Who dares sent me SPAM?: 25 new messages in 12 topics

talk.origins
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins?hl=en

talk.origins@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: True to his form, Charles Darwin married his first cousin...
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/4568d065a0db317e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 8:00 pm
From: beckman@alumni.caltech.edu

On Apr 23, 4:01 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> In article <1177314516.793874.152...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> <beck...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> > § 15-1-4 Marriages of kindred allowed by Jewish religion. - The
> >provisions of §§ 15-1-1 - 15-1-3 shall not extend to, or in any way
> >affect, any marriage which shall be solemnized among the Jewish
> >people, within the degrees of affinity or consanguinity allowed by
> >their religion.
>
> And has the constitutionality of this law ever been challanged?
>
To me it seems like these statutes would never survive a
constitutional challenge, so I can
only guess that they have never been challenged. When I came accross
this I imagined that
this was some old law that is still on the books but not enforced nor
defended any longer. However,
I found that as of March 2007, a bill has been intrduced that rewrites
these laws to accomodate
same sex marriages, but the weird 15-1-4 part is still there (see
http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText07/HouseText07/H6081.pdf )

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Taliban before the Taliban
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/1f1385c6ba52bfb0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 8:02 pm
From: eroot@swva.net

On Apr 23, 10:45 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 9:36 pm, e...@swva.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 1:42 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 23, 1:31 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 22, 10:27 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 22, 6:20 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 22, 3:20 pm, snex <hiya_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 22, 3:11 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 2:51 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 2:43 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > (snip)
>
> > > > > > > > > > With all due respect, it's not your place to tell the rest of the
> > > > > > > > > > world what they "should" or "should not" think or believe. (shrug)
>
> > > > > > > > > actually its my place to say anything i damn well please. whether or
> > > > > > > > > not they listen, is up to them.
>
> > > > > > > > (snip)
>
> > > > > > > > Oddly enough, that is PRECISELY the answer I get from fundies when I
> > > > > > > > ask them what right they think they have to "peacefully coerce"
> > > > > > > > everyone else to their religious opinions.
>
> > > > > > > oddly enough, fundies are precisely right when they give that answer.
>
> > > > > > Indeed. Since you and the fundies are alike in nearly every respect,
> > > > > > it's no wonder that you accept their answers just as thoroughly as
> > > > > > they do.
>
> > > > > what a bunch of nonsense. this is akin to something ray martinez would
> > > > > say. the fundies have a right to free speech just as i do. dont like
> > > > > it? go to a country that doesnt have it. im sure youll enjoy it oh so
> > > > > much.
>
> > > > > > > they have the right to spout their lies just as much as i have the
> > > > > > > right to point out that they are lies.
>
> > > > > > > what, you have a problem with freedom of speech?
>
> > > > > > No, it appears that YOU are the one who has a gripe against the First
> > > > > > Amendment.
>
> > > > > i do? where?
>
> > > > > > Alas, though, your idiotic campaign to stamp out religion only harms
> > > > > > us when it comes to fighting IDers and fundies. After all, ID is a
> > > > > > political fight, and in a political fight, one needs the active
> > > > > > support of at least 50% of the population to win. Indeed, in the US,
> > > > > > about half the population is against ID, and about half is for it.
> > > > > > Since atheists make up, at most, 15% of the population, this means
> > > > > > that about 35% of the population is BOTH theist and accepts
> > > > > > evolution. In other words, about two out of every three people who
> > > > > > oppose ID and accept evolution, are theists. To win a political fight
> > > > > > against ID, we need the support of those people. We simply will not
> > > > > > win without them. And I kind of doubt that rabidly screaming at them
> > > > > > "RELIGION IS STUPID !!!!!!!', like you do, is going to win much from
> > > > > > them in the way of support. So, in pure terms of political tactics,
> > > > > > attacking people who are ON OUR SIDE, is . . . well . . . awfully
> > > > > > stupid.
>
> > > > > what a crock of shit. if theists are so stupid that they would
> > > > > deliberately vote for creationism *when they know it is false* merely
> > > > > because we mean old atheists dare to ask them hard questions, then
> > > > > they are just as dishonest as the creationists. in that case, it
> > > > > *doesnt matter one whit* whether evolution or creation is taught,
> > > > > because rationality has already lost.
>
> > > > > > Which leaves me with no choice but to counter it.
>
> > > > > > If it weren't for that, I'd be happy to let you wage jihad and tilt at
> > > > > > your Quixotic windmills as much as you like. The odds of evangelical
> > > > > > atheists successfully stamping out religion are roughly akin to the
> > > > > > odds of the flat-earthers successfully changing geology textbooks in
> > > > > > the US. So y'all are actually pretty harmless in the bigger scheme of
> > > > > > things, though loud and utterly obnoxious. Alas, though, some of us
> > > > > > are engaged in a political fight -- which you are not helping.
>
> > > > > im sorry reverend, but i adhere to a moral standard of defending the
> > > > > truth and attacking lies. if that doesnt suit your selfish political
> > > > > purposes, well, you can go fuck yourself. im not going to shut up, nor
> > > > > are any other "evangelical atheists." we're here, and we have a right
> > > > > to speak our opinions. get used to it.
>
> > > > He didn't say you had no right to speak. He was discussing the
> > > > consequences of your actions. His "political purposes" seem to be
> > > > keeping religion out of public schools in the US. What are yours -
> > > > feeling righteous?
>
> > > if religious statements contain truths, then they have a legitimate
> > > purpose in public schools. if they do not contain truths, then they
> > > have no legitimate purpose there.
>
> > None of us are arguing with you there, so you yourself are pulling a
> > dishonest creationist-like stunt for even saying it. What I want to
> > know is, in the Grand Duchy of Snexko, is it all right to even have
> > religious statements _in church_?
>
> actually, lenny flank was arguing with it.
>
> regarding your question, youll have to define what you mean by "all
> right." if you mean "have the legal right to" then of course its "all
> right." its also "all right" to preach creationism, anti-semitism,
> promotion of black slavery, or any other number of opinions civilized
> people agree are dumb.
>
> but if you mean "should go unchallenged in doing so" then no, its not
> "all right."
>
>
>
>
>
> > > these statement apply with or without the first amendment. public
> > > schools teach our best understanding of *reality.*
>
> > So what? All of us (except the creationists) agree with you there.
> > You are grinding an axe unnecessarily, just because you are stuck in
> > axe-grinding mode.
>
> > > if gods were a part
> > > of that reality, then it wouldnt be a violation of the first amendment
> > > to teach about them. if scientists had discovered that lightning was a
> > > result of zeus throwing lightning bolts, then that would be a
> > > legitimate topic for science class. anybody could look outside and
> > > *see* zeus for themselves using the scientific method.
>
> > Blah blah irrelevant blah.
>
> > > > Like the creationists, you fight for truth and attack lies - even when
> > > > they aren't there.
>
> > Exactly. What use to gain a few more percent of snex's "intellectual
> > honesty" at the price of having a $()%$%-ed up personality? I don't
> > want to be any more of a linear, absolutist, concrete thinker than I
> > already am.
>
> when its no longer a social stigma to admit you are an atheist in most
> of this country, you can thank me (or more likely dawkins and pz
> myers).
>

Well, there we also disagree: I think that when it's no longer a
social stigma to admit you are an atheist, it will be no thanks to
Dawkins or you. You couldn't shoot yourselves in the foot any more
than the way you are now.

(snip)

Eric Root

== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 8:17 pm
From: "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank"

On Apr 23, 9:54 pm, e...@swva.net wrote:

(snip)
I don't "have" to be a
> fan of heavy metal music, for instance
(snip)

Although you "should" be.

;)

================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"

Author:
"Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America"
http://www.redandblackpublishers.com/deceptionbydesign.html

Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank

== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 8:31 pm
From: ayers_39@hotmail.com

