Evolution is Just Junk Science

May 10, 2007

In alt.atheism On Wed, 09 May 2007 22:19:41 -0700, Jason@nospam.com

(Jason) let us all know that:

>In article <q9t443pl9r2uuleeuq5t3qlk48pnofph8m@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>

>> On Wed, 09 May 2007 19:27:54 -0700, in alt.atheism

>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>> <Jason-0905071927540001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>> >In article <99s44393vdd6b88aiapie53imd8m8augch@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

>> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>> >

>> >> On Wed, 09 May 2007 19:09:23 -0700, in alt.atheism

>> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>> >> <Jason-0905071909230001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>> >> >I disagree. It's my opinion that If everyone in Calfornia was a

>> >Christian that

>> >> >obeyed the 10 commandments that we would not need any more prisons in

>> >> >California. I believe that most reasonable people would agree with me.

>> >> >

>> >> The Ten Commandments have only a very peripheral relationship to

>> >> Christianity. The worship of the Ten Commandments is a modern-day

>> >> heterodoxy.

>> >>

>> >> I am curious. Would you just let all sex offenders, including rapists

>> >> and pedophiles, go free because that is not forbidden in the Ten

>> >> Commandments?

>> >

>> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>> >

>> >Good point. One of the commandents states: Thou shall not commit adultery.

>> >The implication is clear--God wants people to get married and not cheat on

>> >their mates. Other parts of the Bible make it clear that God wants men to

>> >marry women. In fact, the main reason God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah is

>> >because of their sins--such as the sin of sodomy.

>>

>> So you aren't relying on the Ten Commandments, are you.

>>

>> After all, beating someone to a bloody pulp isn't forbidden, either.

>

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

>You seem to be argumenatative. The 10 commandments are the main laws that

>God established. Of course, there are other rules and laws in other parts

>of the Bible. In fact, back in the 1700's and 1800's --many or even most

>laws were based on the Bible.

No, they actually weren't.

Don

---

aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde

Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.

"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"

Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"

May 10, 2007

In alt.atheism On Thu, 10 May 2007 01:23:09 -0700, Jason@nospam.com

(Jason) let us all know that:

>

>Matt,

>What is your opinion related to the last paragraph of this report. Please

>note from the Notes section that H.P. Yockey published his article in what

>I believe is a peer-reviewed journal.

>Jason

>

>How Simple Can Life Be?

>In Darwin's day, many people swallowed the theory of spontaneous

>generation-that life arose from non-living matter.

That's not what spontaneous generation is.

Looks like Yockey deliberately lied.

Don

---

aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde

Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.

"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"

Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"

May 10, 2007

On May 10, 3:28 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <f1t1ql$c74$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

>

> <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote:

> > Jason wrote:

> > > Prove that life can evolve from non-life and I will become an advocate of

> > > evolution. One poster claimed that life could evolve from amino acids.

> > > I challenge anyone to create amino acids from nothing. Even Darwin

> > > believed that God got the process going by creating life.

>

> > Ehm, done?

> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

> What were the compounds and how did those compounds came to be?

Follow the damn link.

"The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and

hydrogen (H2)." These are common compounds that could be found

throughout the known universe. No diety required.

Martin

May 10, 2007

On May 10, 3:30 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <922443lfvcimc2s7g1s46943dan9rre...@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein

>

> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> > On Wed, 09 May 2007 11:33:20 -0700, in alt.atheism , J...@nospam.com

> > (Jason) in

> > <Jason-0905071133210...@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

>

> > >Prove that life can evolve from non-life and I will become an advocate of

> > >evolution. One poster claimed that life could evolve from amino acids.

> > >I challenge anyone to create amino acids from nothing. Even Darwin

> > >believed that God got the process going by creating life.

>

> > Not from nothing, but amino acids do spontaneously form under the

> > conditions of the early Earth. This was demonstrated decades ago. Care

> > to move those goalposts?

>

> Yes, let's move that goalpost. Take those amino acids and check them once

> a year for the next thousand years and see if any living cells evolve from

> those amino acids.

