Guest Budikka666 Posted May 10, 2007 Posted May 10, 2007 On May 10, 12:15 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: [snipped previous] > > Thanks for the public admission in these world-wide fora that you > > cannot even handle, let alone rebut the facts of evolution. > > > Budikka > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > I accept most aspects of evolution theory. > Jason > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You have no idea what it's about yet you LIE that there are problems with it, and when you're put on the spot you cannot name even one problem with it, let alone name one and support it with science. You're pathetic hypocrite, coward, and LIAR. Budikka Quote
Guest Ralph Posted May 10, 2007 Posted May 10, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0805072011460001@66-52-22-100.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <nq92431l4ohte63h9qljbuej9dmrh84v5a@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> In alt.atheism On Tue, 08 May 2007 18:28:41 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >In article <h9r143tsbtqf7gf83d1oq0ea0ebfcscjij@4ax.com>, Don Kresch >> ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> > >> >> In alt.atheism On Tue, 08 May 2007 12:20:57 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >> >> >In article <5abcb1F27c3irU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >> >> ><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> >> news:Jason-0705072156340001@66-52-22-48.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> >> > snip >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> So you can't pin it down within a factor of a thousand. Not >> >> >> >> exactly >> >> >> >> impressive. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > You are correct. I admit that I cannot impress you by telling you >> >how many >> >> >> > years ago that God created all life forms. >> >> >> >> >> >> What's your evidence that this god exists and created anything? >> >> > >> >> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> > >> >> >The best selling book in America. >> >> >> >> Not evidence. >> >> >> >> Where's your evidence that this god exists and created >> >> anything? >> >> >> >> >> >> Don >> > >> >You have more faith than I have if you actually believe that life can >> >evolve from non-life. >> >> Mmmhmm. >> >> Let's go through this step by step, then. >> >> You: believe that life cannot come from non-life. >> >> You: believe that humans were created. >> >> You: must believe that the creator is alive. >> >> You: MUST believe that the creator was created, since life >> cannot come from non-life. >> >> If you: do not believe that the creator was created, you are a >> hypocrite, and we should not believe a word you say. >> >> >> Don >> --- > > Don, > Good question. I have been asked that question before. My answer will not > satify you or anyone else. I don't know how God came to be. However, when > I get to heaven, I will ask God or one of the angels how God came to be. You do that. > Now, explain to me how life can evolve from non-life. I Don't know how, I know that it did because it one time life didn't exist on earth and now it does. > Even Darwin believed > that God created life and that after God created life--evolution took > over. Please provide a source for that statement. >That makes more sense than saying that life evolved from non-life. > If life could evolve from non-life--it would be easy to prove in a > laboratory. > jason Why would it be easy to prove? Do we know the precise conditions at the time life started on earth? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted May 10, 2007 Posted May 10, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0905071128430001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1178712248.723752.207090@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On May 9, 11:03 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > It's not a threat. The Bible clearly states that after we die, we will >> > all >> > stand before the judgement seat of God. I'm looking forward to it. >> >> Unfortunately when you die everything will end and you won't even have >> the satisfaction of finally realizing that your faith was based on a >> lie. >> >> Martin > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Martin, > If I really believed there was no God, I would commit suicide if my doctor > told me that I had cancer and needed to have chemo. and radiation for > three or more months. Perhaps the increase in atheism is correlated to the > rapid increase in the suicide rate. > jason Really? I don't see how my behavior changed at all when I realized that the god of the Hebrew bible didn't exist. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 10, 2007 Posted May 10, 2007 <snip> > 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? I don't know the reason. Perhaps they have different laws and no mandantory sentencing laws in Europe. They may also have shorter sentences for major crimes. Perhaps people in Europe are not placed in prison if they are caught with lots of illegal drugs. I seem to recall reading that some drugs that are illegal in America are legal in some European countries. Guns are illegal for most people to own in Europe so that means there are less murders--I hope so. The problem with gun laws is that regular people are not able to defend their families when there homes are taken over by criminals that have illegal guns. I heard about one man in Europe that shot a bugler that broke into his home. Instead of arresting the bugler, the cops arrested the home owner for owning an illegal gun. That's just stupid. In most American towns, the bugler would have been arrested. One of the problems we have in California and Texas are people from Mexico that illegally come to America. Most of them are hard working people but about 20 percent of the people in California prisons and Texas prisons are not even American citizens. Some of them can not speak English. The mexican prisons are very different than American prisons. They brutalize people that are in prisons in Mexico. Guess where many of those inmates go when they are released from Mexican prisons. Many of them come to America. They get involved in major criminal behavior in America and end up in state and federal prisons. They would prefer American prisons to Mexican prisons. In many cases, the Mexican gov't will not take them back after they are released from prison. > >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. Drug laws are not mentioned in the 10 commandments probably because drug use was not a problem in those days. I do recall that getting drunk from wine was considered to be a sin--I believe the term was gluttony. If getting drunk from wine is a sin than the implication would be that getting high on drugs would also be a sin. That's my opinion and I doubt that all Christians would agree with me. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted May 10, 2007 Posted May 10, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0905071643390001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <mki4431tcqdskqorq76098rtemcrd05622@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> In alt.atheism On Wed, 09 May 2007 11:24:44 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >In article <1178712817.212134.22560@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On May 9, 1:32 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> >> > Don, >> >> > It was actually a warning. >> >> >> >> Jason, >> >> And I'm warning you: one day you may come to realize that your >> >> religion is all complete bunk and you'll never get back the life you >> >> wasted believing in it. You only have one life, Jason, the here and >> >> now, and you don't want to waste it believing in a fairy tale. >> >> >> >> Martin >> > >> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> > >> >Martin, >> >It has actually helped me stay out of prison and jail. >> >> Oddly enough, I've never been in trouble with the cops. And >> I'm an atheist. Fancy that. >> >> Looks like you need the carrot-stick method. I don't. I'm >> better than you. >> >> >> Don > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Don, > 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? > Jason Let me ask you a question? Do you think that if everyone lived by the principles of life that Confucius established that we would need to build new prisons? The first thing you have to do is to establish is that atheists commit more crimes than Christians and this you can't do because it isn't so. Your problem is that you don't understand what an atheist is. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted May 10, 2007 Posted May 10, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0905071124440001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1178712817.212134.22560@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On May 9, 1:32 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > Don, >> > It was actually a warning. >> >> Jason, >> And I'm warning you: one day you may come to realize that your >> religion is all complete bunk and you'll never get back the life you >> wasted believing in it. You only have one life, Jason, the here and >> now, and you don't want to waste it believing in a fairy tale. >> >> Martin > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Martin, > 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. > Over the past 10 years, I have read newspaper stories about young people > that were arrested for violating various laws such as robbing people, > stores or banks. It's my guess that those young people are not Christians > that care more about themselves than pleasing God. The jails and prisons > are filled with people that did not have a concern for pleasing God. Yes they are, and most of these claim to be Christians! Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 10, 2007 Posted May 10, 2007 In article <qtu643l398b2ba0fquuvpurl5go0gbnkds@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > 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. It's my opinion that Christians that take their religion very seriously are less likely to go to jail or prison than atheists or Christians that do NOT take their religion seriously. Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted May 10, 2007 Posted May 10, 2007 On Thu, 10 May 2007 14:46:44 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com (Jason) in <Jason-1005071446440001@66-52-22-29.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: >In article <qtu643l398b2ba0fquuvpurl5go0gbnkds@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> 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. > >It's my opinion that Christians that take their religion very seriously >are less likely to go to jail or prison than atheists or Christians that >do NOT take their religion seriously. > Can you tell, before you find out about any crimes, whether or not someone takes their religion seriously? Or do you do that only after the fact? -- 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" Quote
Guest H. Wm. Esque Posted May 10, 2007 Posted May 10, 2007 "Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:0kp643lj2fji6je3nnt1gdmiggod2i80hc@4ax.com... > 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. > Are you claiming that the SloT does not apply to open systems? > > >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. > What are you saying: entropy applies _only_ to closed systems? Is this actually what you are claiming? > > >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. > I don't know whether this is true or not. > > >> 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" Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted May 10, 2007 Posted May 10, 2007 On Thu, 10 May 2007 18:08:20 -0400, in alt.atheism , "H. Wm. Esque" <HEsque@bellsouth.net> in <jJM0i.773$t7.122@bigfe9> wrote: > >"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in >message news:0kp643lj2fji6je3nnt1gdmiggod2i80hc@4ax.com... >> 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. >> >Are you claiming that the SloT does not apply to open systems? >> >> >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. >> >What are you saying: entropy applies _only_ to closed systems? >Is this actually what you are claiming? Not at all. What I am saying is that there is no valid thermodynamic argument against evolution. Kim then said: "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." I assert that no scientists make this claim: this is Kim's strawman. That some people make that error here is not relevant to the actual 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. >> >I don't know whether this is true or not. Have you seen another post other than the initial copy and paste? [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" Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 10, 2007 Posted May 10, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <BrJ0i.2408$zj3.20@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, > bm1@nonespam.