Evolution is Just Junk Science

May 10, 2007

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. 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. Almost every city jail is over

crowded. 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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

May 10, 2007

On Thu, 10 May 2007 14:08:57 -0400, in alt.atheism , "H. Wm. Esque"

<HEsque@bellsouth.net> in <YcJ0i.107$O9.49@bignews7.bellsouth.net>

wrote:

>

>"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)".

But that is not a myth, at least not a scientific one. Rather that is

a creationist distortion of the response to the creationist 2LoT

argument.

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

>and closed systems alike. So, his argument is misscharacterized

>by about 100%.

Actually his argument was a strawman. Rather than deal with the real

science he argued against something that, while it may exist here on

the Usenet, does not exist in science.

>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.

Kim was a troll.

>> 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

>>

>

--

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

In article <1178805594.500838.233360@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Martin,

I disagree. Evolution teaches that Neanderthals were a step in the

evolution of man. I don't believe that Neanderthals were a step in the

evolution of man. Instead, I believe that Neaderthals and Cro-Magnums were

two separate races. I read an article in the ICR newsletter indicating

they believe Neaderthals were Cro-Magnums that had some sort of bone

disease or genetic related disorder.

Jason

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

May 10, 2007

On Thu, 10 May 2007 12:03:33 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

(Jason) in

<Jason-1005071203330001@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

>In article <fga643hibjjdrjtqu215q5v3n48impd1fk@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein

><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>

>> 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.

>

>There are also lots of Christians in prison that do not take their

>religion seriously.

Read up on the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

>They even have churches that have pastors that don't

>take their religion seriously. I once attended one of those churches. The

>preacher was more like a psychologist than a real preacher. I knew more

>about the Bible than he must have known because he did not mention

>anything from the Bible during that boring sermon. It was like listening

>to a speech from Dr. Phil.

--

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

In article <1178801944.081403.153190@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin

<phippsmartin@hotmail.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.

>

> Martin

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Martin,

Yes--I agree that they were the same species. They may also have been two races.

May 10, 2007

In article <1178807669.962461.98050@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin

<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> 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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Martin,

Not all sins are a violation of the law. If we commit those sorts of sins,

Christians ask for forgiveness. If the sin (robbing a store, murdering) is

a violation of the law, we not only ask for forgiveness but if we get

caught--we have to go to jail or prison. I am also a fan of Angelina

Jolie.

Jason

May 10, 2007

In article <1178808734.170450.316460@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin

<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

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

May 10, 2007

In article <fga643hibjjdrjtqu215q5v3n48impd1fk@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein

<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> 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.

There are also lots of Christians in prison that do not take their

religion seriously. They even have churches that have pastors that don't

take their religion seriously. I once attended one of those churches. The

preacher was more like a psychologist than a real preacher. I knew more

about the Bible than he must have known because he did not mention

anything from the Bible during that boring sermon. It was like listening

to a speech from Dr. Phil.

Jason

May 10, 2007

Matt Silberstein wrote:

> On Thu, 10 May 2007 12:03:33 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

> (Jason) in

> <Jason-1005071203330001@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

>

>> In article <fga643hibjjdrjtqu215q5v3n48impd1fk@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein

>> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>>

>>> 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.

>> There are also lots of Christians in prison that do not take their

>> religion seriously.

>

> Read up on the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

I do have to agree with Jason to the extent that not everyone who calls

themselves a Scotsman is really a Scotsman. I.e. there ARE standards as

to who is an xian and who isn't (just like there's a standard as to

who's a Scotsman. The "no true Scotsman" fallacy lies in when you use

criteria to claim someone's is or isn't part of a group based on

something that has nothing to do with the group, such as saying "true

Scotsmen eat oatmeal." What does oatmeal have to do with being Scotch?)

But since what constitutes a true xian isn't something on a birth

certificate, etc. but is something within (a belief), I agree with YOU

in that we can't tell "so-and-so is or isn't a true xian."

>

>> They even have churches that have pastors that don't

>> take their religion seriously. I once attended one of those churches. The

>> preacher was more like a psychologist than a real preacher. I knew more

>> about the Bible than he must have known because he did not mention

>> anything from the Bible during that boring sermon. It was like listening

>> to a speech from Dr. Phil.