Follow the other damn link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_W._Fox

"His early work demonstrated that under certain conditions amino acids

could spontaneously form small polypeptides-the first step on the road

to the assembly of large proteins. The result was significant because

his experimental conditions duplicated conditions that might plausibly

have existed early in Earth's history.

"Further work revealed that these amino acids and small peptides could

be encouraged to form closed spherical membranes, called microspheres.

Fox has gone so far as to describe these formations as protocells,

protein spheres that could grow and reprduce. They might be an

important intermediate step in the origin of life. Microspheres might

have served as a stepping stone between simple organic compounds and

genuine living cells."

Martin

May 10, 2007

Jason wrote:

> When I wrote a 5 page report on Neanderthals in 1971, I checked about 20

WOW! A whole 5 PAGES! Damned, that must make you an EXPERT or sumthin!

(Deliberate misspelling above to help denote the extreme sarcasm.)

> separate reference books in search of the best 5 references to use. At

> that time, the experts believed that there were so many genetic

> differences between Neanderthals and Cro-Magnums that they could NOT have

> produced offspring if they mated. I don't expect you to believe that

> Cro-Magnums and Neanderthals are two separate races just because I believe

> it.

Point #1. That was over 35 years ago. Your sources were even older.

Knowledge changes.

Point #2. Yes, they may have produced offspring. So can horses and

donkeys at times. But they aren't fertile offspring because horses and

donkeys are two different species. Same for Neanderthals and

Cro-Magnums. They may have had kids but that doesn't mean the kids could

then reproduce.

May 10, 2007

On May 10, 7:07 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> I agree that pygmy child bones look like other human child bones. You

> missed my point. My point was that Nanderthals MAY have been a race of

> people. That's the reason they were able to produce offspring when they

> mated with Cro-Magnums.

If Neanderthals mated with Cro-Magnums then they were the same

species. You can't tell from looking at bones who was able to mate

with whom. All we know is that humans can't mate with gorillas.

Martin

May 10, 2007

On May 10, 7:43 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> Good for you. I live in California. I read an article in the newspaper

> yesterday indicating that all of the prisons in California--there are

> about a dozen of them--are overcrowded. The governor wants to spend a

> billion dollars on building even more prisons in California. Let me ask

> you an honest question. If everyone in Calfornia was a Christian that

> obeyed the 10 commandments--do you think that the Governor would need to

> spend a billion dollars constructing new prisons?

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_thread/thread/ae57094b0702a956/287e268fa74c5b91?q=prison+atheist+Christian+moslem&lnk=ol&hl=en&

The Federal Bureau of Prisons does have statistics on religious

affiliations of inmates. The following are total number of inmates

per

religion category:

Response Number %

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

Catholic 29267 39.164%

Protestant 26162 35.008%

Muslim 5435 7.273%

American Indian 2408 3.222%

Nation 1734 2.320%

Rasta 1485 1.987%

Jewish 1325 1.773%

Church of Christ 1303 1.744%

Pentecostal 1093 1.463%

Moorish 1066 1.426%

Buddhist 882 1.180%

Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%

Adventist 621 0.831%

Orthodox 375 0.502%

Mormon 298 0.399%

Scientology 190 0.254%

Atheist 156 0.209%

Hindu 119 0.159%

Santeria 117 0.157%

Sikh 14 0.019%

Bahai 9 0.012%

Krishna 7 0.009%

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

Total Known Responses 74731 100.001% (rounding to 3 digits does

this)

Unknown/No Answer 18381

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

Total Convicted 93112 80.259% (74731) prisoners' religion is

known.

Held in Custody 3856 (not surveyed due to temporary custody)

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

Total In Prisons 96968

Atheists only represent 0.209% of the prison population in America of

1 in 500, which is less than the statistical number you would expect

based on the numebr of atheists in America today.

Martin

May 10, 2007

On May 10, 8:50 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> When I wrote a 5 page report on Neanderthals in 1971, I checked about 20

> separate reference books in search of the best 5 references to use. At

> that time, the experts believed that there were so many genetic

> differences between Neanderthals and Cro-Magnums that they could NOT have

> produced offspring if they mated.

Yes, the experts labeled different branches of early man as different

species based on the _assumption_ that they couldn't mate.

