common
ancestor? Do you class those as micro-evolution? How about the micro-
evolution of apes and humans from a common ape-like ancestor? Where
do *you* draw the line between micro- and macro-evolution? Remember,
from a scientific point of view it's all the same process, just as the
formation of a small channel due to water flowing over rock and the
formation of the Grand Canyon are the same process, not micro-erosion
and macro-erosion.

Diane L.

Diane,
You asked some interesting questions. I did not respond to some of the
other posts since I would merely have to cover the same ground that has
been covered before in other posts. Your questions cover new ground so
I'll try to provide a short answer. Over the years, I have watched various
nature shows on television and have seen some very unique species of
various animals on those shows. There is no way to give you a detailed
answer regarding certains plants and animals without conducting research.

Scientists have already conducted research. How can anyone justify
ignoring their research while making assertions that are contrary to
these results. The inventors of ID are not doing science. They know they
are not doing science. Behe, Johnson and Dembski know that they are
telling lies. They have suckered you in.

I'll just give you a general answer that should cover most animals and
some plants. Let's use as an example a unique animal such as a sea turtle
species that is very different than any other sea turtles that have ever
been seen in nature or in the fossil evidence. I seem to recall that
Darwin discovered such a species of turtles. The special unique species of
sea turtles is an excelllent example of micro-evolution. The sea turtle
species evolved or adapted to special envir. conditions. Those in the ID
movement or creation science movement support micro-evolution (aka
adaption). I should note that the special species of sea turtles are still
turtles and they did not evolve into a unique species of deer.

No one in science claims that turtles will evolve into deer. They do
say, and show with evidence, that deer and turtles share a common
ancestor.

Young Earth Creationism is a religious doctrine. It has nothing to do
with science. ID is an attempt to sell creationism in secular garb. It
still has nothing to do with science.

This really belongs on talk.origins, where I have set the followup to.

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 08:26:34 -0700, in alt.fan.pratchett
(Jason) wrote in
:
In article , mcv
wrote:

In alt.fan.pratchett David Jensen wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 21:55:16 -0700, in alt.fan.pratchett
(Jason) wrote in
:

Several years ago, I attended a debate between Dr. Gish and a professor
from the local state university. Dr. Gish clearly won the debate.

"Won" is a matter of perception. He did not have the scientific facts on
his side, so whatever he won was merely the result of his ability to
persuade the ignorant that his story was more believable than the person
who did have the facts on his side.

Heh. I once won a debate where I argued that Santa Claus existed. Winning
a single debate proves only that you're a better debater than the other
guy.


mcv.

mcv,
Great point. You are right. In the debate that I attended, he was the
clear winner since he was a better (and more experienced) debater than the
college professor. The college professor made a common error--he showed
disrespect to Dr. Gish several times during the debate. The crowd was
shocked whenever it happened. Dr. Gish never showed disrespect to the the
professor.

It's a pretty shallow crowd that thinks that the amount of respect
apparently shown should matter. Gish has already shown that he does not
respect science. He was not showing any respect to the professor, he was
just pulling the wool over your eyes. You are a victim of his fraud.

[followup set to talk.origins]

snip

bel,
What is the current theory related to how life evolved from non-life? When

Life didn't evolve from non-life. There couldn't be evolution until there
was life. Evolution is about life and changes that take place, leading to
new species, and a mechanism to do that.

I was in college, the "primordial ooze" was the only theory. If I heard
another professor in another class discuss the primordial ooze, I would
raise my hand and ask, "How did the primordial ooze come to be?" The
professor would probaby say, "The big bang" which is another unproven
theory.
Jason

The big bang took place about 10 billion years before the formation of the
solar system. It didn't form primordial ooze. If you are going to dispute
science, at least dispute the scientific theory that scientists use.

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.

Jason wrote:

...


bel,
What is the current theory related to how life evolved from non-life? When
I was in college, the "primordial ooze" was the only theory. If I heard
another professor in another class discuss the primordial ooze, I would
raise my hand and ask, "How did the primordial ooze come to be?" The
professor would probaby say, "The big bang" which is another unproven
theory.
...

He might have said that, but 'primordial ooze' is also compatible
with steady state cosmologies. Indeed, I do not know _any_
Cosmology that is incompatible with 'primordial ooze'.

--

FF

In article ,
says...
In article , mcv
wrote:

In alt.fan.pratchett David Jensen wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 21:55:16 -0700, in alt.fan.pratchett
(Jason) wrote in
:

Several years ago, I attended a debate between Dr. Gish and a professor
from the local state university. Dr. Gish clearly won the debate.

"Won" is a matter of perception. He did not have the scientific facts on
his side, so whatever he won was merely the result of his ability to
persuade the ignorant that his story was more believable than the person
who did have the facts on his side.

Heh. I once won a debate where I argued that Santa Claus existed. Winning
a single debate proves only that you're a better debater than the other
guy.


mcv.

mcv,
Great point. You are right. In the debate that I attended, he was the
clear winner since he was a better (and more experienced) debater than the
college professor. The college professor made a common error--he showed
disrespect to Dr. Gish several times during the debate. The crowd was
shocked whenever it happened. Dr. Gish never showed disrespect to the the
professor.
Jason

Disrespect is not what wins or loses debates.