>

May 10, 2007

On Thu, 10 May 2007 15:04:06 -0400, in alt.atheism , Mike

<prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> in <f1vqb6$9os$1@news04.infoave.net> wrote:

>Matt Silberstein wrote:

>> On Thu, 10 May 2007 12:03:33 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

>> (Jason) in

>> <Jason-1005071203330001@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

>>

>>> In article <fga643hibjjdrjtqu215q5v3n48impd1fk@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein

>>> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> 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.

>>> There are also lots of Christians in prison that do not take their

>>> religion seriously.

>>

>> Read up on the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

>

>I do have to agree with Jason to the extent that not everyone who calls

>themselves a Scotsman is really a Scotsman. I.e. there ARE standards as

>to who is an xian and who isn't (just like there's a standard as to

>who's a Scotsman. The "no true Scotsman" fallacy lies in when you use

>criteria to claim someone's is or isn't part of a group based on

>something that has nothing to do with the group, such as saying "true

>Scotsmen eat oatmeal." What does oatmeal have to do with being Scotch?)

>But since what constitutes a true xian isn't something on a birth

>certificate, etc. but is something within (a belief), I agree with YOU

>in that we can't tell "so-and-so is or isn't a true xian."

The problem is that he is defining away those that he does not want in

the group. It is easy to say that being a Christian makes one law

abiding if you assert that those who break the laws are not Christian.

He needs some other factor to distinguish them on. That is, how can I

know before the fact if someone is a serious Christian or not before

I try to see if being a serious Christian helps keep someone out of

jail?

>>

>>> They even have churches that have pastors that don't

>>> take their religion seriously. I once attended one of those churches. The

>>> preacher was more like a psychologist than a real preacher. I knew more

>>> about the Bible than he must have known because he did not mention

>>> anything from the Bible during that boring sermon. It was like listening

>>> to a speech from Dr. Phil.

>>

--

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 12:50:39 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

(Jason) in

<Jason-1005071250390001@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

[snip]

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

>the history of America. The increasing of mandatory sentencing played a

>role. I don't have the percentages but found these statistics in my 2005

>Time Almanac

>1990 total number of people in state prisons--- 684,544

>2003 total number of people in state prisons--1,221,501

>

Absolutely. But I have some bad news for you. Europe, which is far

less Christian according to most measures and certainly according to

American fundamentalists has a much lower % of its population in

prison. Why did straying from religion make European law abiding and

American's criminals?

>In other words, the population almost doubled in just three years. The

>"three strikes law" in California has also played a role. I don't know

>whether or not other states have established three strikes laws.

The three strikes laws did lead to an increase in the prison

population but the drop in crime started before the 3 strikes laws.

That is, crime rates are dropping but we are putting people away for

longer. The bulk of the federal prisoners are there for relatively

minor drug offenses. I leave it to you to decide if drug use is banned

by the 10C.

--

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 13:09:56 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

(Jason) in

<Jason-1005071309560001@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

[snip]

>I do credit religion with the low crime rates in the 1700' and 1800's. I

>was raised in a small town in Virgina--part of the so called Bible Belt.

>People in that small town took their religion very seriously. If someone

>ended up in jail, everyone talked about it--gossip. As you know, no one

>that lives in a SMALL town wants to be the victim of redicule.

What does the size of the town have to do with religion? What I think

you show here is that with small towns there are other ways to control

people besides prison.

[snip]

--

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

In article <1178808673.774906.247750@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Martin

<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Good point--Many Christians are what I call "Christians in name only".

They may call themselves Christians but in reality--they are not real

Christians. John (in the book of Revelations) states the following about

this subject:

Rev 3:15:

John wrote this information about the Christians in the Church at Sardis:

"I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot, I would prefer that

you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor

cold, I (God) will not accept you into the Kingdom of God."

Over two thousand years ago--in the Church at Sardis--there were

Christians that were not pleasing to God. That is still true today. I

recall that Paul was very upset with the people in one of the churches

that he established. One of the members of that church was having a sexual

relationship with his mother in law. Paul told the leaders of that church

to ex-communicate him until he ended that sexual relationship. In other

words, there are lots of "Christians in name only." They are the types of

Christians that are likely to end up in jail or prison.

