EVOLUTION Up a Creek Without a Paddle...

Jason wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Arthur Hagen"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Jason <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > No, that is not a worry at all. The worries are that
> > (a) This is a clandestine way of sneaking theology in where it has been
> > banned (how's that compatible with a commandment that forbids lying?),
> > and
> > (b) Children are impressionable, and *aren't* concerned about validity.
> > If they were mature enough to test the validity, it would be much less
> > of an issue.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Of course not, because it's not true.
> >
> > > I don't blame them
> > > for being scard. They don't want their house of cards to come
> > > crashing down.
> >
> > Yes, we're scared. QUITE scared, actually. But not of what you
> > think[1], but of fundamentalist christians preaching *their* beliefs to
> > our kids, when our kids are too young to resist. That *is* scary.
> >
> > [1]: Or what you state, rather. I refuse to believe you're dense
> > enough to believe it, and prefer to believe it's simply a straw man
> > argument.
> >
> > --
> > *Art
>
> *Art,
> I do believe that God created the earth; the solar system; Adam; Eve; lots
> of plants and animals. I also believe that he created within each plant
> and animal the ability to adapt (micro-evolution) to various envir.
> conditions. I believe the evolutionists are right in much of what they
> write about micro-evolution. The mistake they make is when they make the
> giant leap. They say that because micro-evolution is true, therefore
> macro-evolution is true. The IDers (myself included) don't make the giant
> leap. We simply say that an ID created life and all matter. I still
> believe that we should teach both evolution and ID in the public school
> system. Both are excellent theories. Believe it or not, over sixty per
> cent of the people in America (according to a recent pole) believe that
> both ID and evolution should be taught in the public school system.

I doubt anyone has any objection about ID being taught in history of
religion and comparative religion classes. What most people object to
is having people who want "faith based" beliefs taught as scientific
theory, especially when they demonstrate that they haven't a mild clue
as to what a scientific theory really is.

Jason wrote:
> *Art,
> I do believe that God created the earth; the solar system; Adam; Eve; lots
> of plants and animals. I also believe that he created within each plant
> and animal the ability to adapt (micro-evolution) to various envir.
> conditions. I believe the evolutionists are right in much of what they
> write about micro-evolution. The mistake they make is when they make the
> giant leap. They say that because micro-evolution is true, therefore
> macro-evolution is true. The IDers (myself included) don't make the giant
> leap. We simply say that an ID created life and all matter. I still
> believe that we should teach both evolution and ID in the public school
> system. Both are excellent theories. Believe it or not, over sixty per
> cent of the people in America (according to a recent pole) believe that
> both ID and evolution should be taught in the public school system.
> Jason

<Sigh>
Alright, name somebody who *isn't* a committed Christian (I'll accept
members of any other religiion) and I'll recognise that ID *isn't* just
a piece of Christian doctrine with a white coat on pretending to be
science.

As for the American public, I forget how many percent it was (but it
was over 50%) who believed that 'if dolphins were intelligent, they'd
be able to get out of tuna nets.' Does that really prove anything? Well
No. So why mention it? I could ask the same about your poll quote...

BTW, I'm not an American, and am definitely an agnostic.

Jason wrote:

> *Art, I do believe that God created the earth; the solar system;
> Adam; Eve; lots of plants and animals.
>

Tell us, Jason, how many religions have you studied? From your "Adam;
Eve;" I deduce you're a Christian. What do you know about the Hindu
story of creation? The Buddhist? The Shinto?

I suspect you don't even have any evidence that Christianity is any
better (or worse) than the abovementioned. But you base your opposition
to evolutionary theory on your unsupported beliefs.

You know what you believe and anything that contradicts your beliefs
must be wrong.

I do envy you. It must be nice knowing you know the secret of life and
the universe. Too bad you're mistaken.

(I had to cut sci.bio from the crosspost because my newserver
didn't recognise it. I hope Jason is reading in another group)

Jason wrote:

<snip>
> bel,
> If you just wanted to make a point--you succeeded. However, if you
> really want an answer to your questions, you will have to read the
> same book that I read on this subject.
> "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by Dr. Duane Gish
> If macro-evolution was true, the fossils would provide all of the
> evidence that was needed to prove it. The fossils don't provide the
> evidence needed to prove that macro-evolution is true. If you don't
> believe me, read the book.

Jason,
Have you considered reading more than one book on this subject
before making up your mind? I'd suggest one on evolutionary
theory written by someone who has actually studied the subject,
then maybe something about genetics, paleontology, geology and
phylogeny, the evidence from all of which supports the theory of
evolution.

Diane L.

Jois wrote:
> "Jason" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> [snip]
>
>> That's a great suggestion and I may do it. I took a course related to
>> evolution while in college and I have not seen any new information
>> about evolution in any of the recent posts that provided new
>> data that I have not seen before.
> [snip]
>
> I don't know what pratchett is but what would you expect to learn
> about what is new or old or anything else about evolution in
> woodworking, medical pathology, or celebrity gossip?

Pratchett is a British fantasy author whose works include a novel
featuring a God of Evolution and who has co-authored 3 books about
science, the 3rd of which is subtitled /Darwin's Watch/. Given that,
and the fact that anything Pratchett fans are interested in is on-topic
for afp, there's no real problem with the thread being posted here.
If I knew in which group Jason is (or indeed you are) reading I'd
cut the crosspost down to just that group and afp.

Diane L.

Jason wrote:
>
> 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.

I think the big issue most non-ID people (not just evolutionists, but
also those who are undecided) have with ID is that the difference
between it and classical creationism is almost precisely what you have
just set out above - specifically the removal of any religious
supertext from the ID textbooks with out the removal of the subtext.

The issue is that it's also very easy to put ID and creationism side by
side and spot where the search-and-replace has been done to sanitise ID
to a form where it's not overtly religious.

However, this does not avoid the problem that ID is backed by somewhat
less rigorous scientific method than evolution - this doesn't make it
any less valid to those who believe, however it does (possibly
deliberately) make it rather more difficult to test in a logical,
structured manner.

Now, the problem this introduces is that something which exists in an
unexplainable logic vacuum is almost indistinguishable from any
classical religion which has a deity whom the followers have to take on
faith exists. Religions also get very upset about scientific method
being introduced into their belief system because, ultimately, if
viewed objectively most of them have gaping holes which they are very
dependant on dogmatic handwaving to divert attention from, and if the
congregation is sitting applying structured analysis they become rather
obvious.

ID has a fairly basic hole as far as I'm concerned - I'm willing to
allow for life as we know it being guided by some designer, but that
means there's a structured intelligence at work behind things. And a
structured intelligence (in the frame of reference we're using) would
have to have been an act of Intelligent Design. By another structured
intelligence. Ad-infinitum.

