On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 10:59:53 -0700, in alt.fan.pratchett
(Jason) wrote in
:
In article , "Steve Rogers"
wrote:

"Jason" wrote in message

In article ,
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 08:50:26 -0700,
(Jason) wrote:

to believe that an Intelligent Designer created life
and all matter. My faith is NOT strong enough to
believe that people evolved from one cell. I won't
believe it unless someone proves to me in an
experiment that it happened that way. I admire the
amazing faith of evolutionists. They actually believe
that people evolved from one cell despite not having
any proof that it happened that way.

I don't see what's the problem with that. Every human
starts out as a single celled organism anyway.

What some of the ID people don't seem to (want to)
understand is that people aren't against teaching ID in
schools as such, but are against it being taught AS
SCIENCE. If you want to teach it in a class about
religion, most of the protests would go away.

Oh, and ignoring all proof there is about evolution
doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I thought only children
believed the world isn't there if you put your hands
before your eyes, but I guess I was wrong.

If the judge makes a decision to not allow ID to be
taught in science classes, I hope the judge will at least
allow it to be taught in other classes. The evolutionists
don't want it to be taught in any class. They are worried
that the students will realize that ID has more validity
than evolution. I realize that no evolutionist will ever
admit that that is the real reason they rush to court
whenever a school system wants to teach ID in sciece
classes. I don't blame them for being scard. They don't
want their house of cards to come crashing down.
Jason

Taught in other classes - the mind boggles - what has ID to do with any
other classes other than as something to critique in an English Literature
class or as a "How Not To" in a college course for future PR guys.

IMO the only group of students who will believe that ID has more validity
than evolution are those who have been brainwashed by the sort of "sects"
that there are unfortunately in the US proporting to be Christian
beforehand, and as they are of a very small minority the rights of the
majority to a "proper" education need to be protected - you do realise that
an overly religious upbringing of children can be classed as child abuse I
hope

You really do need to go and learn more about your subject - come back when
you can argue both sides and maybe we can all learn something - I know you
will if you really do proper research to achieve this, but maybe we will as
well.

Steve

Steve,
You seem to know quite a lot about evolution but I don't believe that you
truly understand creation science and ID. I have noticed from your posts
and various
other posts that most people still believe that the ID textbook mentions
that God is the Intelligent Designer. The reality is that God and religion
are NOT mentioned in the ID textbook or will be mentioned by any teacher
in the public school system.
Jason

Of course the Intelligent Designer isn't God. How could anyone think
that when proponents of intelligent design capitalize Intelligent
Designer in the same way they capitalize God. The history of ID and
'Creation Science' shows a profound dishonesty on the part of these
religious advocates.

In article , David Jensen
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 10:59:53 -0700, in alt.fan.pratchett
(Jason) wrote in
:
In article , "Steve Rogers"
wrote:

"Jason" wrote in message

In article ,
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 08:50:26 -0700,
(Jason) wrote:

to believe that an Intelligent Designer created life
and all matter. My faith is NOT strong enough to
believe that people evolved from one cell. I won't
believe it unless someone proves to me in an
experiment that it happened that way. I admire the
amazing faith of evolutionists. They actually believe
that people evolved from one cell despite not having
any proof that it happened that way.

I don't see what's the problem with that. Every human
starts out as a single celled organism anyway.

What some of the ID people don't seem to (want to)
understand is that people aren't against teaching ID in
schools as such, but are against it being taught AS
SCIENCE. If you want to teach it in a class about
religion, most of the protests would go away.

Oh, and ignoring all proof there is about evolution
doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I thought only children
believed the world isn't there if you put your hands
before your eyes, but I guess I was wrong.

If the judge makes a decision to not allow ID to be
taught in science classes, I hope the judge will at least
allow it to be taught in other classes. The evolutionists
don't want it to be taught in any class. They are worried
that the students will realize that ID has more validity
than evolution. I realize that no evolutionist will ever
admit that that is the real reason they rush to court
whenever a school system wants to teach ID in sciece
classes. I don't blame them for being scard. They don't
want their house of cards to come crashing down.
Jason

Taught in other classes - the mind boggles - what has ID to do with any
other classes other than as something to critique in an English Literature
class or as a "How Not To" in a college course for future PR guys.