Jason

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

May 10, 2007

On May 9, 5:42 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:

> On May 7, 3:23 pm, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:

>

> > On May 6, 8:10 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:

>

> > > On May 6, 6:04 pm, Tohu.B...@hotmail.com wrote:

>

> > > > On May 6, 6:59 pm, Matt Silberstein

>

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

> > > > > On 6 May 2007 13:09:36 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Anna R., D.Min."

> > > > > <annarober...@yahoo.com> in

>

> > > > > <1178482176.288791.80...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> wrote:

> > > > > >Yes God in His awesome power and authority crafted the Universe. There

> > > > > >is the alternative to the Theory of Evolution.

>

> > > > You mean the FAITH of Evolution?

> > > > Yes, there is an alternative to it, or should I say

> > > > something similar to it? I was thinking of Hinduism

>

> > > I'll be happy to debate your alternative if you can support it, as

> > > I've repeatedly requested, with positive science.

>

> > > But you can't, can you? You're quite plainly and simply lying, aren't

> > > you?

>

> > Is there any SCIENTIFICALLY verified LIARD than the one

> > you believe in a worse myth of Evolution yet the role of CHRIST

> > was explained to him

>

> > > Budikka

>

> Thanks for proving my statement that you cannot support your assinine

> assertions in a debate with me. 150 years of solid science from

> people of all nations and ALL FAITHS prove you wrong. But keep

> running, Fartbreaker. All you have is hot air and it stinks.

They are human and human are prone to mistakes.

Evolution is NO science, jerk.

>

> Budikka- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

May 10, 2007

In article <f1vnkt$6sc$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

<prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> 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.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The percentage of people in prison is now higher than it has ever been in

the history of America. The increasing of mandatory sentencing played a

role. I don't have the percentages but found these statistics in my 2005

Time Almanac

1990 total number of people in state prisons--- 684,544

2003 total number of people in state prisons--1,221,501

In other words, the population almost doubled in just three years. The

"three strikes law" in California has also played a role. I don't know

whether or not other states have established three strikes laws.

May 10, 2007

"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

snip

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

>

> I do credit religion with the low crime rates in the 1700' and 1800's. I

> was raised in a small town in Virgina--part of the so called Bible Belt.

> People in that small town took their religion very seriously. If someone

> ended up in jail, everyone talked about it--gossip. As you know, no one

> that lives in a SMALL town wants to be the victim of redicule. Those

> people that ended up in jail became the victims of redicule.

My, how "christian" of the people who were gossiping and ridiculing.

--

Robyn

Resident Witchypoo

BAAWA Knight!

#1557

May 10, 2007

"H. Wm. Esque" <HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote in

news:Z6u0i.13$t7.5@bigfe9:

>

> "Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message

> news:Xns992BACB9A155Adoldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...

>> "H. Wm. Esque" <HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote in

>> news:16e%h.32274$qB4.23309@bignews3.bellsouth.net:

>>

>> > <Snip> >> > >

>> >> > > [280 lines of stupidity and falsehood snipped]

>> >> > >

>> >> > > Why didn't you just post a single line saying "Aaron Kim is an

>> >> > > in-your-face stupid, rude idiot"?

>> >> > >

>> >> > > It would have had exactly the same result.

>> >> >

>> >> > Didn't you read the rest of the article? By the way, what would

>> >> > happen

>> > if

>> >> > you just left your car out in the sun too long? The car's

>> >> > condition

>> > would

>> >> > have greatly deteriorated according to the law of entropy.

>> >> >

>> >> > The Myth of the "Open System"

>> >> >

>> >> > Some proponents of evolution have recourse to an argument that

>> >> > the

>> > second

>> >> > law of thermodynamics holds true only for "closed systems", and

>> >> > that

>> > "open

>> >> > systems" are beyond the scope of this law.

>> >> >

>> >> > An "open system" is a thermodynamic system in which energy and

>> >> > matter

>> > flow

>> >> > in and out. Evolutionists hold that the world is an open system:

>> >> > that it

>> >> is

>> >> > constantly exposed to an energy flow from the sun, that the law

>> >> > of

>> > entropy

>> >> > does not apply to the world as a whole, and that ordered,

>> >> > complex living beings can be generated from disordered, simple,

>> >> > and inanimate

>> > structures.