On Apr 23, 11:02 pm, e...@swva.net wrote:
> On Apr 23, 10:45 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 23, 9:36 pm, e...@swva.net wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 23, 1:42 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 23, 1:31 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 22, 10:27 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 22, 6:20 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 22, 3:20 pm, snex <hiya_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 3:11 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 2:51 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 2:43 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > (snip)
>
> > > > > > > > > > > With all due respect, it's not your place to tell the rest of the
> > > > > > > > > > > world what they "should" or "should not" think or believe. (shrug)
>
> > > > > > > > > > actually its my place to say anything i damn well please. whether or
> > > > > > > > > > not they listen, is up to them.
>
> > > > > > > > > (snip)
>
> > > > > > > > > Oddly enough, that is PRECISELY the answer I get from fundies when I
> > > > > > > > > ask them what right they think they have to "peacefully coerce"
> > > > > > > > > everyone else to their religious opinions.
>
> > > > > > > > oddly enough, fundies are precisely right when they give that answer.
>
> > > > > > > Indeed. Since you and the fundies are alike in nearly every respect,
> > > > > > > it's no wonder that you accept their answers just as thoroughly as
> > > > > > > they do.
>
> > > > > > what a bunch of nonsense. this is akin to something ray martinez would
> > > > > > say. the fundies have a right to free speech just as i do. dont like
> > > > > > it? go to a country that doesnt have it. im sure youll enjoy it oh so
> > > > > > much.
>
> > > > > > > > they have the right to spout their lies just as much as i have the
> > > > > > > > right to point out that they are lies.
>
> > > > > > > > what, you have a problem with freedom of speech?
>
> > > > > > > No, it appears that YOU are the one who has a gripe against the First
> > > > > > > Amendment.
>
> > > > > > i do? where?
>
> > > > > > > Alas, though, your idiotic campaign to stamp out religion only harms
> > > > > > > us when it comes to fighting IDers and fundies. After all, ID is a
> > > > > > > political fight, and in a political fight, one needs the active
> > > > > > > support of at least 50% of the population to win. Indeed, in the US,
> > > > > > > about half the population is against ID, and about half is for it.
> > > > > > > Since atheists make up, at most, 15% of the population, this means
> > > > > > > that about 35% of the population is BOTH theist and accepts
> > > > > > > evolution. In other words, about two out of every three people who
> > > > > > > oppose ID and accept evolution, are theists. To win a political fight
> > > > > > > against ID, we need the support of those people. We simply will not
> > > > > > > win without them. And I kind of doubt that rabidly screaming at them
> > > > > > > "RELIGION IS STUPID !!!!!!!', like you do, is going to win much from
> > > > > > > them in the way of support. So, in pure terms of political tactics,
> > > > > > > attacking people who are ON OUR SIDE, is . . . well . . . awfully
> > > > > > > stupid.
>
> > > > > > what a crock of shit. if theists are so stupid that they would
> > > > > > deliberately vote for creationism *when they know it is false* merely
> > > > > > because we mean old atheists dare to ask them hard questions, then
> > > > > > they are just as dishonest as the creationists. in that case, it
> > > > > > *doesnt matter one whit* whether evolution or creation is taught,
> > > > > > because rationality has already lost.
>
> > > > > > > Which leaves me with no choice but to counter it.
>
> > > > > > > If it weren't for that, I'd be happy to let you wage jihad and tilt at
> > > > > > > your Quixotic windmills as much as you like. The odds of evangelical
> > > > > > > atheists successfully stamping out religion are roughly akin to the
> > > > > > > odds of the flat-earthers successfully changing geology textbooks in
> > > > > > > the US. So y'all are actually pretty harmless in the bigger scheme of
> > > > > > > things, though loud and utterly obnoxious. Alas, though, some of us
> > > > > > > are engaged in a political fight -- which you are not helping.
>
> > > > > > im sorry reverend, but i adhere to a moral standard of defending the
> > > > > > truth and attacking lies. if that doesnt suit your selfish political
> > > > > > purposes, well, you can go fuck yourself. im not going to shut up, nor
> > > > > > are any other "evangelical atheists." we're here, and we have a right
> > > > > > to speak our opinions. get used to it.
>
> > > > > He didn't say you had no right to speak. He was discussing the
> > > > > consequences of your actions. His "political purposes" seem to be
> > > > > keeping religion out of public schools in the US. What are yours -
> > > > > feeling righteous?
>
> > > > if religious statements contain truths, then they have a legitimate
> > > > purpose in public schools. if they do not contain truths, then they
> > > > have no legitimate purpose there.
>
> > > None of us are arguing with you there, so you yourself are pulling a
> > > dishonest creationist-like stunt for even saying it. What I want to
> > > know is, in the Grand Duchy of Snexko, is it all right to even have
> > > religious statements _in church_?
>
> > actually, lenny flank was arguing with it.
>
> > regarding your question, youll have to define what you mean by "all
> > right." if you mean "have the legal right to" then of course its "all
> > right." its also "all right" to preach creationism, anti-semitism,
> > promotion of black slavery, or any other number of opinions civilized
> > people agree are dumb.
>
> > but if you mean "should go unchallenged in doing so" then no, its not
> > "all right."
>
> > > > these statement apply with or without the first amendment. public
> > > > schools teach our best understanding of *reality.*
>
> > > So what? All of us (except the creationists) agree with you there.
> > > You are grinding an axe unnecessarily, just because you are stuck in
> > > axe-grinding mode.
>
> > > > if gods were a part
> > > > of that reality, then it wouldnt be a violation of the first amendment
> > > > to teach about them. if scientists had discovered that lightning was a
> > > > result of zeus throwing lightning bolts, then that would be a
> > > > legitimate topic for science class. anybody could look outside and
> > > > *see* zeus for themselves using the scientific method.
>
> > > Blah blah irrelevant blah.
>
> > > > > Like the creationists, you fight for truth and attack lies - even when
> > > > > they aren't there.
>
> > > Exactly. What use to gain a few more percent of snex's "intellectual
> > > honesty" at the price of having a $()%$%-ed up personality? I don't
> > > want to be any more of a linear, absolutist, concrete thinker than I
> > > already am.
>
> > when its no longer a social stigma to admit you are an atheist in most
> > of this country, you can thank me (or more likely dawkins and pz
> > myers).
>
> Well, there we also disagree: I think that when it's no longer a
> social stigma to admit you are an atheist, it will be no thanks to
> Dawkins or you. You couldn't shoot yourselves in the foot any more
> than the way you are now.
>
> (snip)
>
> Eric Root

80% ARE ID, AND GROWING BY 8% A YEAR. RESEARCH BEFORE YOU SPOUT OUT.
YOU SOUND LIKE YOUR 13 OR YOUNGER.

== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 8:34 pm
From: snex

On Apr 23, 9:44 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gspammail.com> wrote:
> snex wrote:
> > On Apr 23, 9:33 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 23, 9:25 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 23, 9:12 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>> the irony is that flank compares dawkins to abortion clinic bombers
> >>>> Whaaaaaaa . . . . .???????
> >>>> What the hell are you gibbering about?
> >>>> Dude, you are seriously fucked in the head. (sigh)
> >>> from the mouth of the good reverend himself:
> >>> "But once again I am struck by how remarkably similar the evangelical
> >>> atheists are to the foaming fundies. Both want science to support
> >>> their particular religious opinions. Both declare that the Bible must
> >>> be taken literally, in its entirety, or it is entirely meaningless.
> >>> Both assert that if evolution happens, that means there is no God.
> >>> Both declare that Biblical-literalist fundamentalism is the only "True
> >>> Christianity(tm)(c)" and that all other forms of "liberal"
> >>> Christianity are either dishonest or stupid. Both conclude, either
> >>> implicitly or explicitly, that anyone who is not with them, must be
> >>> against them. Both are utterly totally implacably intolerant of
> >>> anyone who doesn't agree with their religious opinions (indeed, both
> >>> of them get awfully testy whenever anyone even calls their religious
> >>> opinions "religious opinions"). Both will not rest, ever, until they
> >>> have stamped the other out completely."
> >>> nevermind the fact that i refuted every single point of this with no
> >>> reply from the reverend.
> >> (sigh) Like I said, you are seriously fucked in the head.
>
> > ad hominem. you are sounding more like ray in every post!
>
> It's not ad hominem if it is true. And, in your case, Lenny is
> right on the button.

actually, even if it is true, its an ad hominem. amazing how you
supposedly rational folks become drooling idiots when the topic isnt
evolution.

== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 8:35 pm
From: snex

On Apr 23, 9:57 pm, ayers...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 23, 10:19 pm, e...@swva.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 1:23 am, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 22, 6:11 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 22, 3:20 pm, snex <hiya_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 22, 3:09 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 22, 2:51 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > the reasons why people should not form religious opinions until
> > > > > > > evidence is in are the same exact reasons why people should not form
> > > > > > > scientific opinions until evidence is in. do you think religious
> > > > > > > opinions are so fundamentally different from every other type of
> > > > > > > opinion that the idea that error should be eliminated first does not
> > > > > > > apply? if so, why?
>
> > > > > > Who the hell cares, Snex? Why are you on such a Mission from God to
> > > > > > stamp out religion? Why such a hardon for theists? What did Mother
> > > > > > Theresa or Martin Luther King Jr ever do to you?
>
> > > > > did you just ask me why i care that people believe lies, and base
> > > > > their decisions in the real world on those lies, and expect other
> > > > > people to respect those lies?
>
> > > > So opinions that disagree with yours, are "lies" . . . .. ?
>
> > > no, reverend. lies are lies. example of a lie: "jesus christ was
> > > crucified and 3 days later rose from the dead." all evidence available
> > > indicates that this statement is false, therefore to assert it is a
> > > lie.
>
> > > > > why dont you answer the question, reverend?
>
> > > > (sigh) Dude, let me remind you that we're both on the same side here.
>
> > > > Don't be going all fundie on me and attacking me simply because I
> > > > don't agree with your opinions. Let's leave that to the FUNDIES.
>
> > > > See, this is precisely why I say that the evangelical atheists are no
> > > > different than the evangelical fundies. They're both intolerant
> > > > bellicose pricks who simply can't tolerate anyone having an opinion
> > > > different from theirs. (shrug)
>
> > > LOL! yes im so intolerant for asking you questions. how dare i.
>
> > > ill repeat it, just in case you didnt bother to read it the first time
> > > (i know you have a habit of doing that)
>
> > > the reasons why people should not form religious opinions until
> > > evidence is in are the same exact reasons why people should not form
> > > scientific opinions until evidence is in. do you think religious
> > > opinions are so fundamentally different from every other type of
> > > opinion that the idea that error should be eliminated first does not
> > > apply? if so, why?
>
> > > > ================================================
> > > > Lenny Flank
> > > > "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> > > > Author:
> > > > "Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America"http://www.redandblackpublishers.com/deceptionbydesign.html
>
> > > > Creation "Science" Debunked:http://www.geocities.com/lflank
>
> > Do you think I should not form aesthetic opinions until all the
> > evidence is in? Am I wrong for liking bluegrass music before I've
> > listened to Edith Piaf? Am I wrong for liking Steve Ditko's work
> > before I've seen the work of Johnny Romita, Jr.? Am I wrong for
> > liking station wagons? Why aren't my religious opinions parallel to
> > my aesthetic opinions as opposed to my scientific ones?
>
> > Eric Root
>
> "JESUS CHRIST" was
>
> > crucified and 3 days later rose from the dead." FACT 500 PEOPLE SEEN HIM ALIVE, BELIEVERS AND NON BELIEVERS. THE SHEET HE WAS BARYED IN HAS HIS IMAGE ON IT IN WHICH WE DO NOT HAVE TECHNOLGY TO REPRODUCE. HUH.REPENT BEFORE IT'S TO LATE. JESUS WILL JUDGE YOU FOR EVERY WORD THATS COMING OUT OF YOUR MOUTH RATHER YOU BELIEVE OR NOT. EVERY CHRISTAIN I KNOW IS A CHRISTAIN BECAUSE OF EVIDENCE. HUH, TAKE ALOT OF FAITH TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, IN WHICH HAS NO PROOF EXCEPT IN YOUR HEAD. GROW UP, AND STOP BE WEAK AND EASLY MISLEAD RESEARCH FOR YOUR SELF FACTS ARE THERE, AND THEY ALL POINT TO GOD.

what are the names of these 500 people, and where can i contact them
to get a statement?

== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 8:34 pm
From: snex

On Apr 23, 9:54 pm, e...@swva.net wrote:
> On Apr 23, 10:24 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 9:19 pm, e...@swva.net wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 23, 1:23 am, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 22, 6:11 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 22, 3:20 pm, snex <hiya_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 22, 3:09 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 22, 2:51 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > the reasons why people should not form religious opinions until
> > > > > > > > evidence is in are the same exact reasons why people should not form
> > > > > > > > scientific opinions until evidence is in. do you think religious
> > > > > > > > opinions are so fundamentally different from every other type of
> > > > > > > > opinion that the idea that error should be eliminated first does not
> > > > > > > > apply? if so, why?
>
> > > > > > > Who the hell cares, Snex? Why are you on such a Mission from God to
> > > > > > > stamp out religion? Why such a hardon for theists? What did Mother
> > > > > > > Theresa or Martin Luther King Jr ever do to you?
>
> > > > > > did you just ask me why i care that people believe lies, and base
> > > > > > their decisions in the real world on those lies, and expect other
> > > > > > people to respect those lies?
>
> > > > > So opinions that disagree with yours, are "lies" . . . .. ?
>
> > > > no, reverend. lies are lies. example of a lie: "jesus christ was
> > > > crucified and 3 days later rose from the dead." all evidence available
> > > > indicates that this statement is false, therefore to assert it is a
> > > > lie.
>
> > > > > > why dont you answer the question, reverend?
>
> > > > > (sigh) Dude, let me remind you that we're both on the same side here.
>
> > > > > Don't be going all fundie on me and attacking me simply because I
> > > > > don't agree with your opinions. Let's leave that to the FUNDIES.
>
> > > > > See, this is precisely why I say that the evangelical atheists are no
> > > > > different than the evangelical fundies. They're both intolerant
> > > > > bellicose pricks who simply can't tolerate anyone having an opinion
> > > > > different from theirs. (shrug)
>
> > > > LOL! yes im so intolerant for asking you questions. how dare i.
>
> > > > ill repeat it, just in case you didnt bother to read it the first time
> > > > (i know you have a habit of doing that)
>
> > > > the reasons why people should not form religious opinions until
> > > > evidence is in are the same exact reasons why people should not form
> > > > scientific opinions until evidence is in. do you think religious
> > > > opinions are so fundamentally different from every other type of
> > > > opinion that the idea that error should be eliminated first does not
> > > > apply? if so, why?
>
> > > > > ================================================
> > > > > Lenny Flank
> > > > > "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> > > > > Author:
> > > > > "Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America"http://www.redandblackpublishers.com/deceptionbydesign.html
>
> > > > > Creation "Science" Debunked:http://www.geocities.com/lflank
>
> > > Do you think I should not form aesthetic opinions until all the
> > > evidence is in? Am I wrong for liking bluegrass music before I've
> > > listened to Edith Piaf? Am I wrong for liking Steve Ditko's work
> > > before I've seen the work of Johnny Romita, Jr.? Am I wrong for
> > > liking station wagons? Why aren't my religious opinions parallel to
> > > my aesthetic opinions as opposed to my scientific ones?
>
> > do your religious opinions make assertions about your own state of
> > mind, or about external reality? i understand that a few religions
> > stick to the former, but there is no denying that the vast vast
> > majority of religious people are talking about the latter.
>
> > and, if your religious opinions stick to the former, in what way are
> > they different from your aesthetic opinions at all?
>
> > > Eric Root
>
> I declare befored all the world that I have no evidence that they are
> different from my aesthetic opinions. Since I consider religious
> belief to be a matter of taste, I stand up for my tastes in religious
> beliefs the same way I stand up for my other preferences that I
> consider to be my prerogative and nobody else's business. That's why
> I argue with fundamentalists, including you. I don't "have" to be a
> fan of heavy metal music, for instance, and I don't "have" to be an
> atheist.

you didnt answer my first question.

