Re: POLITICS - marriage symbolic of Christ and the Church? - April

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/25/04 9:02:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, lyn122@...

writes:

> April...I teach high school biology and deal with this topic and all

> it's controversy every year. It's a hot one especially this year

> here in Ga! Where did you get that fact that 50% or more scientists

> do not believe in evolution? I've never seen that and would love to

> see the references! I'm curious who polled the scientists and which

> scientists? Interesting fact!

That's because it's false.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/25/04 9:40:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, myers_45@...

writes:

> This statistic was stated by Dr. Hovind. Check him out on the internet.

> He blows holes in every evolutionary theory.

It's too bad he uses lies to blow holes in the science of public opinion.

> There is zero scientific data that supports evolution. Talk about a leap

of faith.

I think you mistakenly used the " POLITICS " tag rather than the " HUMOR " tag.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/25/04 9:51:09 PM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> i don't believe anyone's spiritual tradition has any bearing on the value

> of

> their nutritional advice.

Suze,

I agree. But Katja said that in response to someone who claimed that there

is no scientific evidence for evolution. This person clearly revealed by that

statement that they have no capacity for scientific judgment whatsoever. Had

the statement been made that there is compelling evidence against evolution,

it still wouldn't be a very credible statement, but it could be made by a sane

person with a reasonable scientific background.

But someone who believes someone else who makes such a thoroughly insane

statement reveals that they do not think critically about any statement they

here

or competently investigate the truth of any claim before they choose to

believe it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> since only 50% or less Scientist believe in this fact

deficient " religion " of no god. Just Wa-la! a universe of precise

April...I teach high school biology and deal with this topic and all

it's controversy every year. It's a hot one especially this year

here in Ga! Where did you get that fact that 50% or more scientists

do not believe in evolution? I've never seen that and would love to

see the references! I'm curious who polled the scientists and which

scientists? Interesting fact!

Thank you,

Lynn

[Guest guest]

This statistic was stated by Dr. Hovind. Check him out on the internet. He

blows holes in every evolutionary theory. There is zero scientific data that

supports evolution. Talk about a leap of faith.

Re: POLITICS - marriage symbolic of Christ and the Church? -

April

> since only 50% or less Scientist believe in this fact

deficient " religion " of no god. Just Wa-la! a universe of precise

April...I teach high school biology and deal with this topic and all

it's controversy every year. It's a hot one especially this year

here in Ga! Where did you get that fact that 50% or more scientists

do not believe in evolution? I've never seen that and would love to

see the references! I'm curious who polled the scientists and which

scientists? Interesting fact!

Thank you,

Lynn

[Guest guest]

At 06:30 PM 2/25/2004, you wrote:

>This statistic was stated by Dr. Hovind. Check him out on the

>internet. He blows holes in every evolutionary theory. There is zero

>scientific data that supports evolution. Talk about a leap of faith.

wow.

just wow.

i keep thinking we shouldn't be stuffing our list with stupid rantings

about religion, but since i somehow keep getting sucked in, that's pretty

hypocritical. and i mean, i guess this sort of thing is good, cause it

really helps me sort through whose nutritional and health advice is

trustworthy.

btw, there's what seems (so far - it's super long) to be a pretty good

rebuttal to this numbskull at http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/matson-v.htm,

which was worked on by at least one theistic evolutionist (again, with the

whole thorn in the side).

[Guest guest]

>i keep thinking we shouldn't be stuffing our list with stupid rantings

>about religion, but since i somehow keep getting sucked in, that's pretty

>hypocritical. and i mean, i guess this sort of thing is good, cause it

>really helps me sort through whose nutritional and health advice is

>trustworthy.

katja,

i don't believe anyone's spiritual tradition has any bearing on the value of

their nutritional advice. for example, some of the best nutrition and health

advice i've ever received was from michael, who is orthodox christian and on

this list. i'm indebted to him for the valuable guidance he's given me in my

path toward health. there are many others on this list with whom i differ in

regards to religion and politics, but who also provide valuable input on

nutrition. after all we are all here because of our *shared* nutritional

beliefs.

heck, i've even found that if i keep a very open mind, those who have quite

different political and religious beliefs have something to teach me.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

At 07:36 PM 2/25/2004, you wrote:

>katja,

>

>i don't believe anyone's spiritual tradition has any bearing on the value of

>their nutritional advice. for example, some of the best nutrition and health

>advice i've ever received was from michael, who is orthodox christian and on

>this list. i'm indebted to him for the valuable guidance he's given me in my

>path toward health. there are many others on this list with whom i differ in

>regards to religion and politics, but who also provide valuable input on

>nutrition. after all we are all here because of our *shared* nutritional

>beliefs.

>

>heck, i've even found that if i keep a very open mind, those who have quite

>different political and religious beliefs have something to teach me.

oh, no - that's not what i meant! it's not the spiritual training at all -

it's what someone will accept as " science " . if you check out that guy's

website, it's a complete crock. if someone thinks that his arguments are

good science (that's not the best word i want, but it's what i've got at

the moment), then that's not someone whose researching abilities i'm going

to trust.

i don't really care what people believe in (personally i'd prefer not to

know!) but what i do care about knowing is who does good research, and who

digs deep for good solid answers. and, hear hear about both michaels,

whatever they believe!

-katja

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/26/04 9:42:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, katja@...

writes:

> thanks, chris - that's exactly what i meant.

> just with a baby and a farm and a really busy job, you guys don't always

> get my full brainpower. which sucks.

Well I appreciate what we do get! :-)

Although I'm still waiting for those pictures...

Chris

[Guest guest]

thanks, chris - that's exactly what i meant.

just with a baby and a farm and a really busy job, you guys don't always

get my full brainpower. which sucks.

-katja

At 10:49 PM 2/25/2004, you wrote:

> > i don't believe anyone's spiritual tradition has any bearing on the value

> > of

> > their nutritional advice.

>

>Suze,

>

>I agree. But Katja said that in response to someone who claimed that there

>is no scientific evidence for evolution. This person clearly revealed by

>that

>statement that they have no capacity for scientific judgment whatsoever. Had

>the statement been made that there is compelling evidence against evolution,

>it still wouldn't be a very credible statement, but it could be made by a

>sane

>person with a reasonable scientific background.

>

>But someone who believes someone else who makes such a thoroughly insane

>statement reveals that they do not think critically about any statement

>they here

>or competently investigate the truth of any claim before they choose to

>believe it.

>

>Chris