This basically means that you have an eternal chain of intelligences
creating further intelligences. This is a major hole to me - surely
there has to be a start point somewhere? If there is a start point then
at some point a guiding intelligence has to spontaneously come into
existance.

This is either creationism in its truest form whereby the God is eternal
and has always and will always exist, or it's the aspect of evolution
whereby a lifeform suddenly creates itself due to an environmental
glitch.

Whichever, I find both Creationism and Evolution to actually stand up to
logic rather better than Intelligent Design at that point. It's a
fundamental hole which needs to be addressed.

A previous posted asked you not for reasons why ID is not Christian
Creationism, but rather for examples of individuals supporting ID who
are not practising Christians - can you actually supply these examples
- whether or not god is directly referenced in the text is irrelevant
at the point where the entire concept is only supported by supplicants
of one religion and zero followers of any other belief system.

P.

On 10/23/2005 1:55 PM Jason mumbled something about the following:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Diane
> L" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>(I had to cut sci.bio from the crosspost because my newserver
>>didn't recognise it. I hope Jason is reading in another group)
>>
>>Jason wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>bel,
>>>If you just wanted to make a point--you succeeded. However, if you
>>>really want an answer to your questions, you will have to read the
>>>same book that I read on this subject.
>>>"Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by Dr. Duane Gish
>>>If macro-evolution was true, the fossils would provide all of the
>>>evidence that was needed to prove it. The fossils don't provide the
>>>evidence needed to prove that macro-evolution is true. If you don't
>>>believe me, read the book.
>>
>>Jason,
>>Have you considered reading more than one book on this subject
>>before making up your mind? I'd suggest one on evolutionary
>>theory written by someone who has actually studied the subject,
>>then maybe something about genetics, paleontology, geology and
>>phylogeny, the evidence from all of which supports the theory of
>>evolution.
>>
>>Diane L.
>
>
> Diane L.
> That's a great suggestion and I may do it. I took a course related to
> evolution while in college and I have not seen any new information
> about evolution in any of the recent posts that provided new
> data that I have not seen before. I asked
> several people to let me know about any newer experiments that prove
> life can evolve from non-life. As of yet, none of the posters have
> told be about an experiment. When I was in college, the professor
> was fairly certain that eventually a scientist would be able to prove
> that life could evolve from non-life. When it happens, I will turn
> my back on the ID movement and become an evolutionist. I noticed from
> your post that you were very professional. I was beginning to think
> that all evolutionists were unprofessional.
> Jason
>
Unprofessional? Me calling you stupid and an idiot is unprofessional?
You make it way too easy. Besides, I don't have a profession in
palaeontology, I'm just a computer nerd who likes to point out your
fallacies by using your own arguments against you. It's people like you
who make IDers such an easy target. Keep it up, it's way too entertaining.

--
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 [email protected] to reply

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Arthur Hagen"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Jason <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >

> > > I don't blame them
> > > for being scard. They don't want their house of cards to come
> > > crashing down.

How would that happen? It isn't the scientists who fear exposing their
thoughts to an open enquiry, whereas the christians won't be questioned
by anyone. They just "know" ID is true, and they don't want anyone to
fiddle with it.



> *Art,
> I do believe that God created the earth; the solar system; Adam; Eve; lots
> of plants and animals. I also believe that he created within each plant
> and animal the ability to adapt (micro-evolution) to various envir.

Why? For kicks?

What is your scientific reasoning for this? What's your theory based
on? Because if you can't answer this then ID and creationism don't
belong in a science class.


> conditions. I believe the evolutionists are right in much of what they
> write about micro-evolution. The mistake they make is when they make the
> giant leap. They say that because micro-evolution is true, therefore
> macro-evolution is true.

There is no macro- or micro- evolution to any scientist in the world.
No macro- or micro- chemistry, physics or biology either.

So how can you dare to speak for "evolutionists" when you don't even
know what they think?


The IDers (myself included) don't make the giant
> leap. We simply say that an ID created life and all matter. I still
> believe that we should teach both evolution and ID in the public school
> system.

Why? Shouldn't we be teaching kids something useful? I don't see any
reason to throw religion at them unless their parents pay for that type
of education. You aren't going to waste the valuable time of kids
forcing the bible on them.


Both are excellent theories. Believe it or not, over sixty per
> cent of the people in America (according to a recent pole) believe that
> both ID and evolution should be taught in the public school system.
> Jason

It doesn't matter what people believe. The religion with the largest
number of followers in the world thinks that god resides in a black rock
in Mecca. Does that mean we should teach this in our High School
science classes?

How about Hindus, who outnumber christians? Do they get to teach about
Vishnu in high school science classes?

Mormons, the fastest growing christian sect (though they don't believe
in the divinity of Jesus.) Do they get to teach the Book of Mormon in
public high school history? You know, the history that says god left
the rest of his gospels under a rock in a NY field, on golden tablets,
for thousands of years before Joseph Smith found them?

How far do you want this to go with this public opinion survey as
correct thinking?

bel

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Phoenix <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> > > In article <
> bel,
> If you just wanted to make a point--you succeeded. However, if you really
> want an answer to your questions, you will have to read the same book that
> I read on this subject.
> "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by Dr. Duane Gish
> If macro-evolution was true, the fossils would provide all of the evidence

What is macro-evolution? No scientist has ever used the term...ever.
So you are pretending that evolutionists have a theory so you can argue
with - which is called a straw man argument and has no value.




> that was needed to prove it. The fossils don't provide the evidence needed
> to prove that macro-evolution is true. If you don't believe me, read the
> book.

I don't need to read it. I've been looking on line and Gish isn't even
a paleontologist or biologist. His theories are based on data that he
made up for his own purposes. Why should I waste my time?

bel



> Jason
>
>

On 10/22/2005 10:20 PM Dwight Dweeb mumbled something about the following:
> Odinn <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>How does ID have more validity than evolution? Saying it's in the
>>bible isn't valid.
>
>
> Aliens! Aliens were the first ones to bring life to this Earth! I
> have EViDenCe! I've been probed!
>
> But their Mind Control prevents me from revealing all of the truth.
>
> I insist that this be presented in the schoolroom as a legitimate theory.
>
If they require ID to be taught, they better teach that, as well as the
FSM (http://www.venganza.org/)

--
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 [email protected] to reply

"Jason" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[snip]

> That's a great suggestion and I may do it. I took a course related to
> evolution while in college and I have not seen any new information
> about evolution in any of the recent posts that provided new
> data that I have not seen before.
[snip]

I don't know what pratchett is but what would you expect to learn about what
is new or old or anything else about evolution in woodworking, medical
pathology, or celebrity gossip?

Talk Origins is the place to discuss evolution and ID and Creationism - try
there.

Back yourself out of these other newsgroups, it is just plain rude to push
your religious beliefs in these other groups.