>
> Eric Root

== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 8:37 pm
From: snex

On Apr 23, 10:02 pm, e...@swva.net wrote:
> On Apr 23, 10:45 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 9:36 pm, e...@swva.net wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 23, 1:42 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 23, 1:31 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 22, 10:27 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 22, 6:20 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 22, 3:20 pm, snex <hiya_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 3:11 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 2:51 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 2:43 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > (snip)
>
> > > > > > > > > > > With all due respect, it's not your place to tell the rest of the
> > > > > > > > > > > world what they "should" or "should not" think or believe. (shrug)
>
> > > > > > > > > > actually its my place to say anything i damn well please. whether or
> > > > > > > > > > not they listen, is up to them.
>
> > > > > > > > > (snip)
>
> > > > > > > > > Oddly enough, that is PRECISELY the answer I get from fundies when I
> > > > > > > > > ask them what right they think they have to "peacefully coerce"
> > > > > > > > > everyone else to their religious opinions.
>
> > > > > > > > oddly enough, fundies are precisely right when they give that answer.
>
> > > > > > > Indeed. Since you and the fundies are alike in nearly every respect,
> > > > > > > it's no wonder that you accept their answers just as thoroughly as
> > > > > > > they do.
>
> > > > > > what a bunch of nonsense. this is akin to something ray martinez would
> > > > > > say. the fundies have a right to free speech just as i do. dont like
> > > > > > it? go to a country that doesnt have it. im sure youll enjoy it oh so
> > > > > > much.
>
> > > > > > > > they have the right to spout their lies just as much as i have the
> > > > > > > > right to point out that they are lies.
>
> > > > > > > > what, you have a problem with freedom of speech?
>
> > > > > > > No, it appears that YOU are the one who has a gripe against the First
> > > > > > > Amendment.
>
> > > > > > i do? where?
>
> > > > > > > Alas, though, your idiotic campaign to stamp out religion only harms
> > > > > > > us when it comes to fighting IDers and fundies. After all, ID is a
> > > > > > > political fight, and in a political fight, one needs the active
> > > > > > > support of at least 50% of the population to win. Indeed, in the US,
> > > > > > > about half the population is against ID, and about half is for it.
> > > > > > > Since atheists make up, at most, 15% of the population, this means
> > > > > > > that about 35% of the population is BOTH theist and accepts
> > > > > > > evolution. In other words, about two out of every three people who
> > > > > > > oppose ID and accept evolution, are theists. To win a political fight
> > > > > > > against ID, we need the support of those people. We simply will not
> > > > > > > win without them. And I kind of doubt that rabidly screaming at them
> > > > > > > "RELIGION IS STUPID !!!!!!!', like you do, is going to win much from
> > > > > > > them in the way of support. So, in pure terms of political tactics,
> > > > > > > attacking people who are ON OUR SIDE, is . . . well . . . awfully
> > > > > > > stupid.
>
> > > > > > what a crock of shit. if theists are so stupid that they would
> > > > > > deliberately vote for creationism *when they know it is false* merely
> > > > > > because we mean old atheists dare to ask them hard questions, then
> > > > > > they are just as dishonest as the creationists. in that case, it
> > > > > > *doesnt matter one whit* whether evolution or creation is taught,
> > > > > > because rationality has already lost.
>
> > > > > > > Which leaves me with no choice but to counter it.
>
> > > > > > > If it weren't for that, I'd be happy to let you wage jihad and tilt at
> > > > > > > your Quixotic windmills as much as you like. The odds of evangelical
> > > > > > > atheists successfully stamping out religion are roughly akin to the
> > > > > > > odds of the flat-earthers successfully changing geology textbooks in
> > > > > > > the US. So y'all are actually pretty harmless in the bigger scheme of
> > > > > > > things, though loud and utterly obnoxious. Alas, though, some of us
> > > > > > > are engaged in a political fight -- which you are not helping.
>
> > > > > > im sorry reverend, but i adhere to a moral standard of defending the
> > > > > > truth and attacking lies. if that doesnt suit your selfish political
> > > > > > purposes, well, you can go fuck yourself. im not going to shut up, nor
> > > > > > are any other "evangelical atheists." we're here, and we have a right
> > > > > > to speak our opinions. get used to it.
>
> > > > > He didn't say you had no right to speak. He was discussing the
> > > > > consequences of your actions. His "political purposes" seem to be
> > > > > keeping religion out of public schools in the US. What are yours -
> > > > > feeling righteous?
>
> > > > if religious statements contain truths, then they have a legitimate
> > > > purpose in public schools. if they do not contain truths, then they
> > > > have no legitimate purpose there.
>
> > > None of us are arguing with you there, so you yourself are pulling a
> > > dishonest creationist-like stunt for even saying it. What I want to
> > > know is, in the Grand Duchy of Snexko, is it all right to even have
> > > religious statements _in church_?
>
> > actually, lenny flank was arguing with it.
>
> > regarding your question, youll have to define what you mean by "all
> > right." if you mean "have the legal right to" then of course its "all
> > right." its also "all right" to preach creationism, anti-semitism,
> > promotion of black slavery, or any other number of opinions civilized
> > people agree are dumb.
>
> > but if you mean "should go unchallenged in doing so" then no, its not
> > "all right."
>
> > > > these statement apply with or without the first amendment. public
> > > > schools teach our best understanding of *reality.*
>
> > > So what? All of us (except the creationists) agree with you there.
> > > You are grinding an axe unnecessarily, just because you are stuck in
> > > axe-grinding mode.
>
> > > > if gods were a part
> > > > of that reality, then it wouldnt be a violation of the first amendment
> > > > to teach about them. if scientists had discovered that lightning was a
> > > > result of zeus throwing lightning bolts, then that would be a
> > > > legitimate topic for science class. anybody could look outside and
> > > > *see* zeus for themselves using the scientific method.
>
> > > Blah blah irrelevant blah.
>
> > > > > Like the creationists, you fight for truth and attack lies - even when
> > > > > they aren't there.
>
> > > Exactly. What use to gain a few more percent of snex's "intellectual
> > > honesty" at the price of having a $()%$%-ed up personality? I don't
> > > want to be any more of a linear, absolutist, concrete thinker than I
> > > already am.
>
> > when its no longer a social stigma to admit you are an atheist in most
> > of this country, you can thank me (or more likely dawkins and pz
> > myers).
>
> Well, there we also disagree: I think that when it's no longer a
> social stigma to admit you are an atheist, it will be no thanks to
> Dawkins or you. You couldn't shoot yourselves in the foot any more
> than the way you are now.

yeah its never those "uppity" folks that produce social change, its
always the people willing to let others walk over them in the hopes
that they will realize how mean they are being. gimmie a break. its no
coincidence that dawkins' book has been on the bestseller list for so
long.

>
> (snip)
>
> Eric Root

== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 8:46 pm
From: snex

On Apr 23, 10:31 pm, ayers...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 23, 11:02 pm, e...@swva.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 10:45 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 23, 9:36 pm, e...@swva.net wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 23, 1:42 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 23, 1:31 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 22, 10:27 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 22, 6:20 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 3:20 pm, snex <hiya_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 3:11 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 2:51 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 2:43 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > (snip)
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > With all due respect, it's not your place to tell the rest of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > world what they "should" or "should not" think or believe. (shrug)
>
> > > > > > > > > > > actually its my place to say anything i damn well please. whether or
> > > > > > > > > > > not they listen, is up to them.
>
> > > > > > > > > > (snip)
>
> > > > > > > > > > Oddly enough, that is PRECISELY the answer I get from fundies when I
> > > > > > > > > > ask them what right they think they have to "peacefully coerce"
> > > > > > > > > > everyone else to their religious opinions.
>
> > > > > > > > > oddly enough, fundies are precisely right when they give that answer.
>
> > > > > > > > Indeed. Since you and the fundies are alike in nearly every respect,
> > > > > > > > it's no wonder that you accept their answers just as thoroughly as
> > > > > > > > they do.
>
> > > > > > > what a bunch of nonsense. this is akin to something ray martinez would
> > > > > > > say. the fundies have a right to free speech just as i do. dont like
> > > > > > > it? go to a country that doesnt have it. im sure youll enjoy it oh so
> > > > > > > much.
>
> > > > > > > > > they have the right to spout their lies just as much as i have the
> > > > > > > > > right to point out that they are lies.
>
> > > > > > > > > what, you have a problem with freedom of speech?
>
> > > > > > > > No, it appears that YOU are the one who has a gripe against the First
> > > > > > > > Amendment.
>
> > > > > > > i do? where?
>
> > > > > > > > Alas, though, your idiotic campaign to stamp out religion only harms
> > > > > > > > us when it comes to fighting IDers and fundies. After all, ID is a
> > > > > > > > political fight, and in a political fight, one needs the active
> > > > > > > > support of at least 50% of the population to win. Indeed, in the US,
> > > > > > > > about half the population is against ID, and about half is for it.
> > > > > > > > Since atheists make up, at most, 15% of the population, this means
> > > > > > > > that about 35% of the population is BOTH theist and accepts
> > > > > > > > evolution. In other words, about two out of every three people who
> > > > > > > > oppose ID and accept evolution, are theists. To win a political fight
> > > > > > > > against ID, we need the support of those people. We simply will not
> > > > > > > > win without them. And I kind of doubt that rabidly screaming at them
> > > > > > > > "RELIGION IS STUPID !!!!!!!', like you do, is going to win much from
> > > > > > > > them in the way of support. So, in pure terms of political tactics,
> > > > > > > > attacking people who are ON OUR SIDE, is . . . well . . . awfully
> > > > > > > > stupid.
>
> > > > > > > what a crock of shit. if theists are so stupid that they would
> > > > > > > deliberately vote for creationism *when they know it is false* merely
> > > > > > > because we mean old atheists dare to ask them hard questions, then
> > > > > > > they are just as dishonest as the creationists. in that case, it
> > > > > > > *doesnt matter one whit* whether evolution or creation is taught,
> > > > > > > because rationality has already lost.
>
> > > > > > > > Which leaves me with no choice but to counter it.
>
> > > > > > > > If it weren't for that, I'd be happy to let you wage jihad and tilt at
> > > > > > > > your Quixotic windmills as much as you like. The odds of evangelical
> > > > > > > > atheists successfully stamping out religion are roughly akin to the
> > > > > > > > odds of the flat-earthers successfully changing geology textbooks in
> > > > > > > > the US. So y'all are actually pretty harmless in the bigger scheme of
> > > > > > > > things, though loud and utterly obnoxious. Alas, though, some of us
> > > > > > > > are engaged in a political fight -- which you are not helping.
>
> > > > > > > im sorry reverend, but i adhere to a moral standard of defending the
> > > > > > > truth and attacking lies. if that doesnt suit your selfish political
> > > > > > > purposes, well, you can go fuck yourself. im not going to shut up, nor
> > > > > > > are any other "evangelical atheists." we're here, and we have a right
> > > > > > > to speak our opinions. get used to it.
>
> > > > > > He didn't say you had no right to speak. He was discussing the
> > > > > > consequences of your actions. His "political purposes" seem to be
> > > > > > keeping religion out of public schools in the US. What are yours -
> > > > > > feeling righteous?
>
> > > > > if religious statements contain truths, then they have a legitimate
> > > > > purpose in public schools. if they do not contain truths, then they
> > > > > have no legitimate purpose there.
>
> > > > None of us are arguing with you there, so you yourself are pulling a
> > > > dishonest creationist-like stunt for even saying it. What I want to
> > > > know is, in the Grand Duchy of Snexko, is it all right to even have
> > > > religious statements _in church_?
>
> > > actually, lenny flank was arguing with it.
>
> > > regarding your question, youll have to define what you mean by "all
> > > right." if you mean "have the legal right to" then of course its "all
> > > right." its also "all right" to preach creationism, anti-semitism,
> > > promotion of black slavery, or any other number of opinions civilized
> > > people agree are dumb.
>
> > > but if you mean "should go unchallenged in doing so" then no, its not
> > > "all right."
>
> > > > > these statement apply with or without the first amendment. public
> > > > > schools teach our best understanding of *reality.*
>
> > > > So what? All of us (except the creationists) agree with you there.
> > > > You are grinding an axe unnecessarily, just because you are stuck in
> > > > axe-grinding mode.
>
> > > > > if gods were a part
> > > > > of that reality, then it wouldnt be a violation of the first amendment
> > > > > to teach about them. if scientists had discovered that lightning was a
> > > > > result of zeus throwing lightning bolts, then that would be a
> > > > > legitimate topic for science class. anybody could look outside and
> > > > > *see* zeus for themselves using the scientific method.
>
> > > > Blah blah irrelevant blah.
>
> > > > > > Like the creationists, you fight for truth and attack lies - even when
> > > > > > they aren't there.
>
> > > > Exactly. What use to gain a few more percent of snex's "intellectual
> > > > honesty" at the price of having a $()%$%-ed up personality? I don't
> > > > want to be any more of a linear, absolutist, concrete thinker than I
> > > > already am.
>
> > > when its no longer a social stigma to admit you are an atheist in most
> > > of this country, you can thank me (or more likely dawkins and pz
> > > myers).
>
> > Well, there we also disagree: I think that when it's no longer a
> > social stigma to admit you are an atheist, it will be no thanks to
> > Dawkins or you. You couldn't shoot yourselves in the foot any more
> > than the way you are now.
>
> > (snip)
>
> > Eric Root
>
> 80% ARE ID, AND GROWING BY 8% A YEAR. RESEARCH BEFORE YOU SPOUT OUT.
> YOU SOUND LIKE YOUR 13 OR YOUNGER.