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. 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 >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> >> First of all, the population was much lower and population density was >> much less. So crime rates were lower. >> >> Second, criminals were harder to catch. Murders were much more difficult >> to solve because forensic science was so primitive. Also, if someone >> committed a crime, they could run away, go west or even to another >> state. Communications were so poor that catching them would be highly >> unlikely. >> >> Third, there were fewer laws and hence fewer crimes. Things such as >> spouse abuse that are considered crimes today were not. >> >> Fourth, punishments were different. Corporal punishment was prevalent in >> the 18th Century CE. So criminals would have been flogged, but not >> imprisoned. Also capital punishment was more prevalent, so prisons would >> only have been necessary until the hanging. There were few, if any >> avenues of appeal, so there was relatively little waiting time. >> >> Fourth, there was less law. There were few judges outside the cities. >> Circuit courts were exactly that, circuit riding judges who went from >> town to town holding court. >> >> Fifth, summary justice was not uncommon, especially in the West, where a >> horse thief or cattle rustler might be killed on the spot. Lynchings >> for those accused of particularly heinous crimes were not infrequent either. >> >> So don't credit your religion with creating a pastoral utopia during >> that time. It was not utopia, and religion was simply part of the >> culture, helping as much as hindering progress. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > 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. And single mothers were also despised, and members of other races, and subscribers to different religions. Anyone who wasn't like everyone else was subject to scrutiny if not ridicule. Those > people that ended up in jail became the victims of redicule. I challenge > you or anyone else to do a google search to determine the percentage of > people that were in state prisons in 1800 compared to the percentage of > people that were in state prisons in 2000. That percentage will be MUCH > higher. As noted, there are more crimes defined, drugs are much more available than they were at that time, so the crimes associated with drug use were much less common. Drug addiction first became a problem here after the Civil War, and did not become a criminal offense until some time after that. The population of state prison inmates almost doubled between 1990 > and 2003 according to the statistics on page 382 of the 2005 Time Almanac. > More crimes, more opportunities to commit them, more social problems (some a legacy of slavery and the associated racism), fewer opportunities for the economic underclasses, greater population density, vastly reduced opportunities to move away from the problem. I don't see religion as being a panacea, then or now. In the 18th Century CE there were at least as many churches supporting slavery as opposing it. Racism after the Civil War was institutionalized in the churches and we are still paying for that today. Religious fanatics introduced Prohibition, our greatest social failure in two centuries. Before it was repealed, it created an entire class of crimes, gave the Mafia its start, and encouraged people to disobey the law of the land. Don't claim religion as a panacea, and don't think that a small town is the ideal place to live, especially if you are the least bit different. > jason > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Quote
Guest H. Wm. Esque Posted May 10, 2007 Posted May 10, 2007 "Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message news:Xns992C85ABAAC1Bdoldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159... > "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'll call your hand? What stupid lies have I tried to deceive you with. > > >> 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 reference to Kim, what lies did he express? I will admit I'm no expert on Slot. I dug out my first College thermo textbook entitled "Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics", authored by Gorden J. Van Wilen and Richard E. Sonntag, copyright 1986. I did, at one time understand most of this stuff, but it's confusing now. I guess, it's old age setting in. : ( > > >> > 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. > The one thing that set my teeth on edge was the constant charge that he advocated, the earth is a closed system. He did not! > > > 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. > Ok, I'm rather new to this, subject. I don't know where he went wrong. I did not see anyone actually rebut him. I know that the 2nd law is absolute fact. But his arguments did make sense to me. It frustrated me that his points (right or wrong) were not really addressed. Instead he was called a liar, willfully ignorant, and other accusations against him. I accept that life evolved. This make sense to me, but the post by Aaron Kim and especially the treatment dirrected at him causees me to ponder what is really going on here!. > > Repetition of the lie can only mean that the liars feel that, as a LIE, it's effective. > The problem I have with this is that it does not allow for any disagreement or questioning. > > Why should we coddle liars and be nice to them when they are manifestly > trying to deceive every ignorant person they can? > I guess, in your eyes, this describes me. > > -- > Dave Oldridge+ > ICQ 1800667 Quote