Josie

paroxyms
of reformation and arrangement, which she called "clarin' up times,"
when she would begin with great zeal, and turn every drawer and
closet wrong side outward, on to the floor or tables, and make the
ordinary confusion seven-fold more confounded. Then she would
light her pipe, and leisurely go over her arrangements, looking
things over, and discoursing upon them; making all the young fry
scour most vigorously on the tin things, and keeping up for several
hours a most energetic state of confusion, which she would explain
to the satisfaction of all inquirers, by the remark that she was
a "clarin' up." "She couldn't hev things a gwine on so as they had
been, and she was gwine to make these yer young ones keep better
order;" for Dinah herself, somehow, indulged the illusion that she,
herself, was the soul of order, and it was only the _young uns_,
and the everybody else in the house, that were the cause of anything
that fell short of perfection in this respect. When all the tins
were scoured, and the tables scrubbed snowy white, and everything
that could offend tucked out of sig

else."

"Topsy, I shall have to whip you, if you tell lies so."

"Laws, Missis, if you's to whip all day, couldn't say no
other way," said Topsy, beginning to blubber. "I never seed dat
ar,--it must a got caught in my sleeve. Miss Feeley must have left
it on the bed, and it got caught in the clothes, and so got in
my sleeve."

Miss Ophelia was so indignant at the barefaced lie, that
she caught the child and shook her.

"Don't you tell me that again!"

The shake brought the glove on to the floor, from the other sleeve.

"There, you!" said Miss Ophelia, "will you tell me now,
you didn't steal the ribbon?"

Topsy now confessed to the gloves, but still persisted in
denying the ribbon.

"Now, Topsy," said Miss Ophelia, "if you'll confess all about it,
I won't whip you this time." Thus adjured, Topsy confessed
to the ribbon and gloves, with woful protestations of penitence.

"Well, now, tell me. I know you must have taken other things
since you have been in the house, for I let you run about all
day yesterday. Now, tell me if you took anything, and I shan't
whip you."

"Laws, Missis! I took Miss Eva's red thing she wars on her neck."

"You did, you naughty child!--Well, what else?"

"I took Rosa's yer-rings,--them red ones."

"Go bring them to me this minute, both of 'em."

"Laws, Missis! I can't,--they 's burnt up!"

"Burnt up!--what a story! Go get 'em, or I'll whip you."

Topsy, with loud protestations, and tears, and groans,
declared that she _could_ not. "They 's burnt up,--they was."

"What did you burn 'em for?" said Miss Ophelia.

"Cause I 's wicked,--I is. I 's mighty wicked, any how.
I can't help it."

Just at this moment, Eva came innocently into the room,
with the identical coral necklace on her neck.

"Why, Eva, where did you get your necklace?" said Miss Ophe

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 08:50:26 -0700, [email protected] (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.
--
Watashi wa neko desu nyo.

Jason <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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.

No, that is not a worry at all. The worries are that
(a) This is a clandestine way of sneaking theology in where it has been
banned (how's that compatible with a commandment that forbids lying?),
and
(b) Children are impressionable, and *aren't* concerned about validity.
If they were mature enough to test the validity, it would be much less
of an issue.

> 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.

Of course not, because it's not true.

> I don't blame them
> for being scard. They don't want their house of cards to come
> crashing down.

Yes, we're scared. QUITE scared, actually. But not of what you
think[1], but of fundamentalist christians preaching *their* beliefs to
our kids, when our kids are too young to resist. That *is* scary.

[1]: Or what you state, rather. I refuse to believe you're dense
enough to believe it, and prefer to believe it's simply a straw man
argument.

--
*Art

Odinn <[email protected]> writes:

> How does ID have more validity than evolution? Saying it's in the
> bible isn't valid.

Aliens! Aliens were the first ones to bring life to this Earth! I
have EViDenCe! I've been probed!

But their Mind Control prevents me from revealing all of the truth.

I insist that this be presented in the schoolroom as a legitimate theory.

Jason <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I do believe that God created the earth; the solar system; Adam; Eve;
> lots of plants and animals. I also believe that he created within
> each plant and animal the ability to adapt (micro-evolution) to
> various envir. conditions. I believe the evolutionists are right in
> much of what they write about micro-evolution. The mistake they make
> is when they make the giant leap. They say that because
> micro-evolution is true, therefore macro-evolution is true. The IDers
> (myself included) don't make the giant leap.

Going from the theory that macro-evolution may be false to there being a
design, and an intelligent one at that, *isn't* a giant leap? That's
worse than seeing something unexplainable in the sky and leaping to the
conclusion that it must be aliens from outer space.

> We simply say that an ID created life and all matter.

Tossing away the bible and faith, how can you possibly come to that
conclusion without a *gargantuan* leap? There's absolutely /nothing/
that points at a designer, nor that the designer if it exists has to be
intelligent. (Several religions have the creator being non-sentient,
for example, but that doesn't fit with your bible and your /real/
agenda, now does it?)

> I still believe that we should teach
> both evolution and ID in the public school system. Both are excellent
> theories. Believe it or not, over sixty per cent of the people in
> America (according to a recent pole) believe that both ID and
> evolution should be taught in the public school system.

More than sixty percent of the people in the US also believe that Saddam
Hussein was behind 9/11, and back in the fifties, more than half the
population believed that black people should not be allowed into white
schools. The court system with the supreme court was established just
to prevent oppression by an ignorant or malevolent majority. Teaching
creationism *is* ignorant oppression.

--
*Art

"Jason" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 08:50:26 -0700, [email protected]
> > (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