80% of what?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: a challenge to evolution punks
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/cf1ee2f7a2c72bef?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 10:05 pm
From: Lexington Victoria-Rice

Dale Kelly wrote:

>
> provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
>
>
I fail to see what the Sex Pistils have to do with it, unless you are
referring to their stamena.

--
"Fundamentalists can kiss my left behind."

Some bumper sticker or t-shirt.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 3:14 am
From: "Pete G."

"John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:deeXh.532$RX.326@newssvr11.news.

> The subconscious is a term
> used in Freudian psychiatry

It most certainly bloody *is not*! The term 'subconscious' has nothing to do
with Freudian psychoanalysis, and is never used in properly psychoanalytic
writings. English-speaking Freudians have 'conscious', 'pre-conscious' and
'unconscious' -- and *that's it*.

[Handy reference: Charles Rycroft, Penguin Dictionary of Psychoanalysis]

==============================================================================
TOPIC: implications of cause and effect
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/b302395e5c051640?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 3:06 am
From: "Pete G."

"Rich Townsend" <rhdt@barVOIDtol.udel.edu> wrote in message
news:462D6378.9020301@barVOIDtol.udel.edu...
> Dale Kelly wrote:
>> 1) you could believe in an absolute beginning and a first cause, but a
>> first cause is an effect and requires a cause, so there can be no
>> absolute beginning
>>
>> 2) you could believe in an infinite linear continuum of cause and effect,
>> but then you would have to deal with the fact that at the limit of
>> infinity you have cause or effect, not cause and effect, since cause and
>> effect is binary, and an unfulfilled continuum
>>
>> 3) cause and effect is cyclical, the last effect is always the first
>> cause
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuga
>>
>> I challenge any evolution punks to prove this is a false dichotomy
>>
>>
>
> Well, a dichotomy has two opposing statements. You have three. Therefore,
> your dichotomy is false.
>

I would suggest that this leaves him/her with a 'trichotomy' -- were it not
for the fact that 'lobotomy' is a far more appropriate word...

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 8:44 pm
From: bill.m.thomas@gmail.com

On Apr 24, 2:18 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:00:46 -0400, Rich Townsend wrote:
> > Sadly, you're lacking in the latter, and I imagine you've never been
> > within a mile of the former.--
>
> all handled by relativity according to Galileo, Einstein had no real
> contribution in this area, his special relativity with bent space and
> time is what I think is bunk
>
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org

Read and weep:

http://einstein.stanford.edu/
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Lense-ThirringEffect.html
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html

Bill

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Scientific Models Are Usually Wrong Though Helpful
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/2218488a3cc44ea7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 8:09 pm
From: Ian Chua

On Apr 23, 5:56 pm, AC <mightymartia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 Apr 2007 09:45:27 -0700,
>
>
>
> Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
> > On Apr 23, 12:14 pm, AC <mightymartia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 23 Apr 2007 02:54:23 -0700,
>
> >> Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
> >> > On Apr 23, 5:44 am, Cubist <Xub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Ian Chua wrote:
> >> >> > Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
> >> >> > They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
> >> >> > successfully.
> >> >> > But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>
> >> >> Sure -- "the map is not the territory", after all. This is why
> >> >> scientific models are tested against reality, and those models which
> >> >> fail such testing are abandoned. Is this a problem?
>
> >> > Incorrect - scientific models can never be tested against reality.
> >> > They can only be tested with what we can perceive.
>
> >> Ah, I see, so you're going to be advocating epistemological nihilism.
>
> > Nope - I'm not advocating anything more than just establishing that
> > scientific models and theories
> > are mere representation of reality through human imagination but not
> > reality itself.
>
> All any of us can do is produce models of reality. What you see
> through your eyes is not, in fact, what you see through the physical
> optical hardware in your eyes, but rather a model produced by the
> brain.
>
> That is precisely why the scientific method was developed, to produce
> a means by which theories can independently tested and observations
> independently confirmed.
>
> Now, unless you're an advocate that the entire human race is somehow
> under a singular delusion whereby multiple and independent confirmations
> are in fact merely the product of mass hallucination,

Scientists do not comprise the entire human race.
They may dream about their models or theories,.
I doubt the entire human race hallucinate about scientific models and
theories.

> that suggests
> that reality *is* modellable, that one *can* create theories to
> explain and predict physical reality, and that those theories *can*
> be tested to determine whether or not they accurately explain some
> aspect of physical reality.
>
> Your post above suggests very heavily that, when cornered on this,
> you are going to advance a nihilistic explanation. This is hinted at
> pretty strongly by other threads you have created where you attempt
> to put forward a claim that because there are multiple explanations
> for a given phenomona, that that undermines any (or perhaps all)
> theories as being reasonable and useful means of explaining nature.
>
Yes, when interference phenomenon of light was discovered, it
certainly
undermined Newton's Corpuscular theory of light. But it was good
news
rather than bad news. Recognizing that models are not realities
enabled
science to progress. In the case of the theory of light, it
progressed to
Huyghen's Wave Theory., then to the Particle-Wave Duality Theory,
This does not undermine science.
On the contrary, we learn through our humility.

> It's my opinion that you are trying to put your own religious
> beliefs (and no doubt the pseudo-science informed by those beliefs)
> on an equal footing with certain scientific theories that don't
> jive with your specific beliefs. You seem quite keen to avoid
> openly declaring this, rather trying to work from a strategy of
> creating some framework in which you can insert your as-yet-unrevealed
> beliefs, with the idea that you have seriously called into question
> the ability of scientists to produce reasonably accurate and useful
> explanations.
>
> I'm just trying to cut this whole silly strategy off at the pass because
> I personally find it tiring to have to wait for weeks, wading through
> dozens of posts, each one apparently designed as one cut in a
> death of a thousand cuts strategy, only to find out that what we have
> has is a stock Creationist claim.
>
> This seems to be a new strategy. Someone2, who is putting forth a
> dualistic claim about human consciousness (well, if he ever gets around
> to it) is using a similar set of tactics. Perhaps your ministry has
> suggested this to you as a means to show all those evil atheistic
> evolutionists up. I dunno. Maybe it's just coincidence, but in either
> case I find it a rather dull and silly way to debate.
>
> If you don't believe that we can produce theories that explain the
> physical universe, or you believe certain aspects of the universe
> are exempt from scientific probing, then just come out and say it.
> It's not like we don't know what you're trying to do, so this whole
> tactic seems pointless.
>
> --
> Aaron Clausen
> mightymartia...@gmail.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Petrified forest discovered
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/26b2075412657db5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 8:14 pm
From: Harry K

On Apr 23, 6:56 am, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net>
wrote:
> NPR announced today that a petrified forest has been found on private
> property near Yakima. Apparently the trees were standing when buried by a
> lava flow. Has anyone seen an article about this?

Yes. It was in my daily newspaper Spokesmanreview, Spokane WA
yesterday (4-22-07) Might have been Saturday's. Per that article the
land owner had been searching for it over a period of years. Article
reads as if he knew it existed but didn't explain how he knew.