>> >> >

>> >> > However, there is an obvious distortion here. The fact that a

>> >> > system has

>> >> an

>> >> > energy inflow is not enough to make that system ordered.

>> >> > Specific

>> >> mechanisms

>> >> > are needed to make the energy functional. For instance, a car

>> >> > needs an engine, a transmission system, and related control

>> >> > mechanisms to convert

>> >> the

>> >> > energy in petrol to work. Without such an energy conversion

>> >> > system, the

>> >> car

>> >> > will not be able to use the energy stored in petrol.

>> >> >

>> >> > The same thing applies in the case of life as well. It is true

>> >> > that life derives its energy from the sun. However, solar energy

>> >> > can only be

>> >> converted

>> >> > into chemical energy by the incredibly complex energy conversion

>> >> > systems

>> >> in

>> >> > living things (such as photosynthesis in plants and the

>> >> > digestive

>> > systems

>> >> of

>> >> > humans and animals). No living thing can live without such

>> >> > energy

>> >> conversion

>> >> > systems. Without an energy conversion system, the sun is nothing

>> >> > but a source of destructive energy that burns, parches, or

>> >> > melts.

>> >> >

>> >> > As may be seen, a thermodynamic system without an energy

>> >> > conversion mechanism of some sort is not advantageous for

>> >> > evolution, be it open or closed. No one asserts that such

>> >> > complex and conscious mechanisms could

>> >> have

>> >> > existed in nature under the conditions of the primeval earth.

>> >> > Indeed,

>> > the

>> >> > real problem confronting evolutionists is the question of how

>> >> > complex energy-converting mechanisms such as photosynthesis in

>> >> > plants, which

>> >> cannot

>> >> > be duplicated even with modern technology, could have come into

>> >> > being on their own.

>> >> >

>> >> > The influx of solar energy into the world would be unable to

>> >> > bring about order on its own. Moreover, no matter how high the

>> >> > temperature may

>> > become,

>> >> > amino acids resist forming bonds in ordered sequences. Energy by

>> >> > itself

>> > is

>> >> > incapable of making amino acids form the much more complex

>> >> > molecules of proteins, or of making proteins from the much

>> >> > complex and deteriorated structures of cell organelles. The real

>> >> > and essential source of this organisation at all levels is

>> >> > flawless creation

>> >> >

>> >> > The Myth of the "Self Organization of Matter"

>> >> >

>> >> > Quite aware that the second law of thermodynamics renders

>> >> > evolution impossible, some evolutionist scientists have made

>> >> > speculative attempts

>> > to

>> >> > square the circle between the two, in order to be able to claim

>> >> > that evolution is possible. As usual, even those endeavors show

>> >> > that the

>> > theory

>> >> > of evolution faces an inescapable impasse.

>> >> >

>> >> > One person distinguished by his efforts to marry thermodynamics

>> >> > and evolution is the Belgian scientist Ilya Prigogine. Starting

>> >> > out from

>> > chaos

>> >> > theory, Prigogine proposed a number of hypotheses in which order

>> > develops

>> >> > from chaos (disorder). He argued that some open systems can

>> >> > portray a decrease in entropy due to an influx of outer energy

>> >> > and the outcoming "ordering" is a proof that "matter can

>> >> > organize itself." Since then, the concept of the

>> >> > "self-organization of matter" has been quite popular

>> > among

>> >> > evolutionists and materialists. They act like they have found a

>> >> > materialistic origin for the complexity of life and a

>> >> > materialistic

>> >> solution

>> >> > for the problem of life's origin.

>> >> >

>> >> > But a closer look reveals that this argument is totally abstract

>> >> > and in

>> >> fact

>> >> > just wishful thinking. Moreover, it includes a very naive

>> >> > deception. The deception lies in the deliberate confusing of two

>> >> > distinct concepts, "ordered" and "organized." 143

>> >> >

>> >> > We can make this clear with an example. Imagine a completely

>> >> > flat beach

>> > on

>> >> > the seashore. When a strong wave hits the beach, mounds of sand,

>> >> > large

>> > and

>> >> > small, form bumps on the surface of the sand.