"Jason" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> Phoenix <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> > > In article
> > > <[email protected]>, "Arthur
> > > Hagen" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Jason <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> >
> > > > > I don't blame them
> > > > > for being scard. They don't want their house of
> > > > > cards to come crashing down.
> >
> > How would that happen? It isn't the scientists who
> > fear exposing their thoughts to an open enquiry,
> > whereas the christians won't be questioned by anyone.
> > They just "know" ID is true, and they don't want anyone
> > to fiddle with it.
> >
> >
> >
> > > *Art,
> > > I do believe that God created the earth; the solar
> > > system; Adam; Eve; lots of plants and animals. I also
> > > believe that he created within each plant and animal
> > > the ability to adapt (micro-evolution) to various
> > > envir.
> >
> > Why? For kicks?
> >
> > What is your scientific reasoning for this? What's
> > your theory based on? Because if you can't answer this
> > then ID and creationism don't belong in a science class.
> >
> >
> > > conditions. I believe the evolutionists are right in
> > > much of what they write about micro-evolution. The
> > > mistake they make is when they make the giant leap.
> > > They say that because micro-evolution is true,
> > > therefore macro-evolution is true.
> >
> > There is no macro- or micro- evolution to any scientist
> > in the world. No macro- or micro- chemistry, physics or
> > biology either.
> >
> > So how can you dare to speak for "evolutionists" when
> > you don't even know what they think?
> >
> >
> > The IDers (myself included) don't make the giant
> > > leap. We simply say that an ID created life and all
> > > matter. I still believe that we should teach both
> > > evolution and ID in the public school system.
> >
> > Why? Shouldn't we be teaching kids something useful?
> > I don't see any reason to throw religion at them unless
> > their parents pay for that type of education. You
> > aren't going to waste the valuable time of kids forcing
> > the bible on them.
> >
> >
> > Both are excellent theories. Believe it or not, over
> > sixty per
> > > cent of the people in America (according to a recent
> > > pole) believe that both ID and evolution should be
> > > taught in the public school system.
> > > Jason
> >
> > It doesn't matter what people believe. The religion
> > with the largest number of followers in the world
> > thinks that god resides in a black rock in Mecca. Does
> > that mean we should teach this in our High School
> > science classes?
> >
> > How about Hindus, who outnumber christians? Do they
> > get to teach about Vishnu in high school science
> > classes?
> >
> > Mormons, the fastest growing christian sect (though
> > they don't believe in the divinity of Jesus.) Do they
> > get to teach the Book of Mormon in public high school
> > history? You know, the history that says god left the
> > rest of his gospels under a rock in a NY field, on
> > golden tablets, for thousands of years before Joseph
> > Smith found them?
> >
> > How far do you want this to go with this public opinion
> > survey as correct thinking?
> >
> > bel
>
> bel,
> If you just wanted to make a point--you succeeded.
> However, if you really want an answer to your questions,
> you will have to read the same book that I read on this
> subject. "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by Dr.
> Duane Gish
> If macro-evolution was true, the fossils would provide
> all of the evidence that was needed to prove it. The
> fossils don't provide the evidence needed to prove that
> macro-evolution is true. If you don't believe me, read
> the book.
> Jason

I've had the misfortune to read the book and all I can say is that it is no
wonder that the honorific of "Dr" is so under valued now, mind you it isn't
a surprise seeing as you can pay a cow-college a small fee and get a
"Doctorate" in practically anything now-a-days. The book contains less
science than the books of Erich Von Danikin (?) which I've also read. In
fact they all reside on my bookshelves in the section labelled fiction
bridging the gap into the humour section along with all the religious texts
I have.

You keep ignoring the arguments against what you are saying, you keep
contradicting yourself as regards the basis for ID - ie a minority
(alledged) Christian viewpoint. By the way you do realise one of the most
worrying things, as pointed out in another thread a short while ago, is that
you IDers are destroying your own professed faith (or is that the real
goal?) by your claims or are you that insecure in your faith that you need
proof that your particular God exists. What about all those people of faith
that don't believe as you - will you force them to accept your religious
views? Isn't there something in the American constitution regarding this -
will you force a change in that to suit your beliefs?

I worry as I don't want my kids growing up in a country governed by a
religious dictator - although given recent news releases and comment we
could be forgiven for thinking that is what you have at the moment, either
that or a mentally unstable person in charge who hears voices and does what
they tell him :) .

Steve

"Jason" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Arthur Hagen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Jason <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > No, that is not a worry at all. The worries are that
> > (a) This is a clandestine way of sneaking theology in
> > where it has been banned (how's that compatible with a
> > commandment that forbids lying?), and
> > (b) Children are impressionable, and *aren't*
> > concerned about validity. If they were mature enough to
> > test the validity, it would be much less of an issue.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Of course not, because it's not true.
> >
> > > I don't blame them
> > > for being scard. They don't want their house of cards
> > > to come crashing down.
> >
> > Yes, we're scared. QUITE scared, actually. But not of
> > what you think[1], but of fundamentalist christians
> > preaching *their* beliefs to our kids, when our kids
> > are too young to resist. That *is* scary.
> >
> > [1]: Or what you state, rather. I refuse to believe
> > you're dense enough to believe it, and prefer to
> > believe it's simply a straw man argument.
> >
> > --
> > *Art
>
> *Art,
> I do believe that God created the earth; the solar
> system; Adam; Eve; lots of plants and animals. I also
> believe that he created within each plant and animal the
> ability to adapt (micro-evolution) to various envir.
> conditions. I believe the evolutionists are right in much
> of what they write about micro-evolution. The mistake
> they make is when they make the giant leap. They say that
> because micro-evolution is true, therefore
> macro-evolution is true. The IDers (myself included)
> don't make the giant leap. We simply say that an ID
> created life and all matter. I still believe that we
> should teach both evolution and ID in the public school
> system. Both are excellent theories. Believe it or not,
> over sixty per cent of the people in America (according
> to a recent pole) believe that both ID and evolution
> should be taught in the public school system.
> Jason

And how accurate are such poles? Answer: Not very! We all know how such
things are rigged to show whatever results are required by the researchers,
in fact I came across one quoted a short while ago that said that about 78%
said ID shouldn't be taught at all - which is telling the truth? Yours?
Mine? Both? Neither?

But there we have your proof yet again boiling down to the same thing - what
_your_ particular brand of religion and it's leaders say is the be all and
end all.

We are all aware of the real reason for all this ID nonsense, which is in
general that fundamentalist religious groups can't abide the fact that they
are increasingly no longer relavent in the real world (not that they have
ever really been except in isolated places for brief periods) and that this
is the last ditch attempt by such in the US to do some real harm to their
country, under the banner of Christianity, before they have to vanish
forever.

Hopefully that will be sooner than later, as I'd hate to see the country
that I'm planning to raise a family in disolve into the sort of religious
state that a fundamentalist Christian sect would inflict on it, it would be
worse than any that has existed before in the world - teaching a made up;
ashamed of itself; single religion nonsense as science is a first step.

Prove your idea is valid - so far you can't and don't even try to other than
by saying it says so here in the bible and pointing at books of dubious
authority by persons of dubious credentials. Science at least when it
postulates a theory tries to disprove it, and so far evolution as a theory
has stood up to the test and will do so until something better comes along
that disproves it, and I'm afraid no matter how much you and your
co-religionists want it the bible and other religious texts do not.

Steve

"Jason" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Steve Rogers" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Jason" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> > > In article
> > > <[email protected]>,
> > > [email protected] wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 08:50:26 -0700, [email protected]
> > > > (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

Just removing a name doesn't change what it is - we can do side by side
comparissoms you know with this wonderful modern technology without having
to trace lines with fingers in candle light.

Answer any of the many points made by myself and others instead of reciting
the same old things time after time or go away. I bet you can't answer any
and will still just post the same old same old in response to this.