Harry K

==============================================================================
TOPIC: what has science become?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/123a346e2233285d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 9:18 pm
From: "Denis Loubet"

"Sir Frederick" <mmcneill@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:kpmn23llmq7vdbn88ldkb5pahuslm8epci@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 15:47:31 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Dale Kelly" <dale.kelly@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:pan.2007.04.22.18.54.38@comcast.net...
>>> science is a way to deal with conjecture, if you have a conjecture, a
>>> hypothesis, and it is reproducible, then it is testable and called a
>>> theory, theories that are testable are called founded theories, that is
>>> ALL there is to science
>>
>>Please stop using words you don't know the meaning of.
> Please, that's : "Please stop using words of which you don't
> know the meaning." :-)

As Homer Simpson would put it "D'OH!"

Or as Richard Dawkins would put it "I gratefully accept the rebuke."

;-)

--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Application of the Theory That Man Evolved From a Unicellular Organism
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/67dcc970703b6f39?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 8:22 pm
From: Ian Chua

On Apr 23, 10:24 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> Ian Chua wrote:
> > Can anyone suggest a useful application of the theory that man evolved
> > from a unicellular organism?
>
> it answers the question 'where did we come from?'
>
> and that is useful enough

You're confused - let me paraphrase the question:
"Can anyone suggest a useful application of the theory that man came
from a unicellular organism?"

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 8:40 pm
From: r norman

On 23 Apr 2007 20:22:14 -0700, Ian Chua <ichua@purdue.edu> wrote:

>On Apr 23, 10:24 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>> Ian Chua wrote:
>> > Can anyone suggest a useful application of the theory that man evolved
>> > from a unicellular organism?
>>
>> it answers the question 'where did we come from?'
>>
>> and that is useful enough
>
>You're confused - let me paraphrase the question:
>"Can anyone suggest a useful application of the theory that man came
>from a unicellular organism?"

It answers the question 'what did we evolve from?'

==============================================================================
TOPIC: In the News: Tenn. AG: No constitutional concerns with
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/22627a85d41a8e14?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 3:30 am
From: George Evans

in article 1177263941.259373.211740@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, snex at
xens@comcast.net wrote on 4/22/07 10:45 AM:

> On Apr 22, 11:34 am, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> in article 1177140958.178360.128...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com, snex at
>> s...@comcast.net wrote on 4/21/07 12:35 AM:

<snip>

>>> i wouldnt believe your examples because it is more likely that the people in
>>> them are lying. how about we do something that cant be faked? everybody
>>> knows that ron santo (former baseball player) lost his legs to diabetes. it
>>> cannot be questioned that he has no legs. why doesnt god give them back? why
>>> isnt there a single documented case of this miracle *ever* happening?
>>> wouldnt you expect them to happen just as often as cancer cures, or whatever
>>> you claim happened to you to make you check your oil? or does god just hate
>>> amputees?
>>>
>> There is a saying about human beings. A man convinced against his will, Is of
>> the same opinion still. I would guess the answer to your burning question,
>> Why doesn't God do something convincing for me? is that he loves you too
>> force you.
>>
> so why did he force you then, by answering your prayers? i guess he doesnt
> love you as much as he loves me. and that means that i will go to heaven and
> you wont!

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that He loves you more, that's OK,
but He wants us both with Him in heaven.

George Evans

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 3:30 am
From: George Evans

in article f0gi1s$7o6$1@news.datemas.de, Martin Hutton at
mdhutton1949REMOVE@hotmailREMOVE.com wrote on 4/22/07 1:54 PM:

> On 22-Apr-2007, George Evans <georgee3@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> in article f0bjlh$udf$3@news.datemas.de, Martin Hutton at
>> mdhutton1949REMOVE@hotmailREMOVE.com wrote on 4/20/07 4:51 PM:

<snip>

>>> I have known several addiction recoveries and one spontaneous cancer
>>> remission. The "miracle" involved in the former seems to be more one of
>>> personal fortitude and the latter plain luck...the woman was neither more
>>> nor less deserving than any other patient, and she's still a mean, nasty
>>> bitch to her husband and children (except that now she doesn't have cancer
>>> in evoke sympathy).
>>>
>> Make sure and congratulate the addicts that recovered by personal fortitude.
>> But that was not the kind of recovery I meant. Depending on the agent, an
>> addiction results in a hard wiring of the brain to seek out and attain the
>> agent. I am talking about the kind of recovery a friend testified to. In
>> answer to prayer all desire for alcohol disappeared. That requires rewiring.
>> I don't know about the bitch.
>>
> Recovery's recovery. These were alcohol, smack and coke addicts. Some relied
> on the "higher force" of 12 step type programs and others on the help of their
> friends and family. But, when push came to shove, it was all their inner
> strength that came through for them. (according to a hard core ex-junkie I
> know, nicotine is the hardest addiction to lose...after 15yrs he still gets
> the craving for a smoke...you could leave pounds of coke, smack and meth with
> gallons of fine brandy around him and he wouldn't touch them. Light up a smoke
> near him and he'd have to leave the room).
>
> BTW Did you friend have a thorough brain exam (chemistry and electrical) both
> immediatly before and after his prayer. If not, please don't make the claim
> for rewiring.

I don't think you could demonstrate rewiring physically, because it would
requires microscopy. But no problem, this is not evidence that is supported
by physical measurement.

>>> You may want to check your history. The freak thunderstorm and tornado of
>>> 24/8/1814 helped the British raze Washington DC. Their task completed early,
>>> the small expenditionary force marched out in good order. The destruction of
>>> Washington DC was punishment for the impudent invasion of Canada and the
>>> wanton destruction of Toronto (York at the time) by the US. I suspect that
>>> if Napoleon hadn't escaped from Elba the British would have taken the 1812
>>> war more seriously.
>>>
>>> So, it appears that your god is quite fickle in the choice of miracle
>>> beneficiaries. Or, the US got a miracle in 1776 and the British had a piece
>>> of bad luck, and vice versa in 1814. After all, the result of miracles is
>>> ALWAYS good...right?
>>>
>> You might want to check your history instead. The storm extinguish fires and
>> sent the British scurrying in fear, blowing cannons over as they retreated.
>> The British razed Washington in their dreams. They burned two building. The
>> British should have been able to put down the rebellion except for the fact
>> that it was time for the US to rise.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
> Bzzzzzt. Wrong again. Good grief, even Wikipedia has a reasonable account. Two
> buildings...right. Your history is on a par with your science.

Do you have anything substantive?

<snip>

>>> And to what should one ascribe the deflection of a piano that squishes a
>>> child if not the same cause as the one that doesn't squish a child?
>>>
>> I don't know, is the correct answer, scientifically.
>>
> It's the same answer for both occurences. If you posit a miracle for one, it
> is a miracle for the other. If one is unknown natural force and then so is the
> other.

No. Neither situation requires the assumption of a natural force. The cause
is scientifically unknown. So religion has just as much to say at that point
as science. Therefore, according to the bible, only one would be a possible
miracle.

<snip>

George Evans

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 3:31 am
From: George Evans

in article 1177264210.241015.5180@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, snex at
snex@comcast.net wrote on 4/22/07 10:50 AM:

> On Apr 22, 11:34 am, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:

<snip>

>> Conversion is a matter of choice, not force. It is similar to falling in
>> love.
>>
> ive never fallen in love with a girl whose existence was not immediately
> obvious to me. have you?

I would hazard a guess that a student of love would know that one of the
phases of falling for a girl *is* questioning the reality of the experience,
especially if the guy has no legs.

George Evans

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Philosophy specifies: organisms process information
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/ec81cd7cd51f6293?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 8:32 pm
From: Nic

On 23 Apr, 05:06, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> dkomo <dkomo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > John Wilkins wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> > > Sure - so long as you are talking about the *narratives*. I was joking
> > > with my initial comment; but it seems to me that we should not accept
> > > that the world just is what we tell ourselves it is. That really is
> > > insane. Or religious. At the least it is anthropomorphism.
>
> > > We may never have a narrative that is adequate to all phenomena (unless
> > > you want to say that the phenomena are also narrative inventions), but I
> > > think that it really *is* an IBE that there is an external reality.
>
> > The narrative of an external reality violates Occam's razor. It is
> > superfluous. If there actually were no independent, objective external
> > reality, it wouldn't make the slightest difference. We'd still have all
> > our scientific models and theories, and, if it makes us feel better, we
> > could go on believing in an independent reality. The important thing
> > is, though, that our models *work*. They allow us to predict, and in
> > the realm of engineering (even for biology) they allow us to produce
> > useful products to make our lives better.
>
> > I suggest that sanity is simply a collection of narratives that work for
> > us, and that the large majority of our peers believe in.
>
> I think scientific realism does conform to Occam's Razor - because it
> licenses inferences from one art of a theory to another without needing
> further justifications (i.e., if the theory says electrons exist, then
> in any other part of the theory, or in any other theory, we can say
> electrons exist and are causally influential).

Not sure I understand. Couldn't there be a similar amount of ubiquity
of say electrons, in one person's delusional world view?

> That said, full-blown realism is of course a matter of belief, not of
> epistemic warrant. All we need *in science* is some kind of internal
> realism - true in T, that sort of thing. But I find full blown realism
> solves a further *metaphysical* issue - the stability of things. So it
> is parsimonious for me to adopt it.

What stability? A mere 3 or 4 times the age of the Earth ago there
was nothing, now there is all this!