> I don't expect you to believe that

> Cro-Magnums and Neanderthals are two separate races just because I believe

> it.

Let me check my back again in the mirror. Yep, plenty of hair. Also

on my arms, legs and chest. Cro-Magnum and Neanderthal skeletons were

both found in Europe where my ancestors came from. Could I have genes

from both groups? Possibly. Note however that this is perfectly

consistent with evolution: we are as different from Cro Magnum and

Neanderthals as they were from Homo Erectus and likewise with Homo

Erectus and the common ancestor of gorillas and man. It would appear

you are now arguing in favour of evolution.

Martin

May 10, 2007

Martin Phipps wrote:

> On May 9, 9:04 pm, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net>

> wrote:

>

>>Martin Phipps wrote:

>>

>>>disappeared would seem to overwhelming support evolution!

>>>(Note that different breed of dogs might as well be

>>>different species as it would be impossible for a poodle

>> >to mate with a great dane!)

>>

>>Really?

>>Mind, I am not doubting that, I just did not know. And still

>>don't. It seems to me that this, if in fact the case, is

>>more question of mechanics than of genetics.

>

> It's more than mechanics because I don't think a poodle could

> carry great dane puppies. It isn't a question of genetics

> -yet- but it does show how species form (since poddles and

> great danes will never share genes in the future).

It's not clear to me that that is necessarily true. What if you

breed a Great Dane with a somewhat smaller breed and that

offspring with a still smaller breed, etc, until some generations

later you make a cross with a toy poodle.

I think what I'm describing is a ring species

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

: [...]

:

: Larus gulls

:

: A classic example of ring species is the Larus gulls

: circumpolar species "ring". The range of these gulls

: forms a ring around the North Pole. The Herring Gull,

: which lives primarily in Great Britain, can hybridize

: with the American Herring Gull (living in North America),

: which can also interbreed with the Vega or East Siberian

: Herring Gull, the western subspecies of which, Birula's

: Gull, can hybridize with Heuglin's gull, which in turn

: can interbreed with the Siberian Lesser Black-backed Gull

: (all four of these live across the north of Siberia).

: The last is the eastern representative of the Lesser

: Black-backed Gulls back in north-western Europe, including

: Great Britain. However, the Lesser Black-backed Gulls and

: Herring Gull are sufficiently different that they cannot

: interbreed; thus the group of gulls forms a continuum

: except in Europe where the two lineages meet. A recent

: genetic study has shown that this example is far more

: complicated than presented here (Liebers et al, 2004).

"...far more complicated..."! Apart from the question of

scientific evidence, evolution is just so much more

interesting than saying "God did it that way. God did it

that way. God did it that way." over and over.

Jim Burns

May 10, 2007

In article <1178749847.385395.224210

@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, vivapadrepio@aol.com says...

....

> Glory be to God the Father, and to the Son, who rose from the dead,

> and to the Paraclete, for ever and ever. Amen.

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are:

for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the

corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say

unto you, They have their reward.

-- Matt. 6:5

May 10, 2007

On May 10, 9:22 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <ivo4435lar3al7c5drn6aau039bfoep...@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein

>

> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> > On Wed, 09 May 2007 17:33:45 -0700, in alt.atheism , J...@nospam.com

> > (Jason) in

> > <Jason-0905071733450...@66-52-22-100.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

> > > Is it true that some

> > >stars are older than other stars?

>

> > OMFG! Do you really not know that? Here is a hint: all material

> > heavier than, IIANM helium, was created in a star. A star that then

> > exploded and the debris formed a new star and the planets. We really

> > do know lots and lots about this stuff. You might want to give up this

> > demand that science provide complete full answers and read up on the

> > wonderful things we do know.

Translation: "Yes."

> Believe it or not, some stars are older than other stars.

Translation: "I have no clue what you said."

Martin

May 10, 2007

On May 10, 8:44 am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Quite frankly, I would like to see some one actually rebut his positions

> rather than attacking him personally.

Aaron spoke of the "Myth of the Open System" but there is no such

myth: the Earth is an open system and it is getting energy from the

sun which fuels the evolution process. Happy now? Many people said

this already, by the way.