Guest Ralph Posted May 10, 2007 Posted May 10, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1005071650430001@66-52-22-37.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <zjM0i.624$t7.112@bigfe9>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-0905071124440001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <1178712817.212134.22560@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, >> > Martin >> > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On May 9, 1:32 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> >> > Don, >> >> > It was actually a warning. >> >> >> >> Jason, >> >> And I'm warning you: one day you may come to realize that your >> >> religion is all complete bunk and you'll never get back the life you >> >> wasted believing in it. You only have one life, Jason, the here and >> >> now, and you don't want to waste it believing in a fairy tale. >> >> >> >> Martin >> > >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> > >> > Martin, >> > 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. >> > Over the past 10 years, I have read newspaper stories about young >> > people >> > that were arrested for violating various laws such as robbing people, >> > stores or banks. It's my guess that those young people are not >> > Christians >> > that care more about themselves than pleasing God. The jails and >> > prisons >> > are filled with people that did not have a concern for pleasing God. >> >> Yes they are, and most of these claim to be Christians! > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Christians in name only. They do not take their religion seriously if they > end up committing crimes that cause them to go to prison. On the other > hand, in some countries controlled by Muslims or Communists, Christians > are sent to prison because of their religion. They have lots of > underground (secret) churches. Most of these churches are in homes of > people. I read about the preacher in one of those churches that was > arrested and placed in prison. In that case, that man was an excellent > Christian that took his religion seriously. > jason Go read the No True Scotsman fallacy and then explain to us the difference between that and the No True Christian fallacy. Quote
Guest 655321 Posted May 10, 2007 Posted May 10, 2007 Jason wrote: > <snip> > >> 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? > > I don't know the reason. Perhaps they have different laws and no > mandantory sentencing laws in Europe. They may also have shorter sentences > for major crimes. Perhaps people in Europe are not placed in prison if > they are caught with lots of illegal drugs. I seem to recall reading that > some drugs that are illegal in America are legal in some European > countries. Guns are illegal for most people to own in Europe so that means > there are less murders--I hope so. The problem with gun laws is that > regular people are not able to defend their families when there homes are > taken over by criminals that have illegal guns. I heard about one man in > Europe that shot a bugler that broke into his home. Instead of arresting > the bugler, the cops arrested the home owner for owning an illegal gun. > That's just stupid. In most American towns, the bugler would have been > arrested. One of the problems we have in California and Texas are people > from Mexico that illegally come to America. Most of them are hard working > people but about 20 percent of the people in California prisons and Texas > prisons are not even American citizens. Some of them can not speak > English. The mexican prisons are very different than American prisons. > They brutalize people that are in prisons in Mexico. Guess where many of > those inmates go when they are released from Mexican prisons. Many of them > come to America. They get involved in major criminal behavior in America > and end up in state and federal prisons. They would prefer American > prisons to Mexican prisons. In many cases, the Mexican gov't will not take > them back after they are released from prison. Windy blather aside, what does this then say about your point about Christianity and the so-called "Ten Commandments" -- which, by the way, were supposedly created before the alleged stick-boy demigod was magicked into the womb of the alleged carpenter's wife? By the way, is it not a "sin" to impregnate a woman without getting her consent first? Or does your alleged creator get special immunity in a 'do as I say, not as I do' sort of exception? >>> 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. > > Drug laws are not mentioned in the 10 commandments probably because drug > use was not a problem in those days. So you say . But, given that people were documented as hallucinating gods in burning bushes and fairly normal natural phenomena -- earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, infestations -- it appears your view of history is skewed, partly by your own hallucinations of a similar nature. > I do recall that getting drunk from > wine was considered to be a sin--I believe the term was gluttony. If For someone of faith you are certainly prone to guessing. > getting drunk from wine is a sin than the implication would be that > getting high on drugs would also be a sin. That's my opinion and I doubt > that all Christians would agree with me. Your stick-boy demigod allegedly turned water into wine when they had run out at a party. Does that sound like an act sanctioned by the WCTU or MADD? -- 655321 Quote