> There is a further justification I find useful - it removes human agency
> in acts of knowledge from being the reason for thinking things are true.
> If all that "reality" is is the sum of human acts of knowing, then we
> need to account for how human acts determine anything, both individually
> and intersubjectively. If the claim, however, is that these acts are
> interactions with the mind-independent world, then they become
> unmysterious. Otherwise we have no way to privilege the narratives of a
> "normal scientist" over the "schizophrenic mystic's".

Doesn't that leave you in the same stance towards the objects of
mathematics as to the objects of physics?

> There's no proof of realism, because all proofs presuppose some
> grounding and are therefore either question begging in favour or
> against. But there's enough reason to think there *is* a world apart
> from ideational narratives.

If what you say is meaningful, you ought to be able to describe what
it would be like for it to be false. I suspect that a series of
incoherent experiences would make you doubt your own sanity before it
made you doubt the existence of a stable, mind-independent, beyond-
your-control, external world. Could you find yourself in a condition
where you'd be better off assuming that it is the world that has gone
mad?

> --
> John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
> University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
> "He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
> bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

==============================================================================
TOPIC: VT massacre, Creationists, apology?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/0833cb8101482318?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 8:36 pm
From: Cory Albrecht

snex wrote, On 2007/04/23 13:33:
> there are no "pro-science" theists, only "pro-evolution" theists, or
> "pro-[insert specific scientific theory here]" theists. just like
> creationists, theists pick and choose which parts of science to ignore
> in order to maintain their beliefs. if theists were "pro-science,"
> they would apply the scientific method to the claims of their
> religion. why do you think they refuse to do this?

Because religion isn't about science?

Of course, you're the athiest who has already decided that a Christian
who doesn't take the Bible literally is a hypocrite. For what ever
reason, you just can't seem to understand that it is possible to view
the Bible in a manner that is is both non-literal and intellectually honest.

You really need to stop conflating "disagrees with snex on the Bible"
and "hypocrisy". It only makes you look as intolerant and black&white as
those Christian Fundamentalists.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: In the News: Darwin Only Had A Theology Degree
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/38dc4b7e007af971?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 8:46 pm
From: "Dana Tweedy"

"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177383047.397517.265930@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
snip

>> Which previous commentary? The thing about Don Imus? He was fired
>> for calling a women's basketball team ... well, as one commentator put
>> it, a term so vile it can only be heard 24 hours a day on stations
>> playing hip-hop music.
>
> Wrong. He was not fired for what you are implying. He was fired for
> something, by comparsion to the gutter racism you are attempting to
> justify and rationalize,
> antiseptichttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/antiseptic.

You still haven't explained how what I said was "gutter racism".

>
>> He ought not have done that, although he'd got
>> away with doing similar things for years. He was not fired for
>> asserting that African Pygmies are fully human and have the same
>> evolutionary potential as other humans. I think it unlikely that he
>> would have been fired for making such a point, but that was, after
>> all, exactly what Dana was saying.
>>
>
> You should stop placing all the blame on poor Dana.

The only one "putting blame" on me, is you, Ray. You are doing it because
you know you can't address the evidence I've presented.

> Since you agree
> that there is no gutter racism in placing Africans and transitional in
> the same sentence and context - you are the unrepentant gutter racist.

There is no "gutter racism", nor have you explained why you think there is.
You were the one who placed "Africans" and "transitionals" in the same
sentence, and you totally ignored the context.

>
> Steven J. Thompson is an admitted racist.
>

Steven did not admit to any racism. You have not shown why anyone should
accept your assertions.

>> > Your first "question" is a rhetorical point attempting to assert that
>> > gutter racism is not as such when the "it is science" card is played.
>> > Again, what makes you different from Imus? The latter and his remarks
>> > were much more antiseptic than your gutter racism.
>>
>> Could you define the term "antiseptic" as you are using it? Anyway,
>> Ray, *you* were the one who brought up African Pygmies and
>> "transitional forms" in the same context.
>
> I am a Creationist (as you know) and I asked Dana IF said pygmies were
> transitional. Dana said they could be if.....

Actually, Ray, what I said was that "pygmies" were modern humans, well
within the normal variation of modern humans. I said they may be
transitional if their descendants were selected over all other populations.
You ignored that context, and took my words out of their proper context.

>
> I then pointed out that the comment is racist, that there is never any
> justification in this day and age to make such a demeaning comment.

Which I pointed out was ridiculous. The comment is not "demeaning" as it
applies to any human population. I did not say that only "pygmies" could
be transitional to the next species.

> And here you are defending, playing the "it is science" card.

No, he's playing the "you are being a whacko" card. There is no racism
implied, or intended in my statement.

> Since
> when is gutter racism science?

Since when is stating that an African population is the same as any other
human population "gutter racism"?

>We know Darwin originated modern human
> evolution theory after rejecting God as Creator,

No, you have asserted this, but never supported it. Darwin did not reject
God as creator, and the concept of human evolution followed from the
evidence.

> then his racist mind
> then "saw" the "similarities" between human beings and apes "in the
> London zoo" (Larson 2004:67).

Ray, the similarities between all humans and other apes was already well
known even before Darwin was born. Darwin did not suddenly "see" these
similarities, as they would have been already well established in the
scientific literature.

> What could cause "rational" and educated
> men to think that an idea conceived in racism is science?

You are mistaken about how the idea was conceived, and you are mistaken
about science. Rational and educated men accept evolution as science
because it explains the evidence.

>Answer: the
> level of hatred of God.

Since Darwin did not hate God, nor did the vast majority of all scientists,
there is no "level of hatred". Even atheists don't even believe in God.
Why would they hate what they don't believe exists?

>
> *You* were the one who
>> suggested that African Pygmies might appear to be less than human. If
>> you did not suspect that these Africans were less human than other
>> members of _Homo sapiens, why did you not ask the equally sensible
>> question, could Sherpas or Swiss be considered transitional forms?
>> Dana would have given you the exact same answer to that question, so
>> it is only your own choice of Pgymies as a subject that introduces
>> "gutter racism" into the topic.

No answer here, Ray? Did you miss this?

>>
>> > It is gutter racism. The hypocritical exemption Darwinists receive can
>> > only be explained by the existence of Satan.
>>
>> Again, how can it be racism, much less "gutter" racism (presumably,
>> the vilest and stupidest sort of racism) to assert, as Dana did, that
>> all humans are equally human and all groups have the potential to be a
>> transitional form to some other s

>>
>> > > > What would happen if a Fox network newscaster said "African-pygmies
>> > > > could be transitional if....." Would he obtain the "it is science"
>> > > > exemption?
>>
>> > > Ray, it *is* science, and is not racism.
ort of human? How can it be racism,
>> much less gutter racism, to assume that people can read for meaning
>> and interpret remarks in context?

Why not comment here, Ray? Do you concede the point?

snipping what Ray has ignored, and most likely is hiding from.

DJT

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 8:46 pm
From: Ray Martinez

On Apr 23, 3:20 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 11:50 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 6:06 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 22, 4:34 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> -- [snip]
>
> > > > Don Imus was fired for something much less antiseptic. I can only
> > > > interpret your "query" above as rhetorical attempting to act like it
> > > > is not. Since Darwinists have gotten away with it by successfully
> > > > brainwashing society with the "it is science" card your "query" is
> > > > just as I said.
>
> > > Ray, you have never bothered to justify the rather astonishing
> > > assertion that it *is* racism to use the words "African" and
> > > "transitional" in the same context. Also, I think that "antiseptic"
> > > does not mean what you think it means, unless you really meant that
> > > Dana Tweedy's remarks kill more germs than Don Imus's radio show.
>
> > You have evaded my previous commentary. Why? This usually indicates
> > that the commentary is confirmed.
>
> Which previous commentary? The thing about Don Imus? He was fired
> for calling a women's basketball team ... well, as one commentator put
> it, a term so vile it can only be heard 24 hours a day on stations
> playing hip-hop music. He ought not have done that, although he'd got
> away with doing similar things for years. He was not fired for
> asserting that African Pygmies are fully human and have the same
> evolutionary potential as other humans. I think it unlikely that he
> would have been fired for making such a point, but that was, after
> all, exactly what Dana was saying.
>
> > Your first "question" is a rhetorical point attempting to assert that
> > gutter racism is not as such when the "it is science" card is played.
> > Again, what makes you different from Imus? The latter and his remarks
> > were much more antiseptic than your gutter racism.
>
> Could you define the term "antiseptic" as you are using it? Anyway,
> Ray, *you* were the one who brought up African Pygmies and
> "transitional forms" in the same context. *You* were the one who
> suggested that African Pygmies might appear to be less than human. If
> you did not suspect that these Africans were less human than other
> members of _Homo sapiens, why did you not ask the equally sensible
> question, could Sherpas or Swiss be considered transitional forms?
> Dana would have given you the exact same answer to that question, so
> it is only your own choice of Pgymies as a subject that introduces
> "gutter racism" into the topic.
>

I am a Creationist - I reject human evolution, Steven J. Einstein.