If you are so entrenched in the ID movement, surely you can come up with
some of the winning points that Gish accomplished rather than just a
view of his general attitude. You witnesses this, right?

bel

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 15:57:40 GMT, in alt.fan.pratchett
"Steve Peterson" wrote in
t:
snip

bel,
What is the current theory related to how life evolved from non-life? When

Life didn't evolve from non-life. There couldn't be evolution until there
was life. Evolution is about life and changes that take place, leading to
new species, and a mechanism to do that.

I was in college, the "primordial ooze" was the only theory. If I heard
another professor in another class discuss the primordial ooze, I would
raise my hand and ask, "How did the primordial ooze come to be?" The
professor would probaby say, "The big bang" which is another unproven
theory.
Jason

The big bang took place about 10 billion years before the formation of the
solar system. It didn't form primordial ooze. If you are going to dispute
science, at least dispute the scientific theory that scientists use.

There's not much point in disputing something with someone who is so
ignorant of science that he can seriously say something about an
"unproven theory".

In alt.fan.pratchett wrote:
Jason wrote:

NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.

Regarding respect for folks here on UseNet, how about moving this
to the talk.origins newsgroup?

I'd actually like to keep alt.fan.pratchett in, if possible. As long as
the thread is appropriately tagged, but someone seems to have taken
care of that already.


mcv.
--
"Serenity is a very personal work with political resonance and a
heartfelt message about the human condition and stuff blowing up.
'Cause let's face it, nobody cares about that 'human condition'
stuff... in fact if you notice it, try to keep it to yourself."
-- Joss Whedon on his new film

There's not much point in disputing something with someone who is so
ignorant of science that he can seriously say something about an
"unproven theory".

True, although there have been disproven theories. Phlogiston comes to
mind.

Steve

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 18:59:20 GMT, in alt.fan.pratchett
"Steve Peterson" wrote in
k.net:


There's not much point in disputing something with someone who is so
ignorant of science that he can seriously say something about an
"unproven theory".

True, although there have been disproven theories. Phlogiston comes to
mind.

It would be nice for these folks to realize that just because you can
disprove things in science that does not mean you can prove them.

Steve Peterson wrote:
There's not much point in disputing something with someone who is so
ignorant of science that he can seriously say something about an
"unproven theory".


True, although there have been disproven theories. Phlogiston comes to
mind.

Steve



Strictly speaking, phlogiston was not disproved, it's just that the
"oxidising principle" theory was much simpler and easier to believe.
Theories get displaced by better theories, they rarely get thoroughly
"disproved". Refer to Karl Popper's works and "The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn for an enlightening view of how
science works.

GS

David Jensen wrote:

It is not a house of cards. It takes profound ignorance or a completely
dishonest attitude toward science to make that claim.


would you expect less from the descendant of incest?
After all, once Adam and Eve had children, who did they mate with to
create more children?

It would be nice, if they want to discuss philosophy of science, they
understood a little philosophy of science.

Steve

"David Jensen" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 18:59:20 GMT, in alt.fan.pratchett
"Steve Peterson" wrote in
k.net:


There's not much point in disputing something with someone who is so
ignorant of science that he can seriously say something about an
"unproven theory".

True, although there have been disproven theories. Phlogiston comes to
mind.

It would be nice for these folks to realize that just because you can
disprove things in science that does not mean you can prove them.

On 10/24/2005 11:26 AM Jason mumbled something about the following:
In article , mcv
wrote:


In alt.fan.pratchett David Jensen wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 21:55:16 -0700, in alt.fan.pratchett
(Jason) wrote in
:

Several years ago, I attended a debate between Dr. Gish and a professor

from the local state university. Dr. Gish clearly won the debate.

"Won" is a matter of perception. He did not have the scientific facts on
his side, so whatever he won was merely the result of his ability to
persuade the ignorant that his story was more believable than the person
who did have the facts on his side.

Heh. I once won a debate where I argued that Santa Claus existed. Winning
a single debate proves only that you're a better debater than the other
guy.


mcv.


mcv,
Great point. You are right. In the debate that I attended, he was the
clear winner since he was a better (and more experienced) debater than the
college professor. The college professor made a common error--he showed
disrespect to Dr. Gish several times during the debate. The crowd was
shocked whenever it happened. Dr. Gish never showed disrespect to the the
professor.
Jason


Dr Gish was shown to be wrong, regardless of the disrespect. Besides,
Dr Gish has never deserved any respect in any science except
biochemistry. Dr Gish didn't win anything except the following of
people like you, who are too stupid to think for yourselves.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS ??? BS ???

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply

In alt.fan.pratchett Michael wrote:
David Jensen wrote:

It is not a house of cards. It takes profound ignorance or a completely
dishonest attitude toward science to make that claim.

would you expect less from the descendant of incest?
After all, once Adam and Eve had children, who did they mate with to
create more children?

When Cain leaves, Genesis mentions he's afraid of what other people
will do to him. So Adam, Eve and their children weren't the only humans
on earth, according to the bible.


mcv.
--
"Serenity is a very personal work with political resonance and a
heartfelt message about the human condition and stuff blowing up.
'Cause let's face it, nobody cares about that 'human condition'
stuff... in fact if you notice it, try to keep it to yourself."
-- Joss Whedon on his new film