On and could people please trim out the stuff we've already read ten

times over? Most newsreaders will direct people back to the beginning

of the thread if people want to read it. It is actually quite rude to

make people wade through three hundred lines of text to find a thirty

line response.

Martin

May 10, 2007

On Thu, 10 May 2007 01:08:51 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

(Jason) in

<Jason-1005070108520001@66-52-22-55.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

[snip]

>That's correct. Do you believe that atheists are more likely to disobey

>laws than Christians that feel that God is always watching them?

>

>My answer is yes--what's your answer.

>

>I already know that some atheists obey the law even if there are no cops

>arround them.

>

I accept that you believe that. I also know that you have absolutely

no support for the claim. That you think your group is better than

anyone else is a pretty normal human view, but that does not make it

right. Again, there are fewer atheists in prison that we would

expect not more. The evidence disagrees with you.

--

Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org

http://www.darfurgenocide.org

http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

May 10, 2007

On May 10, 10:27 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <99s44393vdd6b88aiapie53imd8m8au...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> > The Ten Commandments have only a very peripheral relationship to

> > Christianity. The worship of the Ten Commandments is a modern-day

> > heterodoxy.

>

> > I am curious. Would you just let all sex offenders, including rapists

> > and pedophiles, go free because that is not forbidden in the Ten

> > Commandments?

>

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

> Good point. One of the commandents states: Thou shall not commit adultery.

> The implication is clear--God wants people to get married and not cheat on

> their mates. Other parts of the Bible make it clear that God wants men to

> marry women. In fact, the main reason God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah is

> because of their sins--such as the sin of sodomy.

So according to your god, sodomy is bad but genocide is okay?

Martin

May 10, 2007

On May 10, 1:19 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> The 10 commandments are the main laws that

> God established. Of course, there are other rules and laws in other parts

> of the Bible. In fact, back in the 1700's and 1800's --many or even most

> laws were based on the Bible.

So if I don't honour the Sabbath or use God's name in vain or covet

Angelina Jolie (granted I don't live next to Brad Pitt) or worship non-

Christian gods then I go to jail? And these crimes are the same as

lying, stealing, murder or cheating on my wife? Really?

Martin

May 10, 2007

On Thu, 10 May 2007 01:23:09 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

(Jason) in

<Jason-1005070123100001@66-52-22-55.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

>

>Matt,

>What is your opinion related to the last paragraph of this report. Please

>note from the Notes section that H.P. Yockey published his article in what

>I believe is a peer-reviewed journal.

>Jason

>

>How Simple Can Life Be?

>In Darwin's day, many people swallowed the theory of spontaneous

>generation-that life arose from non-living matter. It was somewhat

>easier to believe because the cell's structure was almost unknown.

>Ernst Haeckel, Darwin's popularizer in Germany, claimed that a cell

>was a 'simple lump of albuminous combination of carbon.'1 (Haeckel was

>also a notorious fraud-he forged embryonic diagrams to bolster the

>erroneous idea that the embryo's development recapitulated (re-traced)

>its alleged evolutionary ancestry)2

Haeckel was not really a fraud: all use of drawings in scientific work

distort some factors to emphasis others. Drawings are a way of

conveying information, not simply reproducing something. Haeckel was

wrong about development, he was known to be wrong at the time and it

is pretty much only creationists who talk about Haeckel these days.

There has been lots of actual scientific work in the more than 100

years since Haeckel, it is too bad that creationists are stuck on 100

year old work.

>But modern science has discovered vast quantities of complex, specific

>information in even the simplest self-reproducing organism.

There is "complex specific" information in a salt crystal.

>Mycoplasma

>genitalium has the smallest known genome of any free-living organism,

>containing 482 genes comprising 580,000 bases.3 Of course, these genes

>are only functional with pre-existing translational and replicating

>machinery, a cell membrane, etc.

>

>But Mycoplasma can only survive by parasitizing more complex

>organisms, which provide many of the nutrients it cannot manufacture

>for itself. So evolutionists must posit a more complex first living

>organism with even more genes.