Steve

"Jason" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Steve Rogers" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Jason" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> > > In article
> > > <[email protected]>,
> > > Phoenix <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article
> > > > <[email protected]>,
> > > > [email protected] says...
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <[email protected]>,
> > > > > "Arthur Hagen" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Jason <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > I don't blame them
> > > > > > > for being scard. They don't want their house
> > > > > > > of cards to come crashing down.
> > > >
> > > > How would that happen? It isn't the scientists who
> > > > fear exposing their thoughts to an open enquiry,
> > > > whereas the christians won't be questioned by
> > > > anyone. They just "know" ID is true, and they don't
> > > > want anyone to fiddle with it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > *Art,
> > > > > I do believe that God created the earth; the solar
> > > > > system; Adam; Eve; lots of plants and animals. I
> > > > > also believe that he created within each plant
> > > > > and animal the ability to adapt (micro-evolution)
> > > > > to various envir.
> > > >
> > > > Why? For kicks?
> > > >
> > > > What is your scientific reasoning for this? What's
> > > > your theory based on? Because if you can't answer
> > > > this then ID and creationism don't belong in a
> > > > science class.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > conditions. I believe the evolutionists are right
> > > > > in much of what they write about micro-evolution.
> > > > > The mistake they make is when they make the giant
> > > > > leap. They say that because micro-evolution is
> > > > > true, therefore macro-evolution is true.
> > > >
> > > > There is no macro- or micro- evolution to any
> > > > scientist in the world. No macro- or micro-
> > > > chemistry, physics or biology either.
> > > >
> > > > So how can you dare to speak for "evolutionists"
> > > > when you don't even know what they think?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The IDers (myself included) don't make the giant
> > > > > leap. We simply say that an ID created life and
> > > > > all matter. I still believe that we should teach
> > > > > both evolution and ID in the public school system.
> > > >
> > > > Why? Shouldn't we be teaching kids something
> > > > useful?
> > > > I don't see any reason to throw religion at them
> > > > unless their parents pay for that type of
> > > > education. You aren't going to waste the valuable
> > > > time of kids forcing the bible on them.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Both are excellent theories. Believe it or not,
> > > > over sixty per
> > > > > cent of the people in America (according to a
> > > > > recent pole) believe that both ID and evolution
> > > > > should be taught in the public school system.
> > > > > Jason
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't matter what people believe. The religion
> > > > with the largest number of followers in the world
> > > > thinks that god resides in a black rock in Mecca.
> > > > Does that mean we should teach this in our High
> > > > School science classes?
> > > >
> > > > How about Hindus, who outnumber christians? Do they
> > > > get to teach about Vishnu in high school science
> > > > classes?
> > > >
> > > > Mormons, the fastest growing christian sect (though
> > > > they don't believe in the divinity of Jesus.) Do
> > > > they get to teach the Book of Mormon in public high
> > > > school history? You know, the history that says
> > > > god left the rest of his gospels under a rock in a
> > > > NY field, on golden tablets, for thousands of years
> > > > before Joseph Smith found them?
> > > >
> > > > How far do you want this to go with this public
> > > > opinion survey as correct thinking?
> > > >
> > > > bel
> > >
> > > bel,
> > > If you just wanted to make a point--you succeeded.
> > > However, if you really want an answer to your
> > > questions, you will have to read the same book that I
> > > read on this subject. "Evolution: The Fossils Still
> > > Say No" by Dr. Duane Gish
> > > If macro-evolution was true, the fossils would provide
> > > all of the evidence that was needed to prove it. The
> > > fossils don't provide the evidence needed to prove
> > > that macro-evolution is true. If you don't believe
> > > me, read the book.
> > > Jason
> >
> > I've had the misfortune to read the book and all I can
> > say is that it is no wonder that the honorific of "Dr"
> > is so under valued now, mind you it isn't a surprise
> > seeing as you can pay a cow-college a small fee and get
> > a "Doctorate" in practically anything now-a-days. The
> > book contains less science than the books of Erich Von
> > Danikin (?) which I've also read. In fact they all
> > reside on my bookshelves in the section labelled
> > fiction bridging the gap into the humour section along
> > with all the religious texts I have.
> >
> > You keep ignoring the arguments against what you are
> > saying, you keep contradicting yourself as regards the
> > basis for ID - ie a minority (alledged) Christian
> > viewpoint. By the way you do realise one of the most
> > worrying things, as pointed out in another thread a
> > short while ago, is that you IDers are destroying your
> > own professed faith (or is that the real goal?) by your
> > claims or are you that insecure in your faith that you
> > need proof that your particular God exists. What about
> > all those people of faith that don't believe as you -
> > will you force them to accept your religious views?
> > Isn't there something in the American constitution
> > regarding this - will you force a change in that to
> > suit your beliefs?
> >
> > I worry as I don't want my kids growing up in a country
> > governed by a religious dictator - although given
> > recent news releases and comment we could be forgiven
> > for thinking that is what you have at the moment,
> > either that or a mentally unstable person in charge who
> > hears voices and does what they tell him :) .
> >
> > Steve
>
> Steve,
> You made some interesting points.

We all do so maybe you'd better start answering them.

I should have done a
> better job of letting people know that those in the ID
> movement have written a textbook that does NOT mention
> God, Jesus or any religion. They done it this way in
> order to comply with the court case that prevents
> teachers from discussing any religion in front of any
> class.

But as has been said many times and agreed with by you, it is religious in
basis and primarily your (ID's) version of Christianity

That means people like you will not have to worry
> about their children be exposed to religion.

I don't worry about that, I worry about kids being taught rubbish written by
a bunch of "Holier than thou" tub-thumpers who are unable to back uop their
so-called scientific theory with anything but their Bible.

Many
> Christian parents have already removed their children
> from the public school system.

And most not because they don't agree with the curriculum or lack of
religion in school science classes.

They either home school
> them or enroll them in Christian schools.

Where the parents are qualified to do so I don't see a problem as long as
they follow the nation's school curriculum and don't add in their own views
prompted by their religion to a lesson - ie "This is wrong because the bible
says......" As to a Christian school, so what, some parents send their kids
to schools run in favour of other faiths, they all have to teach the same
basics, the only real difference is that religion is taught in a religion
class and there are prayers.

I don't blame
> them since it means their children will be able to learn
> about ID and evoltuion.
> Jason

Well if the schools are run by those who refuse to teach anything that goes
against their religion or throws doubt on the validity of their teachings,
you can bet that ID and evolution *won't* get taught at all. Because
evolution will be regarded as heresy and ID as a false religion and heresy -
the ten commandments, remember, specifically forbids the worshipping of any
God but Jehovah which is what ID amounts to if we go with one of the things
you've been saying :)

Steve

[email protected] (Jason) writes:

> If you just wanted to make a point--you succeeded. However, if you really
> want an answer to your questions, you will have to read the same book that
> I read on this subject.
> "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by Dr. Duane Gish


The great thing about publishing your own "science" book is that you
can lie all you want to, and no one will contradict your in your book,
because you only print what you want people to believe, and nothing
that contradicts your opinion.