Guest H. Wm. Esque Posted May 10, 2007 Posted May 10, 2007 "Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:0r6743d1cld47rd68mgfcetk0puso3rcm0@4ax.com... > On Thu, 10 May 2007 18:08:20 -0400, in alt.atheism , "H. Wm. Esque" > <HEsque@bellsouth.net> in <jJM0i.773$t7.122@bigfe9> wrote: > > > > >"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in > >message news:0kp643lj2fji6je3nnt1gdmiggod2i80hc@4ax.com... > >> 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. > >> > >Are you claiming that the SloT does not apply to open systems? > >> > >> >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. > >> > >What are you saying: entropy applies _only_ to closed systems? > >Is this actually what you are claiming? > > Not at all. What I am saying is that there is no valid thermodynamic > argument against evolution. Kim then said: > > "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." > > I assert that no scientists make this claim: this is Kim's strawman. > That some people make that error here is not relevant to the actual > science. > Ok, but this fallacy is all over these newsgroups and by people who don't know what they are talking about; and not just creationist. Yet they try to "correct" others. Ok, but I'm still uneasy about Kim's argument about energy from the sun (open system) needing conversion to be useful. He mentions photosynthesis. > >> > >> >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. > >> > >I don't know whether this is true or not. > > Have you seen another post other than the initial copy and paste? > Yes, I went back and found that he has posted an additional five (5) post on this thread alone a coupe where he attempted to explain his previous statements. After that everything just took a nosedive. > > [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" Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted May 10, 2007 Posted May 10, 2007 On Thu, 10 May 2007 18:53:57 -0400, in alt.atheism , "H. Wm. Esque" <HEsque@bellsouth.net> in <5oN0i.947$t7.60@bigfe9> wrote: [snip] >In reference to Kim, what lies did he express? I will admit I'm >no expert on Slot. I dug out my first College thermo textbook >entitled "Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics", authored >by Gorden J. Van Wilen and Richard E. Sonntag, copyright 1986. >I did, at one time understand most of this stuff, but it's confusing >now. >I guess, it's old age setting in. : ( You should see my initial response since the distortion and errors in Kim's copy/paste are numerous. The initial sentence is wrong when it says that thermo says that systems will get corrupt, the 2LoT says no such thing. The following sentence is flat out wrong, wrong to the point that anyone with the relevant scientific knowledge should realize it right away: "Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is an unscientific belief that utterly contradicts with this law." In the following sentence someone has deceptively put in the word "planned", something that is not part of the science: "A system's entropy increases as it moves from an ordered, organised, and planned state towards a more disordered, dispersed, and unplanned one. " The following, again, is so wrong as to be sad: "Evolutionary theory ignores this fundamental law of physics." They deceptively add the word planned in this sentence: "According to the theory of evolution, this supposed process-which yields a more planned, more ordered, more complex and more organised structure at each stage-was formed all by itself under natural conditions. " The following show, at best, an abysmal knowledge of thermodynamics: "Yet, under ordinary conditions, no complex organic molecule can ever form spontaneously but will rather disintegrate, in agreement with the second law. " To make it clear: since the context is thermodynamics complex organic molecule form spontaneously all the time. (Spontaneous has a specific meaning in thermodynamics.) The following is wrong since no biologist does any such thing: "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." This is similarly wrong: "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." What biologists and chemists say, which is absolutely correct, is that in open systems (or, alternatively, systems far from equilibrium) entropy can locally decrease. This is wrong, again so wrong that anyone with knowledge of thermo can see the problem: "The fact that a system has an energy inflow is not enough to make that system ordered." Sorry, but thermodynamically an input of high temperature energy will add order to the system. To put it in concrete terms: the hot Sun evaporates the ocean and causes storms. Sorry, but that is enough for me now. We can argue whether this is large amounts of ignorance rather than lies and whether deliberate ignorance like this is a lie, but the material is quite far from valid. [snip] >Ok, I'm rather new to this, subject. I don't know where he went wrong. >I did not see anyone actually rebut him. I have. >I know that the 2nd law is >absolute fact. Actually, it is not. It is well supported, but if evolution, an observed process violated the 2LoT (which it does not) then the 2LoT would be wrong. In science observation trumps theory. >But his arguments did make sense to me. It frustrated >me that his points (right or wrong) were not really addressed. Instead >he was called a liar, willfully ignorant, and other accusations against >him. I accept that life evolved. This make sense to me, but the post >by Aaron Kim and especially the treatment dirrected at him causees >me to ponder what is really going on here!. What is going on is lots of people who have gotten tired refuting the same errors over and over. If you want more go here: The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability "Creationists have long argued that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics and thus is impossible. The following FAQs address why that is not true." http://talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html CF001: Second Law of Thermodynamics "Claim CF001: The second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends toward disorder, making evolutionary development impossible." http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html Attributing False Attributes to Thermodynamics "Creationist arguments are often based on assuming that a scientific theory or law possesses an attribute that it does not, in fact, possess. The creationist thermodynamics argument is a typical example of how this technique is used to twist well established scientific principles into meaningless gibberish." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/creationism.html There is nothing of value in Kim's claims, nothing. -- 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" Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 10, 2007 Posted May 10, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <go57431ut1omedgtbkc799inqcftvjinhb@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein > <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 10 May 2007 14:46:44 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) in >> <Jason-1005071446440001@66-52-22-29.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: >> >>> In article <qtu643l398b2ba0fquuvpurl5go0gbnkds@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein >>> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>> It's my opinion that Christians that take their religion very seriously >>> are less likely to go to jail or prison than atheists or Christians that >>> do NOT take their religion seriously. >>> >> Can you tell, before you find out about any crimes, whether or not >> someone takes their religion seriously? Or do you do that only after >> the fact? > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > By their works, we will know them. In other words, it's usually easy to > determine whether a person that I know takes their religion seriously. For > example, if I saw a neighor mowing the grass of another neighbor that had > health problems, I would come to the opinion that he was taking his > religion seriously. What's religion got to do with it? I know an atheist who built a 150 ramp for a friend with a mobility impairment. On the other hand, if I found out that a fellow > Christian was arrested for beating his wife, it would be my opinion that > he did not take his religion seriously. What's religion got to do with it? People of all faiths do bad things. There is no correlation between religion and living a good life. In some cases, it is difficult to > tell. Of course, I know that there are some atheists that are kind and > wonderful people. Exactly the point. What's religion, or lack thereof, got to do with being good or bad? I was shocked when I found out that a college professor > that was a kind and wonderful person was an atheist. I should get you thinking a bit. I made the mistake of > assuming that he was a Christian. You arrogant SOB. I hope you learned enough to quit making such gratuitously stupid and potentially offensive assumptions. On the other hand, I've seen college > professors that were NOT kind and wonderful that were Christians. Maybe you should think about it. God can > see our hearts so he can easily separate the true Christians from the > Christians that are Christians in name only. So atheists, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists who live a good life are Christian? Come on man, do you know how arrogant and offensive that sounds? > Jason > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 10, 2007 Posted May 10, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <zjM0i.624$t7.112@bigfe9>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-0905071124440001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>> In article <1178712817.212134.22560@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On May 9, 1:32 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>> >>>>> Don, >>>>> It was actually a warning. >>>> Jason, >>>> And I'm warning you: one day you may come to realize that your >>>> religion is all complete bunk and you'll never get back the life you >>>> wasted believing in it. You only have one life, Jason, the here and >>>> now, and you don't want to waste it believing in a fairy tale. >>>> >>>> Martin >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> Martin, >>> 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. >>> Over the past 10 years, I have read newspaper stories about young people >>> that were arrested for violating various laws such as robbing people, >>> stores or banks. It's my guess that those young people are not Christians >>> that care more about themselves than pleasing God. The jails and prisons >>> are filled with people that did not have a concern for pleasing God. >> Yes they are, and most of these claim to be Christians! > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Christians in name only. They do not take their religion seriously if they > end up committing crimes that cause them to go to prison. OTOH they may discover the meaning of their religion in prison. Don't deny people their faith because they did something you don't like. Is what you are saying really Christian, or just some arrogant travesty of it? On the other > hand, in some countries controlled by Muslims or Communists, Christians > are sent to prison because of their religion. They have lots of > underground (secret) churches. Most of these churches are in homes of > people. I read about the preacher in one of those churches that was > arrested and placed in prison. In that case, that man was an excellent > Christian that took his religion seriously. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 10, 2007 Posted May 10, 2007 On Wed, 09 May 2007 22:19:41 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0905072219410001@66-52-22-2.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >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>: >> >> >In article <a4p4435faotd68qdr94mkqg2bml1dlt9tk@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:43:39 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com >> >> >> (Jason) in >> >> >> <Jason-0905071643390001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> [snip] >> >> >> >> >> >> >Don, >> >> >> >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? >> >> >> >> >> >> The vast majority of the population of CA is Christian. There are >> >> >> fewer atheists in prison than one would expect given their % of the >> >> >> population. >> >> >> >> >> >> And that "obey" part is cheating. First, most of the 10C are not laws. >> >> >> Second, if you want laws the Torah has hundreds. Third, if people >> >> >> obeyed whatever rules then we would not need prisons. >> >> > >> >> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> > >> >> >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. What do you mean by 'main'? Have you read the laws of the Old Testament? > In fact, back in the 1700's and 1800's --many or even most >laws were based on the Bible. No, that is not a fact. Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted May 10, 2007 Posted May 10, 2007 In alt.atheism On Thu, 10 May 2007 17:16:16 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >It's my opinion that atheists are more likely to commit Crimes than >Christians that take their religion seriously. Thus showing your hatred of atheists. 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" Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted May 10, 2007 Posted May 10, 2007 In alt.atheism On Thu, 10 May 2007 16:50:43 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <zjM0i.624$t7.112@bigfe9>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-0905071124440001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <1178712817.212134.22560@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On May 9, 1:32 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> >> > Don, >> >> > It was actually a warning. >> >> >> >> Jason, >> >> And I'm warning you: one day you may come to realize that your >> >> religion is all complete bunk and you'll never get back the life you >> >> wasted believing in it. You only have one life, Jason, the here and >> >> now, and you don't want to waste it believing in a fairy tale. >> >> >> >> Martin >> > >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> > >> > Martin, >> > 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. >> > Over the past 10 years, I have read newspaper stories about young people >> > that were arrested for violating various laws such as robbing people, >> > stores or banks. It's my guess that those young people are not Christians >> > that care more about themselves than pleasing God. The jails and prisons >> > are filled with people that did not have a concern for pleasing God. >> >> Yes they are, and most of these claim to be Christians! > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >Christians in name only. No True Scotsman. 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" Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 10, 2007 Posted May 10, 2007 In article <go57431ut1omedgtbkc799inqcftvjinhb@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Thu, 10 May 2007 14:46:44 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com > (Jason) in > <Jason-1005071446440001@66-52-22-29.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: > > >In article <qtu643l398b2ba0fquuvpurl5go0gbnkds@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein > ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > >> 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. > > > >It's my opinion that Christians that take their religion very seriously > >are less likely to go to jail or prison than atheists or Christians that > >do NOT take their religion seriously. > > > Can you tell, before you find out about any crimes, whether or not > someone takes their religion seriously? Or do you do that only after > the fact? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ By their works, we will know them. In other words, it's usually easy to determine whether a person that I know takes their religion seriously. For example, if I saw a neighor mowing the grass of another neighbor that had health problems, I would come to the opinion that he was taking his religion seriously. On the other hand, if I found out that a fellow Christian was arrested for beating his wife, it would be my opinion that he did not take his religion seriously. In some cases, it is difficult to tell. Of course, I know that there are some atheists that are kind and wonderful people. I was shocked when I found out that a college professor that was a kind and wonderful person was an atheist. I made the mistake of assuming that he was a Christian. On the other hand, I've seen college professors that were NOT kind and wonderful that were Christians. God can see our hearts so he can easily separate the true Christians from the Christians that are Christians in name only. Jason ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted May 10, 2007 Posted May 10, 2007 On Thu, 10 May 2007 16:43:44 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com (Jason) in <Jason-1005071643450001@66-52-22-37.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: >In article <go57431ut1omedgtbkc799inqcftvjinhb@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 10 May 2007 14:46:44 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) in >> <Jason-1005071446440001@66-52-22-29.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: >> >> >In article <qtu643l398b2ba0fquuvpurl5go0gbnkds@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> > >> >> 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. >> > >> >It's my opinion that Christians that take their religion very seriously >> >are less likely to go to jail or prison than atheists or Christians that >> >do NOT take their religion seriously. >> > >> Can you tell, before you find out about any crimes, whether or not >> someone takes their religion seriously? Or do you do that only after >> the fact? > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >By their works, we will know them. Then you are cheating. If someone does wrong you just say they are not a serious Christian. As a result serious Christians can do no wrong. The term is meaningless. > In other words, it's usually easy to >determine whether a person that I know takes their religion seriously. For >example, if I saw a neighor mowing the grass of another neighbor that had >health problems, I would come to the opinion that he was taking his >religion seriously. Even if that person were an atheist or something other than a Christian? I know of plenty examples of both of those who do for others. >On the other hand, if I found out that a fellow >Christian was arrested for beating his wife, it would be my opinion that >he did not take his religion seriously. There are Christians who disagree with you. I wonder who has the best support from the Bible: Christian Domestic Discipline Store : Consensual Christian Domestic Discipline "In today?s society where any physical discipline is severely frowned upon, it is important that even a Christian Domestic Discipline relationship be consensual; however, it is interesting to note that Biblically, a man?s right to chastise and discipline his wife is strongly implied. Just as a parent would never stop to ask permission to chastise his child, a husband should not have to obtain consent to discipline his wife; however, our legal system has put him in the position of having to do so. Just as our culture is turned upside down in so many other things, the traditional Christian marriage is no exception." http://shop.christiandomesticdiscipline.com/displayProductDocument.hg?productId=2 >In some cases, it is difficult to >tell. Of course, I know that there are some atheists that are kind and >wonderful people. I was shocked when I found out that a college professor >that was a kind and wonderful person was an atheist. I made the mistake of >assuming that he was a Christian. On the other hand, I've seen college >professors that were NOT kind and wonderful that were Christians. God can >see our hearts so he can easily separate the true Christians from the >Christians that are Christians in name only. Sounds like it does not help to know that someone is a Christian. -- 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" Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 10, 2007 Posted May 10, 2007 In article <zjM0i.624$t7.112@bigfe9>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0905071124440001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <1178712817.212134.22560@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On May 9, 1:32 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > >> > Don, > >> > It was actually a warning. > >> > >> Jason, > >> And I'm warning you: one day you may come to realize that your > >> religion is all complete bunk and you'll never get back the life you > >> wasted believing in it. You only have one life, Jason, the here and > >> now, and you don't want to waste it believing in a fairy tale. > >> > >> Martin > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Martin, > > 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. > > Over the past 10 years, I have read newspaper stories about young people > > that were arrested for violating various laws such as robbing people, > > stores or banks. It's my guess that those young people are not Christians > > that care more about themselves than pleasing God. The jails and prisons > > are filled with people that did not have a concern for pleasing God. > > Yes they are, and most of these claim to be Christians! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Christians in name only. They do not take their religion seriously if they end up committing crimes that cause them to go to prison. On the other hand, in some countries controlled by Muslims or Communists, Christians are sent to prison because of their religion. They have lots of underground (secret) churches. Most of these churches are in homes of people. I read about the preacher in one of those churches that was arrested and placed in prison. In that case, that man was an excellent Christian that took his religion seriously. jason ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 On Thu, 10 May 2007 19:10:37 -0400, in alt.atheism , "H. Wm. Esque" <HEsque@bellsouth.net> in <JDN0i.949$t7.491@bigfe9> wrote: > >"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in >message news:0r6743d1cld47rd68mgfcetk0puso3rcm0@4ax.com... >> On Thu, 10 May 2007 18:08:20 -0400, in alt.atheism , "H. Wm. Esque" >> <HEsque@bellsouth.net> in <jJM0i.773$t7.122@bigfe9> wrote: >> >> > >> >"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in >> >message news:0kp643lj2fji6je3nnt1gdmiggod2i80hc@4ax.com... >> >> On Thu, 10 May 2007 14:08:57 -0400, in alt.atheism , "H. Wm. Esque" >> >> <HEsque@bellsouth.net> in <YcJ0i.107$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. >> >> >> >Are you claiming that the SloT does not apply to open systems? >> >> >> >> >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. >> >> >> >What are you saying: entropy applies _only_ to closed systems? >> >Is this actually what you are claiming? >> >> Not at all. What I am saying is that there is no valid thermodynamic >> argument against evolution. Kim then said: >> >> "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." >> >> I assert that no scientists make this claim: this is Kim's strawman. >> That some people make that error here is not relevant to the actual >> science. >> >Ok, but this fallacy is all over these newsgroups and by >people who don't know what they are talking about; and >not just creationist. Yet they try to "correct" others. Some in the Usenet get this wrong. BFD, science is not done in the Usenet, it is done in the lab and the field and reported in the peer reviewed press. And no one in the peer reviewed press made that error. >Ok, but I'm still uneasy about Kim's argument about energy >from the sun (open system) needing conversion to be >useful. He mentions photosynthesis. Have you ever noticed hurricanes? What is the "conversion mechanism" needed to form those? >> >> >> >> >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. >> >> >> >I don't know whether this is true or not. >> >> Have you seen another post other than the initial copy and paste? >> >Yes, I went back and found that he has posted an additional >five (5) post on this thread alone a coupe where he attempted >to explain his previous statements. After that everything >just took a nosedive. I must have missed those. -- 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" Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.