>

>More recently, Eugene Koonin and others tried to calculate the bare

>minimum required for a living cell, and came up with a result of 256

>genes. But they were doubtful whether such a hypothetical bug could

>survive, because such an organism could barely repair DNA damage,

>could no longer fine-tune the ability of its remaining genes, would

>lack the ability to digest complex compounds, and would need a

>comprehensive supply of organic nutrients in its environment.4

And there is no reason to think that the first life was like this.

Again I suggest you read some science here rather than creationist

work. Read up on the RNA World hypothesis. It is not the current best

answer, but it will help you understand where the actual science is

going.

>Yet even this 'simple' organism has far too much information to be

>expected from time and chance, without natural selection. The

>information theorist Hubert Yockey calculated that given a pool of

>pure, activated biological amino acids, the total amount of

>information which could be produced, even allowing 109 years as

There is a problem with that line that you copied. Do you see the

problem? And was it in the stuff you copied from? BTW, where did you

copy this from?

>evolutionists posit, would be only a single small polypeptide 49 amino

>acid residues long.5 This is about 1/8 the size (therefore information

>content) of a typical protein, yet the hypothetical simple cell above

>needs at least 256 proteins. And Yockey's estimate generously

>presupposes that the many chemical hurdles can be overcome, which is a

>huge assumption, as shown by many creationist writers.6

>NB: natural selection cannot help, as this requires self-replicating

>entities-therefore it cannot explain their origin.

It is a nonsense calculation. Yockey is not a biologist and his

calculations show gaps in his knowledge of how biology works. You

might want to start with this:

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis

Calculations

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

One of the big problems with Yockey's work is that he has no idea what

portion of the search space is useful. Computing the probability of a

particular outcome is just meaningless, what matters is what portions

of outcomes have positive values. And that you can't know without

testing.

>Notes

>Cited in M.J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to

>Evolution, The Free Press, New York, 1996, p. 24. Return to text.

>R.M. Grigg, 'Ernst Haeckel: Evangelist for evolution and apostle of

>deceit', Creation Ex Nihilo 18(2):33-36, 1996. See online version.

>Return to text.

>A. Goffeau, 'Life With 482 Genes' Science, 270(5235):445-6, 1995.

>Return to text.

>W. Wells, 'Taking life to bits', New Scientist, 155(2095):30-33, 1997.

>Return to text.

>H.P. Yockey, 'A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous

>Biogenesis by Information Theory', J. Theor. Biol., 67:377-398, 1977.

>Return to Text.

>C.B. Thaxton, W.L. Bradley & R.L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin,

>Philosophical Library Inc., New York, 1984; W.R. Bird, W.R., 1991; The

>Origin of Species: Revisited, Thomas Nelson, Inc., Nashville,

>Tennessee, Vol. I Part III, 1991; S.E. Aw, 'The Origin of Life: A

>Critique of Current Scientific Models' Creation Ex Nihilo Technical

>Journal, 10(3):300-314, 1996; J.D. Sarfati, 1997 'Self- Replicating

>Enzymes?' Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 11(1):4-6, 1997. See

>online version. Return to Text.

>

--

Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org

http://www.darfurgenocide.org

http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

May 10, 2007

On Thu, 10 May 2007 06:34:30 -0500, in alt.atheism , Don Kresch

<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> in

<3p06431oerpaed2u8o91454ho9201bkf3n@4ax.com> wrote:

>In alt.atheism On Thu, 10 May 2007 01:23:09 -0700, Jason@nospam.com

>(Jason) let us all know that:

>

>>

>>Matt,

>>What is your opinion related to the last paragraph of this report. Please

>>note from the Notes section that H.P. Yockey published his article in what

>>I believe is a peer-reviewed journal.

>>Jason

>>

>>How Simple Can Life Be?

>>In Darwin's day, many people swallowed the theory of spontaneous

>>generation-that life arose from non-living matter.

>

> That's not what spontaneous generation is.

>

> Looks like Yockey deliberately lied.

No, he didn't. The article that Jason copied was not from Yockey. I

don't know what he copied from and have not bothered to look, but it

references something from Yockey.