Of course an intelligent person would check on the integrity and accuracy
of the author before swallowing it whole - hook line and sinker.

You, Jason, swallowed it whole.

Have you read anything NEGATIVE about Gish?
Or are you avoiding this because it doesn't it goes against your faith?

Look at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/monkeyquote.html#gish

Let me quote:

Gish has committed a number of errors here. First was the decision to
use O'Connell as a reference source at all. It speaks very poorly for
Gish's judgement that he could not recognize how hopelessly
incompetent O'Connell was. Second is Gish's failure to reference the
quote as coming from O'Connell's book. This should always be done to
give the original author credit (or, in O'Connell's case, blame) for
their work. This is standard scientific practice, as Gish, who has a
scientific Ph.D., should have known. Third was Gish's decision to rely
on a secondary source, instead of searching out the original
literature for himself. It is true that Gish does not read French, but
it should not have been too hard to find someone who could translate
the relevant passages.

These mistakes would not have mattered if O'Connell's translation had
been accurate and had not misrepresented Boule's views. Because that
was not the case, all these circumstances worked together to make it
look as though the quote was a fabrication by Gish.

Both Gish and the CSF have later claimed that the O'Connell/Gish
version does not change the meaning of the quote. This is manifestly
untrue, since Gish's quote has Boule calling the skulls "monkey-like",
while Boule's does not. Note that on no fewer than four occasions,
Gish (1979) made reference to Boule having stated that the skulls were
"monkey-like", and it is precisely that word which was was inserted by
O'Connell. Clearly, that word played a crucial role in Gish's claims
that a) the Peking Man skulls belonged to monkeys or apes, and b) that
Marcellin Boule also believed they were monkey-like. Gish can hardly
place such reliance on a single word, which totally misrepresents
Boule's opinions, and then claim that the addition of the word "does
not change the meaning of the quote".


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

[email protected] (Jason) writes:

> Diane,
> sci.med.pathology
> I tried posting a message at talk.origins but it did not appear.

You can try cross-posting (posting one message to 2 or more
newsgroups). Even if your ISP doesn't carry it, readers can read it
there, and response.

As an example - this posting is cross-posted to these 4 newsgroups.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.pratchett,rec.woodworking,sci.med.pathology,alt.gossip.celebrities


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

Diane L wrote:

> Jason,
> Have you considered reading more than one book on this subject
> before making up your mind? I'd suggest one on evolutionary
> theory written by someone who has actually studied the subject,
> then maybe something about genetics, paleontology, geology and
> phylogeny, the evidence from all of which supports the theory of
> evolution.

The problem being that ID is indistinguishable from evolution outside of
the low and whispering "as though there were an intelligent designer
lurking behind it all!" and begging for you to agree without offering up
an way of demonstrating that designers existence: his/her reality lies
in the conclusion being begged.

ID is obscenely dishonest, pretending to forswear God while deviously
circumventing technical weaknesses in the law design to prevent the
government meddling in religious hoohaw. It's devilishly clever.

Sheesh, why is this being posted to *these* groups??? And how do I
set... nevermind.

er
--

and I
hearn every word." And Mandy, who had never in her life thought of
the meaning of a word she had heard, more than a black cat, now
took airs of superior wisdom, and strutted about, forgetting to
state that, though actually coiled up among the jugs at the time
specified, she had been fast asleep all the time.

When, at last, Haley appeared, booted and spurred, he was
saluted with the bad tidings on every hand. The young imps on the
verandah were not disappointed in their hope of hearing him "swar,"
which he did with a fluency and fervency which delighted them all
amazingly, as they ducked and dodged hither and thither, to be out
of the reach of his riding-whip; and, all whooping off together,
they tumbled, in a pile of immeasurable giggle, on the withered
turf under the verandah, where they kicked up their heels and shouted
to their full satisfaction.

"If I had the little devils!" muttered Haley, between his teeth.

"But you ha'nt got 'em, though!" said Andy, with a triumphant
flourish, and making a string of indescribable mouths at the
unfortunate trader's back, when he was fairly beyond hearing.

"I say now, Shelby, this yer 's a most extro'rnary business!"
said Haley, as he abruptly entered the parlor. "It seems that gal
's off, with her young un."

"Mr. Haley, Mrs. Shelby is present," said Mr. Shelby.

"I beg pardon, ma'am," said Haley, bowing slightly, with
a still lowering brow; "but still I say, as I said before, this
yer's a sing'lar report. Is it true, sir?"

"Sir," said Mr. Shelby, "if you wish to communicate with
me, you must observe something of the decorum of a gentleman.
Andy, take Mr. Haley's hat and riding-whip. Take a seat, sir.
Yes, sir;

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 08:50:26 -0700, [email protected] (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

--
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 <[email protected]>, "Arthur Hagen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Jason <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> No, that is not a worry at all. The worries are that
> (a) This is a clandestine way of sneaking theology in where it has been
> banned (how's that compatible with a commandment that forbids lying?),
> and
> (b) Children are impressionable, and *aren't* concerned about validity.
> If they were mature enough to test the validity, it would be much less
> of an issue.
>
> > 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.
>
> Of course not, because it's not true.
>
> > I don't blame them
> > for being scard. They don't want their house of cards to come
> > crashing down.
>
> Yes, we're scared. QUITE scared, actually. But not of what you
> think[1], but of fundamentalist christians preaching *their* beliefs to
> our kids, when our kids are too young to resist. That *is* scary.
>
> [1]: Or what you state, rather. I refuse to believe you're dense
> enough to believe it, and prefer to believe it's simply a straw man
> argument.
>
> --
> *Art