I asked a question pretty much knowing what the answer would be. Dana,
without any hesitation gave what he thought to be a scientific answer.
Negative. Placing Africans and transitional in the same sentence and
context is gutter racism. Calling it "science" shows that human
evolution is a completely illegitimate enterprise; hatred of God-
daring anyone to call a racist a racist. This is what happens when God
is rejected - you end up believing anything; like gutter racism is
science. Since you have no conscience or idea about what I am saying
you are confirmed brainwashed and deluded, which is exactly what I
have told Dana.

> > > > What would happen if a Fox network newscaster said "African-pygmies
> > > > could be transitional if....." Would he obtain the "it is science"
> > > > exemption?
>
> > > Ray, it *is* science, and is not racism.
>
> > It is gutter racism. The hypocritical exemption Darwinists receive can
> > only be explained by the existence of Satan.
>
> Again, how can it be racism, much less "gutter" racism (presumably,
> the vilest and stupidest sort of racism) to assert, as Dana did, that
> all humans are equally human and all groups have the potential to be a
> transitional form to some other sort of human? How can it be racism,
> much less gutter racism, to assume that people can read for meaning
> and interpret remarks in context?
>

How is placing Africans and transitional in the same sentence and
context not gutter racism? Since human evolution claims the African
linkage into modern man - forget Dana, the entire "discipline" is
racist and comparable to eugenics.

You Darwinists are completely deluded.

"It is science" does not hocus pocus make said racism suddenly
legitimate science. You are literally insane and unable to see it. The
CLAIM began in Darwin's racist mind after he rejected God as Creator.
Darwin was a materialist, which is extreme heresy-atheism. Oh wait,
that is what all you god-damn Darwinists are. ToE is built on
Materialism, so if you think of yourself as a Christian, tell me how
is it that you can bow to the philosophy of atheism and still be a
Christian? "It is science." Atheism is science and ass kissing
Christians are bowing to Baal? Where do you get the idea that Jesus
approves? What is your source? The Source says Jesus descended from
Adam, why would He give you and exemption? The point is that Satan has
you deceived into thinking that Jesus has given you the "it is
science" exemption.

"The essence of being deceived: you THINK that you are all right with
God (but you are not)."

If what you believe does not match the Bible = you are deceived. If
you use an atheism-based origins theory to control interpretation of
Scripture you are deceived. Dana thinks everyone who thinks that the
Bible CLAIMS special creation is deceived, this would include Darwin
and most atheists involved in the Creation-Evolution debate. Darwin
spent a considerable amount of the "Origin" "refuting" special
creation and he had a degree in theology, or Dana is involved in a ad
hoc "argument" intended just for me.

> > > Nothing but hysterical
> > > hypersensitivity (or the tactical feigning of such sensitivity) could
> > > regard it as such. Would some racial huckster demand that it be
> > > treated as racism? Perhaps; is it not enough that you have debased
> > > yourself to the level of a Gene Scott? Must you adopt Al Sharpton as
> > > a role model as well? Are you aiming for some Guiness World Record in
> > > hypocrisy and paranoia?
>
> > We already know what atheist-Darwinists think of theist scholars and
> > African-American leaders, what is your point?
>
> "Atheist-Darwinists" generally distinguish between different theist
> scholars (Pope Benedict is not John Haught, and neither of them, thank
> the Higher Power of your choice, is Gene Scott), and between different
> African-American leaders. Is it not "gutter racism" to lump disparate
> people with disparate positions and credentials into a single
> undifferentiated mass, based merely on aspects of their religious
> creed or ethnic background?
>
> > > > The success of the exemption is spectacular proof for the existence of
> > > > an invisble Satan.
>
> > > So your positioin is this: the fact that no one who knows anything
> > > about evolutionary theory thinks that evolutionary theory is racist
> > > (and, for that matter, that no one who knows anything about Dana
> > > Tweedy thinks that Dana is racist) is proof of Satan, as opposed to,
> > > e.g. proof that evolutionary theory and Dana Tweedy are not, in fact,
> > > racist. Or, more generally, the fact that no one with a clue and a
> > > functioning brain agrees with you proves that you are right and that
> > > everyone else is deluded by Satan.
>
> > Why has Steven completely twisted the simple point?
>
> It seems to me that I have accurately represented the simple point:
> you cannot admit that you are wrong, or that your opponents are right,
> on any point, and will go to the most paranoid and absurd lengths to
> justify your obstinance.
>

It is Darwinists who say Africans are the link between modern man and
ape ancestor. You MUST call it science, it is a necessity. I am not
deluded into thinking you will ever admit the obvious. It does not
matter what you say or assert; human evolution is gutter racism: the
depths the Atheist will go to give God the finger.

> > The simple point: Placing Africans and transitional in the same
> > context is gutter racism.
>
> Woe betide those poor Kenyans trying to deal with the Turkana boy; no
> matter what position they take, they're Africans placing themselves in
> the same context as "transitional," so they must be gutter racists.
>
> > This explains why he has atttempted to twist and misrepresent the
> > simple issue and point.
>
> > > Ray, I'm not very optimistic about this upcoming paper of yours
> > > ("upcoming," in the sense that Ultima Pangea is upcoming, but not
> > > necessarily that fast, of course). I have this horrible feeling
> > > (based on everything you write) that it's going to be scores of pages
> > > of "every scientifically literate person on Earth disagrees with me,
> > > and that just proves that Gene Scott was right about God's penalty and
> > > Satan." It's a very ambitious sort of conspiracy-theoretical tripe,
> > > but it's still conspiracy-theoretical tripe.
>
> > When has any Darwinist been optimistic about any unfriendly paper?
>
> Ray, we "Darwinists" here have been known to complain about the poor
> quality of the local creationists. Most of us would love an argument
> against evolution that actually forced us to think and work to pick it
> apart. If we thought your paper was going to be any good, there would
> be a lot of enthusiasm for it, if only for the opportunity it gave to
> locate errors and pick them apart. But your arguments, as Wolfgang
> Pauli once put it in reference to a different matter, are not only not
> right, they're not even wrong. They don't have enough to do with the
> subject they're supposed to refute to be wrong about it.
>

Commentary presupposes that Darwinists would accept falsification on
any matter previously accepted. This has never happened. You are not
open to falsification. You could not even admit that Darwin assumed
human evolution is 1838 with no evidence in hand, but based it on
mutability of [bird] species [and racist "similarity" to living apes].
He says this in his Autobio (Barlow ed.1958:130) and yet you guys
still cannot admit. You never admit to ANYTHING, which makes your
commentary above utterly worthless tripe. I should point out that
scholars admit, it is only the ordinary and subjective Darwinists who
cannot.

> > Somehow I do not feel slighted. I can and will prove ToE
> > scientifically false. That's what I said up-thread - no wonder you are
> > unoptimistic. Has any Darwinist been optimistic about a claim of
> > falsification? Does anyone know what this guy is talking about?
>
> Phillip Gingerich was enthusiastic enough about the evidence (genetic
> and fossil) that showed that whales evolved from primitive
> artiodactyls rather than from mesonychids, even though he had long
> backed the mesonychid connection, which was falsfied by the new
> evidence. Does that count?
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > All human populations have evolved. All human
> > > > > populations are capable of further evolution. In this respect, humans
> > > > > do not differ from any other biological species. It is hardly special
> > > > > pleading to point out that "all human populations" include African
> > > > > human populations.
>
> > > > Forty percent of the American population says we did not evolve.
> > > > Atheists have no choice but to believe in the "miracle."
>
> > > I do not see that the above remarks really address my point. If you
> > > wish, you may read my paragraph above as "according to all
> > > evolutionists, including Dana Tweedy, all human populations evolved,
> > > etc." You have not offered any reason for your exclusion of Africans
> > > from the human race.
>
> > You had no point. All you did was to say that you believe in human
> > evoution. We know this, what is your point? This is the second time in
> > the same post that you have told us something that we already knew but
> > did not make a point.
>
> My first point is that scientific facts are not determined by polling
> data.

Except when a TEist says a high percentage of scientists are
Christians. That is exactly what the TEist is saying without actually
saying it.

> In politics, what 40% of Americans think matters; they're
> potentially a pressure group that will need to be either placated or
> persuaded somehow. But in science, the majority can be either right
> or wrong, depending on what the evidence shows. My second point is
> that evolution, whether of humans or of other species, is not a
> miracle, is not incredible, and is accepted on evidence rather than on
> faith.

Negative. It is packaged as evidence, based on presuppositions that
eliminate all other options (= Materialism).

> My third point is that even if polls were relevant (again,
> they are not), and even if evolution were a religious belief (again,
> it is not), saying that all human populations are the result of
> evolution and all have the potential for further evolution is in no
> way racist. My fourth point is that nothing you have said offers even
> a bad argument against any of the first three points; you just assert
> things without bothering to support them.
>

Such as....

I think you will now run away.

Ray

SNIP....

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "talk.origins"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to talk.origins-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en

Who dares sent me SPAM?

Monday, April 23, 2007

25 new messages in 12 topics - digest

No comments:

Links

About Me

Blog Archive