>> >> >

>> >> > This is a process of "ordering": The seashore is an open system

>> >> > and the energy flow (the wave) that enters it can form simple

>> >> > patterns in the

>> >> sand,

>> >> > which look completely regular. From the thermodynamic point of

>> >> > view, it

>> >> can

>> >> > set up order here where before there was none. But we must make

>> >> > it clear that those same waves cannot build a castle on the

>> >> > beach. If we see a

>> >> castle

>> >> > there, we are in no doubt that someone has constructed it,

>> >> > because the castle is an "organized" system. In other words, it

>> >> > possesses a clear

>> >> design

>> >> > and information. Every part of it has been made by a conscious

>> >> > entity in

>> > a

>> >> > planned manner.

>> >> >

>> >> > The difference between the sand and the castle is that the

>> >> > former is an organized complexity, whereas the latter possesses

>> >> > only order, brought

>> >> about

>> >> > by simple repetitions. The order formed from repetitions is as

>> >> > if an

>> >> object

>> >> > (in other words the flow of energy entering the system) had

>> >> > fallen on

>> > the

>> >> > letter "a" on a typewriter keyboard, writing "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa"

>> >> > hundreds

>> >> of

>> >> > times. But the string of "a"s in an order repeated in this

>> >> > manner

>> > contains

>> >> > no information, and no complexity. In order to write a complex

>> >> > chain of letters actually containing information (in other words

>> >> > a meaningful sequence, paragraph or book), the presence of

>> >> > intelligence is essential.

>> >> >

>> >> > The same thing applies when wind blows into a dusty room. When

>> >> > the wind blows in, the dust which had been lying in an even

>> >> > layer may gather in

>> > one

>> >> > corner of the room. This is also a more ordered situation than

>> >> > that

>> > which

>> >> > existed before, in the thermodynamic sense, but the individual

>> >> > specks of dust cannot form a portrait of someone on the floor in

>> >> > an organized

>> >> manner.

>> >> >

>> >> > This means that complex, organized systems can never come about

>> >> > as the result of natural processes. Although simple examples of

>> >> > order can

>> > happen

>> >> > from time to time, these cannot go beyond limits.

>> >> >

>> >> > But evolutionists point to this self-ordering which emerges

>> >> > through

>> >> natural

>> >> > processes as a most important proof of evolution, portray such

>> >> > cases as examples of "self-organization". As a result of this

>> >> > confusion of

>> >> concepts,

>> >> > they propose that living systems could develop their own accord

>> >> > from occurrences in nature and chemical reactions. The methods

>> >> > and studies employed by Prigogine and his followers, which we

>> >> > considered above, are based on this deceptive logic.

>> >> >

>> >> > The American scientists Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley

>> >> > and Roger

>> > L.

>> >> > Olsen, in their book titled The Mystery of Life's Origin,

>> >> > explain this

>> >> fact

>> >> > as follows:needed to take us across the

>> >> gap

>> >> > from mixtures of simple natural chemicals to the first effective

>> >> replicator.

>> >> > This principle has not yet been described in detail or

>> >> > demonstrated, but

>> >> it

>> > > is anticipated, and given names such as chemical evolution and

>> > > self-organization of matter. The existence of the principle is

>> > > taken for granted in the philosophy of dialectical materialism,

>> > > as applied to the origin of life by Alexander Oparin.146

>> > >

>> > > All this situation clearly demonstrates that evolution is a dogma

>> > > that is against empirical science and the origin of living beings

>> > > can only be explained by the intervention of a supernatural

>> > > power. That supernatural power is the creation of God, who

>> > > created the entire universe from

>> > nothing.

>> > > Science has proven that evolution is still impossible as far as

>> > > thermodynamics is concerned and the existence of life has no

>> > > explanation

>> > but

>> > > Creation.

>> > >

>> > I hope you didn't expect to get an honest and rational

>> > discussion by stating arguments against the sacred cow

>> > of evolution.

>>

>> So let's see. If we cannot describe the exact process that brought

>> gravity into being we can just ignore its effect on things that fall

>> or things that orbit one another?