*Art,
I do believe that God created the earth; the solar system; Adam; Eve; lots
of plants and animals. I also believe that he created within each plant
and animal the ability to adapt (micro-evolution) to various envir.
conditions. I believe the evolutionists are right in much of what they
write about micro-evolution. The mistake they make is when they make the
giant leap. They say that because micro-evolution is true, therefore
macro-evolution is true. The IDers (myself included) don't make the giant
leap. We simply say that an ID created life and all matter. I still
believe that we should teach both evolution and ID in the public school
system. Both are excellent theories. Believe it or not, over sixty per
cent of the people in America (according to a recent pole) believe that
both ID and evolution should be taught in the public school system.
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 <[email protected]>,
Phoenix <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > In article <[email protected]>, "Arthur Hagen"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Jason <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
>
> > > > I don't blame them
> > > > for being scard. They don't want their house of cards to come
> > > > crashing down.
>
> How would that happen? It isn't the scientists who fear exposing their
> thoughts to an open enquiry, whereas the christians won't be questioned
> by anyone. They just "know" ID is true, and they don't want anyone to
> fiddle with it.
>
>
>
> > *Art,
> > I do believe that God created the earth; the solar system; Adam; Eve; lots
> > of plants and animals. I also believe that he created within each plant
> > and animal the ability to adapt (micro-evolution) to various envir.
>
> Why? For kicks?
>
> What is your scientific reasoning for this? What's your theory based
> on? Because if you can't answer this then ID and creationism don't
> belong in a science class.
>
>
> > conditions. I believe the evolutionists are right in much of what they
> > write about micro-evolution. The mistake they make is when they make the
> > giant leap. They say that because micro-evolution is true, therefore
> > macro-evolution is true.
>
> There is no macro- or micro- evolution to any scientist in the world.
> No macro- or micro- chemistry, physics or biology either.
>
> So how can you dare to speak for "evolutionists" when you don't even
> know what they think?
>
>
> The IDers (myself included) don't make the giant
> > leap. We simply say that an ID created life and all matter. I still
> > believe that we should teach both evolution and ID in the public school
> > system.
>
> Why? Shouldn't we be teaching kids something useful? I don't see any
> reason to throw religion at them unless their parents pay for that type
> of education. You aren't going to waste the valuable time of kids
> forcing the bible on them.
>
>
> Both are excellent theories. Believe it or not, over sixty per
> > cent of the people in America (according to a recent pole) believe that
> > both ID and evolution should be taught in the public school system.
> > Jason
>
> It doesn't matter what people believe. The religion with the largest
> number of followers in the world thinks that god resides in a black rock
> in Mecca. Does that mean we should teach this in our High School
> science classes?
>
> How about Hindus, who outnumber christians? Do they get to teach about
> Vishnu in high school science classes?
>
> Mormons, the fastest growing christian sect (though they don't believe
> in the divinity of Jesus.) Do they get to teach the Book of Mormon in
> public high school history? You know, the history that says god left
> the rest of his gospels under a rock in a NY field, on golden tablets,
> for thousands of years before Joseph Smith found them?
>
> How far do you want this to go with this public opinion survey as
> correct thinking?
>
> bel

bel,
If you just wanted to make a point--you succeeded. However, if you really
want an answer to your questions, you will have to read the same book that
I read on this subject.
"Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by Dr. Duane Gish
If macro-evolution was true, the fossils would provide all of the evidence
that was needed to prove it. The fossils don't provide the evidence needed
to prove that macro-evolution is true. If you don't believe me, read the
book.
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 <[email protected]>, "Steve Rogers"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "Jason" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > In article
> > <[email protected]>,
> > Phoenix <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <[email protected]>,
> > > [email protected] says...
> > > > In article
> > > > <[email protected]>, "Arthur
> > > > Hagen" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Jason <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > >
> > > > > > I don't blame them
> > > > > > for being scard. They don't want their house of
> > > > > > cards to come crashing down.
> > >
> > > How would that happen? It isn't the scientists who
> > > fear exposing their thoughts to an open enquiry,
> > > whereas the christians won't be questioned by anyone.
> > > They just "know" ID is true, and they don't want anyone
> > > to fiddle with it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > *Art,
> > > > I do believe that God created the earth; the solar
> > > > system; Adam; Eve; lots of plants and animals. I also
> > > > believe that he created within each plant and animal
> > > > the ability to adapt (micro-evolution) to various
> > > > envir.
> > >
> > > Why? For kicks?
> > >
> > > What is your scientific reasoning for this? What's
> > > your theory based on? Because if you can't answer this
> > > then ID and creationism don't belong in a science class.
> > >
> > >
> > > > conditions. I believe the evolutionists are right in
> > > > much of what they write about micro-evolution. The
> > > > mistake they make is when they make the giant leap.
> > > > They say that because micro-evolution is true,
> > > > therefore macro-evolution is true.
> > >
> > > There is no macro- or micro- evolution to any scientist
> > > in the world. No macro- or micro- chemistry, physics or
> > > biology either.
> > >
> > > So how can you dare to speak for "evolutionists" when
> > > you don't even know what they think?
> > >
> > >
> > > The IDers (myself included) don't make the giant
> > > > leap. We simply say that an ID created life and all
> > > > matter. I still believe that we should teach both
> > > > evolution and ID in the public school system.
> > >
> > > Why? Shouldn't we be teaching kids something useful?
> > > I don't see any reason to throw religion at them unless
> > > their parents pay for that type of education. You
> > > aren't going to waste the valuable time of kids forcing
> > > the bible on them.
> > >
> > >
> > > Both are excellent theories. Believe it or not, over
> > > sixty per
> > > > cent of the people in America (according to a recent
> > > > pole) believe that both ID and evolution should be
> > > > taught in the public school system.
> > > > Jason
> > >
> > > It doesn't matter what people believe. The religion
> > > with the largest number of followers in the world
> > > thinks that god resides in a black rock in Mecca. Does
> > > that mean we should teach this in our High School
> > > science classes?
> > >
> > > How about Hindus, who outnumber christians? Do they
> > > get to teach about Vishnu in high school science
> > > classes?
> > >
> > > Mormons, the fastest growing christian sect (though
> > > they don't believe in the divinity of Jesus.) Do they
> > > get to teach the Book of Mormon in public high school
> > > history? You know, the history that says god left the
> > > rest of his gospels under a rock in a NY field, on
> > > golden tablets, for thousands of years before Joseph
> > > Smith found them?
> > >
> > > How far do you want this to go with this public opinion
> > > survey as correct thinking?
> > >
> > > bel
> >
> > bel,
> > If you just wanted to make a point--you succeeded.
> > However, if you really want an answer to your questions,
> > you will have to read the same book that I read on this
> > subject. "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by Dr.
> > Duane Gish
> > If macro-evolution was true, the fossils would provide
> > all of the evidence that was needed to prove it. The
> > fossils don't provide the evidence needed to prove that
> > macro-evolution is true. If you don't believe me, read
> > the book.
> > Jason
>
> I've had the misfortune to read the book and all I can say is that it is no
> wonder that the honorific of "Dr" is so under valued now, mind you it isn't
> a surprise seeing as you can pay a cow-college a small fee and get a
> "Doctorate" in practically anything now-a-days. The book contains less
> science than the books of Erich Von Danikin (?) which I've also read. In
> fact they all reside on my bookshelves in the section labelled fiction
> bridging the gap into the humour section along with all the religious texts
> I have.
>
> You keep ignoring the arguments against what you are saying, you keep
> contradicting yourself as regards the basis for ID - ie a minority
> (alledged) Christian viewpoint. By the way you do realise one of the most
> worrying things, as pointed out in another thread a short while ago, is that
> you IDers are destroying your own professed faith (or is that the real
> goal?) by your claims or are you that insecure in your faith that you need
> proof that your particular God exists. What about all those people of faith
> that don't believe as you - will you force them to accept your religious
> views? Isn't there something in the American constitution regarding this -
> will you force a change in that to suit your beliefs?
>
> I worry as I don't want my kids growing up in a country governed by a
> religious dictator - although given recent news releases and comment we
> could be forgiven for thinking that is what you have at the moment, either
> that or a mentally unstable person in charge who hears voices and does what
> they tell him :) .
>
> Steve