--

Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org

http://www.darfurgenocide.org

http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

May 10, 2007

On 10 May 2007 05:59:04 -0700, in alt.atheism , Martin

<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> in

<1178801944.081403.153190@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote:

>On May 10, 7:07 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

>> I agree that pygmy child bones look like other human child bones. You

>> missed my point. My point was that Nanderthals MAY have been a race of

>> people. That's the reason they were able to produce offspring when they

>> mated with Cro-Magnums.

>

>If Neanderthals mated with Cro-Magnums then they were the same

>species. You can't tell from looking at bones who was able to mate

>with whom. All we know is that humans can't mate with gorillas.

Actually we don't know that though it is likely. And slightly more

likely that we could made with chimps. Whether or not two organisms

are the same species is not particularly clear cut (which is, btw, a

prediction of evolution theory). For us large sexually reproducing

organisms we tend to use the (inappropriately named) Biological

Species Concept (in appropriate because it is not the only biological

species concept). That says that two organisms are different species

if they don't produce offspring. But what about horses and donkey?

They produce offspring. And sometimes they even produce viable ones?

And what about tigers and lions? They produce viable offspring, but

only if forced to do so in zoos, they never do it in the wild.

Speciation is, usually (or at least often), a gradual process.

Populations move away from each other with interbreeding becoming less

and less likely and/or viable. And, as you can tell, the BSC can only

work on existent species, it does not help (as you say) with

paleospecies.

--

Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org

http://www.darfurgenocide.org

http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

May 10, 2007

On May 10, 4:08 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> That's correct. Do you believe that atheists are more likely to disobey

> laws than Christians that feel that God is always watching them?

>

> My answer is yes--what's your answer.

I'm not even sure if Christians obey the ten commandments. Maybe they

will sleep on a Sunday afternoon and maybe obey their mom and dad and

maybe they will stay faithful to their wives but they won't covet any

less and Christian soldiers will kill just as readily as atheist

soldiers. Nor is there any evidence that Christians are less likely

to lie (especially on public forums) or steal. And Catholics do

worship statues (idols) of Jesus and Mary. If Christians could just

avoid lying, stealing and killing then they'd be able to stay out of

prison but the majority of prison inmates are either Catholics or

Protestants. Atheists, meanwhile, represent only .2% of those in

prison.

So my answer is "No".

Martin

May 10, 2007

On May 10, 4:23 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> Matt,

> What is your opinion related to the last paragraph of this report. Please

> note from the Notes section that H.P. Yockey published his article in what

> I believe is a peer-reviewed journal.

Name the journal.

Martin

May 10, 2007

Martin wrote:

> On May 10, 1:19 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

>> The 10 commandments are the main laws that

>> God established. Of course, there are other rules and laws in other parts

>> of the Bible. In fact, back in the 1700's and 1800's --many or even most

>> laws were based on the Bible.

>

> So if I don't honour the Sabbath or use God's name in vain or covet

> Angelina Jolie (granted I don't live next to Brad Pitt) or worship non-

> Christian gods then I go to jail? And these crimes are the same as

> lying, stealing, murder or cheating on my wife? Really?

>

> Martin

>

No, you don't get to go to jail. You should be stoned to death, as is the case with all those who break the ten

commandments.

However, if you decide to rape a 6 year old, or torture your imagined enemy, pluck his/her eyes out and scald

him/her with boiling oil, embezzle millions or billions, torture animals or do literally thousands of unspeakable

acts, you're on you way to become a powerful televangelist.

After all, you've done nothing against the ten commandments, which, after all, are supposed to form the firm basis of

the western legal system...

Anyway, there's a back door: If you pray to god really hard and apologize from the heart - even if you've coveted

Angeline Jolie (or her husband) - all is forgiven, and you can rejoin your previous practice of coveting A.J. (or her

husband), defraud the government and others 24x7 and continue fleecing your flock with a good conscience.

Surely Ted Haggard and Ken Hovind (and tens/hundreds of their ilk) cannot be wrong?

--

Seppo P.

What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)

May 10, 2007

Martin wrote:

> On May 10, 10:27 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>> In article <99s44393vdd6b88aiapie53imd8m8au...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

>

>>> The Ten Commandments have only a very peripheral relationship to

>>> Christianity. The worship of the Ten Commandments is a modern-day

>>> heterodoxy.