IMO the only group of students who will believe that ID has more validity
than evolution are those who have been brainwashed by the sort of "sects"
that there are unfortunately in the US proporting to be Christian
beforehand, and as they are of a very small minority the rights of the
majority to a "proper" education need to be protected - you do
realise that
an overly religious upbringing of children can be classed as child abuse I
hope

You really do need to go and learn more about your subject - come
back when
you can argue both sides and maybe we can all learn something - I know you
will if you really do proper research to achieve this, but maybe we
will as
well.

Steve

Steve,
You seem to know quite a lot about evolution but I don't believe that you
truly understand creation science and ID. I have noticed from your posts
and various
other posts that most people still believe that the ID textbook mentions
that God is the Intelligent Designer. The reality is that God and religion
are NOT mentioned in the ID textbook or will be mentioned by any teacher
in the public school system.
Jason

Of course the Intelligent Designer isn't God. How could anyone think
that when proponents of intelligent design capitalize Intelligent
Designer in the same way they capitalize God. The history of ID and
'Creation Science' shows a profound dishonesty on the part of these
religious advocates.

Hello,
The members of the ID movement are not being dishonest. Due to an
important Supreme Court decision that happened many years ago, it's
illegal for public school teachers to promote any religion. It's for that
reason the members of the ID movement made sure that God, Jesus or any
religion was NOT mentioned in the ID text book that they wrote. I should
note that some of the scientists that support ID are not Christians. Some
of them actually believe that people from some other planet visited the
earth millions of years ago. They left behind various people, animals and
plants. I don't agree with those scientists but their theory has as much
(or more) validity than macro-evolution.
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 17:42:19 -0700, in alt.fan.pratchett
(Jason) wrote in
:
In article , David Jensen
wrote:
....
Of course the Intelligent Designer isn't God. How could anyone think
that when proponents of intelligent design capitalize Intelligent
Designer in the same way they capitalize God. The history of ID and
'Creation Science' shows a profound dishonesty on the part of these
religious advocates.

Hello,
The members of the ID movement are not being dishonest.

They are because they are misrepresenting science in their textbook.

Due to an
important Supreme Court decision that happened many years ago, it's
illegal for public school teachers to promote any religion. It's for that
reason the members of the ID movement made sure that God, Jesus or any
religion was NOT mentioned in the ID text book that they wrote.

Yes, but the science in the book was wrong and the writers of it knew
it.

I should
note that some of the scientists that support ID are not Christians.

Please name them.

Some
of them actually believe that people from some other planet visited the
earth millions of years ago. They left behind various people, animals and
plants. I don't agree with those scientists but their theory has as much
(or more) validity than macro-evolution.

I think it is very important to let the defenders of so-called
intelligent design know that they are also helping to promote the
doctrines of the Raelians and followers of Hubbard. I'm certain they
will be glad to know that this is what ID means.

On 10/23/2005 8:42 PM Jason mumbled something about the following:
In article , David Jensen
wrote:


On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 10:59:53 -0700, in alt.fan.pratchett
(Jason) wrote in
:

In article , "Steve Rogers"
wrote:


"Jason" wrote in message


In article ,
wrote:


On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 08:50:26 -0700,
(Jason) wrote:


to believe that an Intelligent Designer created life
and all matter. My faith is NOT strong enough to
believe that people evolved from one cell. I won't
believe it unless someone proves to me in an
experiment that it happened that way. I admire the
amazing faith of evolutionists. They actually believe
that people evolved from one cell despite not having
any proof that it happened that way.

I don't see what's the problem with that. Every human
starts out as a single celled organism anyway.

What some of the ID people don't seem to (want to)
understand is that people aren't against teaching ID in
schools as such, but are against it being taught AS
SCIENCE. If you want to teach it in a class about
religion, most of the protests would go away.

Oh, and ignoring all proof there is about evolution
doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I thought only children
believed the world isn't there if you put your hands
before your eyes, but I guess I was wrong.

If the judge makes a decision to not allow ID to be
taught in science classes, I hope the judge will at least
allow it to be taught in other classes. The evolutionists
don't want it to be taught in any class. They are worried
that the students will realize that ID has more validity
than evolution. I realize that no evolutionist will ever
admit that that is the real reason they rush to court
whenever a school system wants to teach ID in sciece
classes. I don't blame them for being scard. They don't
want their house of cards to come crashing down.
Jason

Taught in other classes - the mind boggles - what has ID to do with any
other classes other than as something to critique in an English Literature
class or as a "How Not To" in a college course for future PR guys.

IMO the only group of students who will believe that ID has more validity
than evolution are those who have been brainwashed by the sort of "sects"
that there are unfortunately in the US proporting to be Christian
beforehand, and as they are of a very small minority the rights of the
majority to a "proper" education need to be protected - you do

realise that

an overly religious upbringing of children can be classed as child abuse I
hope

You really do need to go and learn more about your subject - come

back when

you can argue both sides and maybe we can all learn something - I know you
will if you really do proper research to achieve this, but maybe we

will as

well.

Steve

Steve,
You seem to know quite a lot about evolution but I don't believe that you
truly understand creation science and ID. I have noticed from your posts
and various
other posts that most people still believe that the ID textbook mentions
that God is the Intelligent Designer. The reality is that God and religion
are NOT mentioned in the ID textbook or will be mentioned by any teacher
in the public school system.
Jason

Of course the Intelligent Designer isn't God. How could anyone think
that when proponents of intelligent design capitalize Intelligent
Designer in the same way they capitalize God. The history of ID and
'Creation Science' shows a profound dishonesty on the part of these
religious advocates.


Hello,
The members of the ID movement are not being dishonest. Due to an
important Supreme Court decision that happened many years ago, it's
illegal for public school teachers to promote any religion. It's for that
reason the members of the ID movement made sure that God, Jesus or any
religion was NOT mentioned in the ID text book that they wrote. I should
note that some of the scientists that support ID are not Christians. Some
of them actually believe that people from some other planet visited the
earth millions of years ago. They left behind various people, animals and
plants. I don't agree with those scientists but their theory has as much
(or more) validity than macro-evolution.
Jason

What is macro-evolution? It's a term coined by creationists, it is not
an evolutionary science term, so the creationist claim that something
isn't valid that they themselves created. Damn, you're WAY too easy to
see through. If you want to argue against science, at least argue
against it, not create some bull**** strawman.

--
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

(Jason) writes:

The members of the ID movement are not being dishonest.

Silly me. I thought lying and being dishonest were the same thing.


--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

Jason wrote:
In article , David Jensen
wrote:

...


Hello,
The members of the ID movement are not being dishonest. Due to an
important Supreme Court decision that happened many years ago, it's
illegal for public school teachers to promote any religion. It's for that
reason the members of the ID movement made sure that God, Jesus or any
religion was NOT mentioned in the ID text book that they wrote.

An honest person calls that 'dishonesty'.

If they write three books like that, they'll tie with Peter, eh?

I should
note that some of the scientists that support ID are not Christians. Some
of them actually believe that people from some other planet visited the
earth millions of years ago. They left behind various people, animals and
plants. I don't agree with those scientists but their theory has as much
(or more) validity than macro-evolution.


Only if you consider no real evidence at all to be equal to
(or more than) real evidence such as transitional species
in the fossil record, and the evidence provided by DNA
studies of comtemporary species.

Any mediocre science fiction writer can invent a religion based
on alien visitation. It just takes a little bit of imagination,
perhaps coupled with the motivation provided by a bar bet.

--

FF

Bruce Barnett wrote:
(Jason) writes:

The members of the ID movement are not being dishonest.

Silly me. I thought lying and being dishonest were the same thing.

You can be very (deliberately) misleading without ever uttering an
untrue word.
You can't lie without being dishonest, but you can be very dishonest
without lying.

wrote:
Jason wrote:
In article , David Jensen
wrote:

...


Hello,
The members of the ID movement are not being dishonest. Due to an
important Supreme Court decision that happened many years ago, it's
illegal for public school teachers to promote any religion. It's for that
reason the members of the ID movement made sure that God, Jesus or any
religion was NOT mentioned in the ID text book that they wrote.