Steve,
You made some interesting points. I should have done a better job of
letting people know that those in the ID movement have written a textbook
that does NOT mention God, Jesus or any religion. They done it this way in
order to comply with the court case that prevents teachers from discussing
any religion in front of any class. That means people like you will not
have to worry about their children be exposed to religion. Many Christian
parents have already removed their children from the public school system.
They either home school them or enroll them in Christian schools. I don't
blame them since it means their children will be able to learn about ID
and evoltuion.
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 <[email protected]>, "Diane
L" <[email protected]> wrote:

> (I had to cut sci.bio from the crosspost because my newserver
> didn't recognise it. I hope Jason is reading in another group)
>
> Jason wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > bel,
> > If you just wanted to make a point--you succeeded. However, if you
> > really want an answer to your questions, you will have to read the
> > same book that I read on this subject.
> > "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by Dr. Duane Gish
> > If macro-evolution was true, the fossils would provide all of the
> > evidence that was needed to prove it. The fossils don't provide the
> > evidence needed to prove that macro-evolution is true. If you don't
> > believe me, read the book.
>
> Jason,
> Have you considered reading more than one book on this subject
> before making up your mind? I'd suggest one on evolutionary
> theory written by someone who has actually studied the subject,
> then maybe something about genetics, paleontology, geology and
> phylogeny, the evidence from all of which supports the theory of
> evolution.
>
> Diane L.

Diane L.
That's a great suggestion and I may do it. I took a course related to
evolution while in college and I have not seen any new information
about evolution in any of the recent posts that provided new
data that I have not seen before. I asked
several people to let me know about any newer experiments that prove
life can evolve from non-life. As of yet, none of the posters have
told be about an experiment. When I was in college, the professor
was fairly certain that eventually a scientist would be able to prove
that life could evolve from non-life. When it happens, I will turn
my back on the ID movement and become an evolutionist. I noticed from
your post that you were very professional. I was beginning to think
that all evolutionists were unprofessional.
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 <[email protected]>, "Steve Rogers"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "Jason" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 08:50:26 -0700, [email protected]
> > > (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

--
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 <[email protected]>, "Diane
L" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Jois wrote:
> > "Jason" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > [snip]
> >
> >> That's a great suggestion and I may do it. I took a course related to
> >> evolution while in college and I have not seen any new information
> >> about evolution in any of the recent posts that provided new
> >> data that I have not seen before.
> > [snip]
> >
> > I don't know what pratchett is but what would you expect to learn
> > about what is new or old or anything else about evolution in
> > woodworking, medical pathology, or celebrity gossip?
>
> Pratchett is a British fantasy author whose works include a novel
> featuring a God of Evolution and who has co-authored 3 books about
> science, the 3rd of which is subtitled /Darwin's Watch/. Given that,
> and the fact that anything Pratchett fans are interested in is on-topic
> for afp, there's no real problem with the thread being posted here.
> If I knew in which group Jason is (or indeed you are) reading I'd
> cut the crosspost down to just that group and afp.
>
> Diane L.

Diane,
sci.med.pathology
I tried posting a message at talk.origins but it did not appear. I have
had that same problem with another newsgroup so it's possible that it's a
problem related to my internet service provider. It appears to be the best
newsgroup related to the evolution vs. ID debate.
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 10/22/2005 2:17 PM Jason mumbled something about the following:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 08:50:26 -0700, [email protected] (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
>

How does ID have more validity than evolution? Saying it's in the bible
isn't valid.

--
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 [email protected] to reply

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> Jois wrote:
> >
> > Some garden! I block nuts like that and most everyone who answers them
> > unless they do what you did - cross off the extra newsgroups.
> >
>
> I did too, but I've started using Thunderbird as my news reader and it
> doesn't allow that. I think I'll go back to Gravity - or to FreeAgent.

Uh, when the subject is off-topic aren't they all 'extra' newsgroups?

--

FF

Steve Rogers wrote:
>
> Given the limited number of responses so far recorded for any IDer, I
> could probably whip up a nice little robot program to do the same -
> it'd only need to espouse the creed once and then respond to each
> following post with the same things picked out at random. :)


Hmmmm - are you sure "Jason" isn't the output of such a program? Is
"Dr." Gish a software programmer as well as a religious one?

But considering the crossposting, I'm beginning to believe he's just a
garden-variety troll :-).

Jois wrote:
>
> Some garden! I block nuts like that and most everyone who answers them
> unless they do what you did - cross off the extra newsgroups.
>

I did too, but I've started using Thunderbird as my news reader and it
doesn't allow that. I think I'll go back to Gravity - or to FreeAgent.

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> But considering the crossposting, I'm beginning to believe he's just a
> garden-variety troll :-).

Some garden! I block nuts like that and most everyone who answers them
unless they do what you did - cross off the extra newsgroups.

Josie

"Jason" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 15:32:14 -0700, [email protected]
> > (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. A poster in another newsgroup
> told me that he attended another debate. He said that Dr.
> Gish lost that debate. I respect Dr. Gish. 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. 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.
> Jason

Yep the same responses which to me indicates that you have little idea of
the subject and so are unwilling to debate it at all with people that do
know what they are talking about.

Given the limited number of responses so far recorded for any IDer, I could
probably whip up a nice little robot program to do the same - it'd only need
to espouse the creed once and then respond to each following post with the
same things picked out at random. :) Harder to do for the other side as
they respond with a more varied and knowledgeable content (unlike me who
responds because I don't like this sort of bullying from anyone - religion
is a personal thing not something to force on others).

Steve

On 10/23/2005 12:55 AM Jason mumbled something about the following:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 15:32:14 -0700, [email protected] (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. A poster
> in another newsgroup told me that he attended another debate. He said that
> Dr. Gish lost that debate. I respect Dr. Gish. 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. 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.

How is it that science is about debates again? Science is about testing
theories, not about debating. One cannot win a debate in science, one
can only test true or false. Again, what would a biochemist know about
palaeontology? Dr. Gish distorted truths to fit his beliefs and
continued to distort the truths after being told he was wrong. He has
been discredited too many times to even trust anything he says.

--
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 [email protected] to reply

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 15:32:14 -0700, [email protected] (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. A poster
in another newsgroup told me that he attended another debate. He said that
Dr. Gish lost that debate. I respect Dr. Gish. 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. 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.
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 Sat, 22 Oct 2005 15:32:14 -0700, [email protected] (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).

--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997