>>> I am curious. Would you just let all sex offenders, including rapists

>>> and pedophiles, go free because that is not forbidden in the Ten

>>> Commandments?

>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>>

>> Good point. One of the commandents states: Thou shall not commit adultery.

>> The implication is clear--God wants people to get married and not cheat on

>> their mates. Other parts of the Bible make it clear that God wants men to

>> marry women. In fact, the main reason God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah is

>> because of their sins--such as the sin of sodomy.

>

> So according to your god, sodomy is bad but genocide is okay?

>

> Martin

>

Of course. There's nothing against genocide in the bible, quite the contrary.

According to these Christians, genocide is Ok, pedophilia is Ok, animal (and human) torture is Ok.

Luckily, I don't live near to that kind of "christians" Well, I really don't worry about it, I'm armed well enough...

--

Seppo P.

What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)

May 10, 2007

"Martin" <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1178806728.032464.171000@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

> On May 10, 8:44 am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>

> > Quite frankly, I would like to see some one actually rebut his positions

> > rather than attacking him personally.

>

> Aaron spoke of the "Myth of the Open System" but there is no such

> myth: the Earth is an open system and it is getting energy from the

> sun which fuels the evolution process. Happy now? Many people said

> this already, by the way.

>

Then these many people made a "knee-jerk" conclusion based

upon this statement "Myth of the open system" and read nothing

that followed.

The "myth" Kim was in reference to was the myth perpetuated

by some evolutionist that "open systems are beyond the scope

of this law (2nd law of thermodynamics)".

On this, Kim is correct. The SLot applies to open systems

and closed systems alike. So, his argument is misscharacterized

by about 100%.

>

Also if these people had read his post they would realize that

he wrote, "It is true that life derives its energy from the sun".

My problem is that Kim is not taken to task for what he

said, but rather for things he never said. I see no honesty

in this.

>

> On and could people please trim out the stuff we've already read ten

> times over? Most newsreaders will direct people back to the beginning

> of the thread if people want to read it. It is actually quite rude to

> make people wade through three hundred lines of text to find a thirty

> line response.

>

Good, hope this advice is taken.

>

> Martin

>

May 10, 2007

Jason wrote:

> In article <1178792287.190815.145890@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>> On May 10, 2:24 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>

>>> It has actually helped me stay out of prison and jail. When I was about 30

>>> years old, I could not find a job and was running out of money. I had a

>>> gun so knew that it would be easy to rob a store or rob people. The reason

>>> I did not do that was because I knew that God was watching me and would

>>> have been disappointed with me if I disobeyed one of his commandments.

>> All this proves was that your parents failed to teach you to be

>> morally centered: your entire reason for not robbing people nor

>> threatening them with violence is that you fear you will go to Hell.

>> You are a truly frightening person indeed.

>>

>> Martin

>

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

> It's effective. My minor in college was history. I leared that in the

> 1700's and 1800's just about everyone in America were Christians that took

> their religion very seriously. In almost every state they only had one

> prison--California was about the only state that had two prisons.

And in almost every state the population was numbered in the 10's (or

maybe 100's) of thousands.

None of

> the small jails were ever over crowded. That has all changed. All prisons

> are now over-crowded and almost every state now has more than one prison.

> In fact, California has about a dozen over-crowded prisons and plans to

> build about two or three more prisons.

In 1850, California had a population of 92,597. Even in 1900, it was

only 1,485,053. It's now around 35,000,000. So that's one

prison/3,000,000 people now and it had 1/750,000 people in 1900

(assuming that's when it had 2 prisons.)

Now what does that tell you about the prison population? Either the per

capita is DROPPING or the prisons are larger/more populated.

Almost every city jail is over

> crowded.

Almost every CITY is overcrowded.

You may think that the rise in atheism is a good thing but I

> think that the rise in atheism has some serious negative consequences. The

> percentage of people in prisons is now higher than it has ever been in

> American history.

> Jason

Not according to your own figures above. Also most of the recent

increases in per capita prison population over the past 20 years has

been due to increasing of mandatory sentencing and NOT due to increased

crime rates (those have actually DROPPED in recent years.)

May 10, 2007