alt.education

In article writes:
> or-mail
> From: Wide Eyed in Wonder
> Newsgroups: , ity, , ,
> Subject: Re: ONLY Jesus leads to Heaven, or did Jesus lie?
> Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 06:35:04 -0700
> Organization:
> Lines: 84
Message-ID: < @ >
References: < @ >

< @ >

< @ >
<6uu3d35bvsimfspn5opv5s0mk9bfpr3ntd@ >
< @ >

< @ >

> NNTP-Posting-Host:
> Mime-Version:
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> X-Trace: 1188308105 25338 (28 Aug 2007 13:35:05 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 13:35:05 +0000 (UTC)
> In-Reply-To:
> User-Agent: G2/
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/ (Windows; U; Windows NT ; en-US; rv: ) Gecko/20070725 Firefox/ ,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@
> Injection-Info: ; posting-host= ;
> posting-account=ps2QrAMAAAA6_jCuRt2JEIpn5Otqf_w0
> X-Original-Bytes: 4795
> Xref: :499488 :357618 :114751 :92555
>
> On Aug 27, 7:00 pm, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> > Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
> >
> > >On Aug 27, 10:04 am, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> > >> Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
> > >Evolution is not seen from one species to another...
> >
> > You ignored where I specifically addressed that.
> >
> > >> For observed evolution great enough to result in speciation:
> >
> > /faqs/
> >
> > >that is what evolution is...
> >
> > No. Evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles in a population
> > over time.
> >
> > >or, are you now saying evolution is just genetic traits WITHIN a species?
> >
> > See above. It is pretty much inevitable when change continues within a
> > species, that species will eventually become multiple species.
> >
> > > Aside from that, we haven't had ANY evolution from
> > >one species to another in the hundreds of years
> >
> > Again I refer you to what you ignored.>> For observed evolution great enough to result in speciation:
> >
> > /faqs/
> >
> > >Evolution has been discussed.
> >
> > Evolution was proposed only 140 years ago. Since it was proposed, all
> > of modern biology and medicine has been based on it. Biology and
> > medicine *work*.
> >
> > >But, let's get back to the point. If OBSERVATION is so essential in
> > >science and cannot be disputed, how is a literal observation of the
> > >Bible NOT important?
> >
> > All you can observe about the Bible is that some publisher included
> > certain words in it. You might notice something about typefaces,
> > binding, etc. But the bottom line is that it is just a book - insofar
> > as what can be "observed".
> >
> > >Or, to use your argument, if I INTERPRET the data
> > >on evolution differently than you do (which I do)
> >
> > You don't KNOW the data, or you wouldn't make an ass of yourself every
> > time you bring the subject up.
> >
> > >my interpretation of the data is equally valid as yours...right?
> >
> > No. You are confusing the word "valid" with "true".
> >
> > Your interpretation of data might be as true for you as my
> > interpretation of the same data might be true for me.
> >
> > But no one cares about your interpretation of data (except perhaps
> > you).
> >
> > lojbab
>
>
> Bob, you really need to buy a dictionary....
>
> Truth - 1. Conformity to fact..., 2. A statement proven to be or
> accepted as true.
>
> True - Consistent with Fact.
>
> Valid - Founded on Evidence or Fact.
>
>
> ...I'm getting a bit tired of having to do your research for you. If
> you aren't going to do any research before making absolute statements
> (typical of evolutionists),



This IS Ken "Evolution wants you to believe that creatures
can change their own DNA...at will", Clifton speaking, right?


> I'm going to stop talking to you again.

Aw, man! DAMN! I gotta run the pool again, don't I?
How come *I* always gots to run the pool? Can't ANYBODY
else run the damn pool for once? Huh?

OK, I guess so...


-- cary