An honest person calls that 'dishonesty'.

Even people like me who, while they try to be honest, occasionally fall
back to being merely truthful, would call it misleading. Just doing a
search & replace to remove 'God' and insert 'Designer', to get round
the law shows a certain... intent.

If they write three books like that, they'll tie with Peter, eh?

lol.

I should
note that some of the scientists that support ID are not Christians. Some
of them actually believe that people from some other planet visited the
earth millions of years ago. They left behind various people, animals and
plants. I don't agree with those scientists but their theory has as much
(or more) validity than macro-evolution.


Only if you consider no real evidence at all to be equal to
(or more than) real evidence such as transitional species
in the fossil record, and the evidence provided by DNA
studies of comtemporary species.

And also it's not really much of an answer since it doesn't answer the
question about *how* the aliens came to be.
But then, if you've decided that evolution is wrong then you'll accept
anything rather than it.

Any mediocre science fiction writer can invent a religion based
on alien visitation. It just takes a little bit of imagination,
perhaps coupled with the motivation provided by a bar bet.

I'd heard that story, but wasn't sure what to make of it.
In any case, saying that Scientologists believe something [and when I
said I'd accept any other religiion, perhaps I should have said
*proper* religions rather than a cross between a con and a practical
joke] does nothing to convince me that it's true...

Jinzo Musume Lime-chan wrote:
wrote:
Jason wrote:
In article , David Jensen
wrote:

...


Hello,
The members of the ID movement are not being dishonest. Due to an
important Supreme Court decision that happened many years ago, it's
illegal for public school teachers to promote any religion. It's for that
reason the members of the ID movement made sure that God, Jesus or any
religion was NOT mentioned in the ID text book that they wrote.

An honest person calls that 'dishonesty'.

Even people like me who, while they try to be honest, occasionally fall
back to being merely truthful, would call it misleading. Just doing a
search & replace to remove 'God' and insert 'Designer', to get round
the law shows a certain... intent.

If they write three books like that, they'll tie with Peter, eh?

lol.

I should
note that some of the scientists that support ID are not Christians. Some
of them actually believe that people from some other planet visited the
earth millions of years ago. They left behind various people, animals and
plants. I don't agree with those scientists but their theory has as much
(or more) validity than macro-evolution.


Only if you consider no real evidence at all to be equal to
(or more than) real evidence such as transitional species
in the fossil record, and the evidence provided by DNA
studies of comtemporary species.

And also it's not really much of an answer since it doesn't answer the
question about *how* the aliens came to be.
But then, if you've decided that evolution is wrong then you'll accept
anything rather than it.

Any mediocre science fiction writer can invent a religion based
on alien visitation. It just takes a little bit of imagination,
perhaps coupled with the motivation provided by a bar bet.

I'd heard that story, but wasn't sure what to make of it.
In any case, saying that Scientologists believe something [and when I
said I'd accept any other religiion, perhaps I should have said
*proper* religions rather than a cross between a con and a practical
joke] does nothing to convince me that it's true...

And we're leaving out the Lost Civilization of Atlantis.

Somewhere, some time, I heard that Scientologists believed in something
called the "Big Clam" but that may be someone's fantasy of what they
believe. I was told that as if it were true. I know zip about
Scientology, except that 40 years ago (plus) I sold encyclopedias for
a (very) short while on a crew led by a guy who claimed to be a
Scientologist who had worked his way to clear. He was damned near as
snotty as Tom Cruise and not a whole lot brighter.

Charlie Self wrote:

Somewhere, some time, I heard that Scientologists believed in
something called the "Big Clam" but that may be someone's fantasy of
what they believe. I was told that as if it were true. I know zip
about Scientology, except that 40 years ago (plus) I sold
encyclopedias for a (very) short while on a crew led by a guy who
claimed to be a Scientologist who had worked his way to clear. He was
damned near as snotty as Tom Cruise and not a whole lot brighter.

See "Operation Clambake" at http://www.xenu.net/
Especially http://www.xenu.net/clam_faq.html

Regards,
--
*Art