>>

> non sequitur

Exactly my point. The same non sequitur applies to the origin of life

remaining a mystery. This does not stop us from observing that life NOW

evolves.

>> > You will notice that rationality, geniality and especially

>> > civility fly out the window and is replaced by character

>> > assignation, personal attacks and unfounded charges

>> > against you personally. And usually by those who

>> > didn't bother to read your post, but rather jumped to

>> > conclusions.

>>

>> When you try to deceive me with stupid lies, expect a little

>> ridicule. It's more or less what you deserve.

>>

> This is not about me.

Then who is it about?

>> I mean when people try to pretend that evolution violates some law of

>> thermodynamics, I simply ask them--challenge them--to present me with

>> one single, necessary event in the evolution of man from microbe that

>> represents a necessary violation of any law of thermo.

>>

> This was not my claim. As I recall this was the claim of Aaron Kim.

> It isn't even my position.

>>

>> I have yet to see anyone do that. What I've gotten were wild

>> handwave claims that the WHOLE THING does violate the 2nd law. But,

>> you see, since the 2nd law is mathematically additive, for a whole

>> series of events to have negative entropy, at least ONE of the events

>> by mathematical necessity MUST HAVE negative entropy. So which one?

>> Pick any one, just so it's a SINGLE EVENT and a NECESSARY one.

>>

> The single thing that got under my skin was the charge that

> Kim claimed the earth is a closed system. But this was not

> his argument. It was a strawman. Even so the SloT applies

> equally to both closed and open system. I think Kim was

> honest, but mistaken. One does not correct ones errors

> by insulting the person or calling him a liar ignorant etc.

Creationists have organized themselves into groups. Those groups are led

by people claiming expertise in various branches of science. When their

behaviour shows that either lack the expertise they are clearly claiming

OR that they are simply lying about the science, then it is clear that

they are telling lies. WHICH lies? Not that important, since ANY lie

shows that the liar is not to be trusted.

>> > In fairness, I should add that this applies to certain

>> > disbelivers who feel you invaded their space. ie

>> > alt.atheism.

>>

>> > There are many others to whom this does not apply.

>>

>> Well, I'm posting from alt.religion and I'm just curious about what

>> kind of religion supports so much lying in God's name? Why would I

>> want to worship a god that suborns behaviour like that? Wouldn't

>> exorcism be more appropriate?

>>

> I think anytime a person actually believes what he says, he is not

> lying, he is wrong but he is not lying.

Yes, but if his belief is MANIFESTLY contrary to reality, then it's

pretty obvious that he is either lying or deluded. Deluded usually just

means that he's lying to himself first and foremost.

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

> positions rather than attacking him personally.

What positions? That evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

That one has been thoroughly rebutted many times over. Repetition of the

lie can only mean that the liars feel that, as a LIE, it's effective.

Why should we coddle liars and be nice to them when they are manifestly

trying to deceive every ignorant person they can?

--

Dave Oldridge+

ICQ 1800667

May 10, 2007

On Thu, 10 May 2007 14:04:01 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

(Jason) in

<Jason-1005071404020001@66-52-22-29.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

>In article <svr643d5m5gdq8ajnsm1t6ebf8nq9avvor@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein

><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>

>> On Thu, 10 May 2007 13:09:56 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

>> (Jason) in

>> <Jason-1005071309560001@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

>>

>> [snip]

>>

>> >I do credit religion with the low crime rates in the 1700' and 1800's. I

>> >was raised in a small town in Virgina--part of the so called Bible Belt.

>> >People in that small town took their religion very seriously. If someone

>> >ended up in jail, everyone talked about it--gossip. As you know, no one

>> >that lives in a SMALL town wants to be the victim of redicule.

>>

>> What does the size of the town have to do with religion? What I think

>> you show here is that with small towns there are other ways to control

>> people besides prison.

>>

>> [snip]

>

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

>

>Matt,

>Have you ever watched a television series called "Little House in the

>Praire". I realize that it was a fictional show but that show indicated

>what life was like back in the 1800's and early 1900's. Yes, there are

>other ways to control people besides prison.

So religion and possible loss of same is not why we have more people

in prison.

--

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

In article <BrJ0i.2408$zj3.20@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>,

bm1@nonespam.com wrote: