Guest Jason Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 <snip> > > Martin, > > I disagree. Evolution teaches that Neanderthals were a step in the > > evolution of man. > > No, it doesn't say that it all. It had been assumed that they were > two separate species that co-existed. It was never stated that Cro- > Magnum men descended from Neanderthals. Neanderthals had been > considered a separate branch. Perhaps you're thinking of Homo > Erectus. According to that famous chart that is posted on the walls of almost every biology classroom in America, Neanderthals are a step in the evolution of man. Have you seen that chart? Perhaps it is no longer displayed like it was when I was in college. That chart begins with a creature that looks like a chimp. and ends with a modern man. I believe that Neanderthals were the step before Cro-Magnums. I believe the chart was very inaccurate. > > 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. > > Then you _agree_ with the current findings that suggest that > Neanderthals and Cro-Magnum man could interbreed. Yes, since I believe that Neanderthals and Cro-Magnums are two separate races, than I was not shocked or surprised when I found out that scientists had proved that they could mate and produce offspring. > > 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. > > Stop reading fiction and stick to reliable sources. > > Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 On May 11, 7:19 am, cactus <b...@nonespam.com> wrote: > 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? If Christians were defined as those people who only spoke the truth then the only real Christians would be atheists. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 On May 11, 8:26 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <reM0i.591$t7.205@bigfe9>, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > I Don't know how, I know that it did because it one time life didn't exist > > on earth and now it does. > > Brillant--you have strong faith that life evolved from non-life despite > having no proof or scientific evidence to back up your conclusion. There is the evidence that the Earth formed from supernova remnants. Was anything on Earth alive back then? No. Is there life on Earth now? Yes. Therefore abiogenesis occured. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > Yes, I believe that lots of atheists are like that college professor. Many > > of them make decisions--not based on Christian principles--but instead > > related to self interest. That would even involve robbing a store if they > > were hungry I've been hungry before, Jason, but I know stealing is wrong, not because your imaginary god says it is, but because of the Confusian ethic of reciprocity. "What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others." - Confucius (ca. 551 - 479 BC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 In article <1178865352.632596.192550@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 11, 2:52 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > 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. > > I see. Thus the law of your god does nothing to prevent you from > commiting crimes because you can just ask your god for forgiveness and > all will be forgiven. Thank you for proving what we suspected all > along, namely that Christians have an out that allows them to commit > crimes and not have to feel guilty about them. > > Martin ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Martin, You stated lots of things that I did not state. Should Christians commit sins? The answer is NO. Christians should try their best to avoid sinning. However, the question is what happens if we do commit a sin? Back in the Old Testament days, the Jews would cast their sins on a lamb or baby goat. The lamb or goat would be taken to the temple and when the lamb or goat was killed, the sin debt would have been paid. Many of the poor people could not afford to buy goats or lambs so they were allowed to substitute birds for lambs. Have you heard the terms sacrificial lamb and scapegoat? In other words, blood needed to be shed before the sin debt would have been paid. When John the Baptist first saw Jesus, he said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, which takes away the sins of the World." (John 1:29). When we sin, we ask for forgiveness. When we ask for forgiveness, the sin becomes one of the many sins that Jesus died for. He suffered for our sins so we do not have to suffer for our sins. Of course, non-Christians will have to suffer for their sins. That's one of the main reasons I wish that all people would accept Jesus as their savior and their redeemer from their sins. jason ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quote
Guest Steve O Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1105070207450001@66-52-22-38.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >When we ask for forgiveness, the sin becomes > one of the many sins that Jesus died for. He suffered for our sins so we > do not have to suffer for our sins. Of course, non-Christians will have to > suffer for their sins. That's one of the main reasons I wish that all > people would accept Jesus as their savior and their redeemer from their > sins. > jason > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Jason, we're not going to suffer for any sin- unless, of course, you get caught. -- Steve O a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) B.A.A.W.A. Convicted by Earthquack "The only problem with Baptists is that they don't hold them underwater long enough" Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 In article <1178868338.111007.313200@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 11, 5:04 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > 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. > > Jason, have you ever watched old Westerns? I realize that they were > fictional but they indicated what life was like back in the 1800's and > early 1900's. They usually ended with the villain getting shot. I > never saw anybody taken to prison. > > Martin ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Martin, Good point. However, there were some prisons back in those days. I seem to recall a story about an Indian chief that was placed in a prison but I don't remember the name of the prison. I believe that Alcatraz (spelling?) is one of the oldest prisons in America but am not sure. That prison was closed about 20 years ago and is now a tourist attraction. I visited that famous prison. Jason ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 On May 11, 4:03 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1178863261.311307.168...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On May 11, 2:33 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > The > > > percentage of people in prisons is now higher than it has ever been in > > > American history. > > > Then I suggest you fundies stop commiting crimes and thereby stop > > being a burden on society. You should be respectable, law abiding > > citizens like us atheists. > If you are ever in a life boat, please don't throw an elderly man > overboard so that you will be able to have more water for yourself. Non sequitor. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 On May 11, 4:15 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > <snip> > > > > Martin, > > > I disagree. Evolution teaches that Neanderthals were a step in the > > > evolution of man. > > > No, it doesn't say that it all. It had been assumed that they were > > two separate species that co-existed. It was never stated that Cro- > > Magnum men descended from Neanderthals. Neanderthals had been > > considered a separate branch. Perhaps you're thinking of Homo > > Erectus. > > According to that famous chart that is posted on the walls of almost every > biology classroom in America, Neanderthals are a step in the evolution of > man. Have you seen that chart? Perhaps it is no longer displayed like it > was when I was in college. That chart begins with a creature that looks > like a chimp. and ends with a modern man. I believe that Neanderthals were > the step before Cro-Magnums. I believe the chart was very inaccurate. Such charts are a bit misleading. Modern man and Neanderthals are 99.5% identical genetically, although expert geneticists claim that this is not enough for us to be the same species. (Humans and chimpanzees are 98.4% identical.) Based on the results so far, scientists estimate that we shared a common ancestor from 700,000 years ago (a Homo Erectus). Neanderthals first appeared 350,000-130,000 years ago and became extinct only 24,000 years ago (during the ice age). Homo sapiens appeared 200 000 years ago and began to outnumber neanderthals 45,000 years ago. Humans Cro Magnon man is the name given for homo sapiens during the Paleolithic Period (40,000-10,000 years ago). Cro-Magnon man had a smaller brain than modern humans whereas neanderthals actually had bigger brains. Cro Magnon man may have been smarter than neanderthals, however, because Cro Magnon man knew how to do "sculpture, engraving, painting, body ornamentation, music and the painstaking decoration of utilitarian objects". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neandertal_interaction_with_Cro-Magnons , http://www.answers.com/topic/cro-magnon , http://www.answers.com/topic/neandertal and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human > > > 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. > > > Then you _agree_ with the current findings that suggest that > > Neanderthals and Cro-Magnum man could interbreed. > > Yes, since I believe that Neanderthals and Cro-Magnums are two separate > races, than I was not shocked or surprised when I found out that > scientists had proved that they could mate and produce offspring. I'm not either, although I am swayed by those who point out that such offspring may have been sterile. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 On May 11, 5:07 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1178865352.632596.192...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On May 11, 2:52 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > 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. > > > I see. Thus the law of your god does nothing to prevent you from > > commiting crimes because you can just ask your god for forgiveness and > > all will be forgiven. Thank you for proving what we suspected all > > along, namely that Christians have an out that allows them to commit > > crimes and not have to feel guilty about them. > > You stated lots of things that I did not state. Should Christians commit > sins? The answer is NO. Christians should try their best to avoid sinning. > However, the question is what happens if we do commit a sin? Back in the > Old Testament days, the Jews would cast their sins on a lamb or baby goat. > The lamb or goat would be taken to the temple and when the lamb or goat > was killed, the sin debt would have been paid. Many of the poor people > could not afford to buy goats or lambs so they were allowed to substitute > birds for lambs. Have you heard the terms sacrificial lamb and scapegoat? > In other words, blood needed to be shed before the sin debt would have > been paid. When John the Baptist first saw Jesus, he said, "Behold, the > Lamb of God, which takes away the sins of the World." (John 1:29). When we > sin, we ask for forgiveness. When we ask for forgiveness, the sin becomes > one of the many sins that Jesus died for. He suffered for our sins so we > do not have to suffer for our sins. Of course, non-Christians will have to > suffer for their sins. That's one of the main reasons I wish that all > people would accept Jesus as their savior and their redeemer from their > sins. So Christianity is just a recasting of Old Testament superstition. How does this contradict what I said? Whether it's by sacraficing a lamb or praying to Jesus, theists have been able to have their sins forgiven. Atheists have no such recourse and have to live with whatever they have done for the rest of their lives. That is why we tend to be more moral. Martin Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 Matt Silberstein wrote: > 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. The problem usually arises when it's a third-party doing the defining when it comes to belief issues (and we're basically agreeing here.) I.e. if I said "I am an xian" or "I am a buddhist" and you said "no, you're not because of X" you're PROBABLY committing the Scotsman fallacy, true. But there can be cases where I say "I am an xian because I believe that Buddha was the one and only correct one and what he said about there not being any gods was true, etc." then I am definitely NOT an xian and you'd be totally correct in saying I'm not (because I don't even claim to believe anything that a 'true xian' would and, in fact, I claim to believe the total opposite.) So it depends on two things: 1: does the person claim to believe X? 2: is X basically consistent with what is generally taken to be the beliefs of religion Y? If those two are answered "yes" then no-one can really say the person is not a member of Y, even if they don't really act the way we'd think a member of Y should act and there's where you and I do agree here. But if #2 is answered "no" then the person is NOT a member of religion Y, no matter what they claim. We can't tell what a person really believes but we CAN see if the claimed belief is consistent with the claimed religion. 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? I fully agree with you here. I was simply saying that I agree with him to the extent that if someone claimed "Jesus never even lived. I am an xian" then they are NOT a 'true xian' because they don't believe in one of the base requirements that make up a 'true xian' and belief that Jesus lived and was a god or the son of a god IS a core requirement (but "being law abiding" is not and that would fall into the 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. >>> Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 02:07:44 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <1178865352.632596.192550@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 11, 2:52 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > 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. >> >> I see. Thus the law of your god does nothing to prevent you from >> commiting crimes because you can just ask your god for forgiveness and >> all will be forgiven. Thank you for proving what we suspected all >> along, namely that Christians have an out that allows them to commit >> crimes and not have to feel guilty about them. >> >> Martin > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >Martin, >You stated lots of things that I did not state. Should Christians commit >sins? The answer is NO. Christians should try their best to avoid sinning. >However, the question is what happens if we do commit a sin? Back in the >Old Testament days, the Jews would cast their sins on a lamb or baby goat. >The lamb or goat would be taken to the temple and when the lamb or goat >was killed, the sin debt would have been paid. Many of the poor people >could not afford to buy goats or lambs so they were allowed to substitute >birds for lambs. Have you heard the terms sacrificial lamb and scapegoat? Yes. And it needed to be a REAL lamb, not a human that is a metaphor for a lamb. Humans are unclean--unfit for sacrifice. 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 cactus Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 Jason wrote: > <snip> > > >>> Hello, >>> Thanks--you made some good points. I do recall that most of the people >>> that were the "least bit different" moved away from that small town after >>> they graduated from high school. I left that small town due to the lack of >>> job opportunities. >>> There are lots of issues related to crime rates. I had forgotten about the >>> hangings that were done in the 1700's and 1800's--esp. in the old west. >>> That brings to mind one of Clint Eastwood's movies that I believe was >>> called, "Hangem High" or something like that. They hung horse theives and >>> cow thieves without trials. They also placed people in stocks for >>> punishment. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> It's nice actually to have a conversation. A breath of fresh air. >> >> Does any of this affect your views? Perhaps some nuances/refinements? >> There can be a lot of good in growing up in a small town - community can >> be a good thing. >> >> But I have always lived in cities, and have found that small communities >> form within them - the floor of a dorm, fellow students in a program, >> families of the children in your child's class etc. Those can be as >> positive or as dysfunctional as any community. >> >> But I think that individuals are driven to crime by a combination of >> personality and circumstance - religion is simply an excuse for doing or >> not doing. I also believe that conversion experiences in prison can be >> genuine: prisoners rediscover the faith that they were raised in, and >> embrace it. It's not that they didn't have it before, it was like a >> muscle that they had to learn to use. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > You made some good points. Yes, I agree that there are lots of different > reasons for getting involved in criminal behavior. A person's religion and > "upbringing" does play a role. I don't think that religion plays a role in criminal behavior, except for people like Jim Bakker and Kent Hovind, who used their religion for theft. No doubt others have used religion as part of their criminal actions as well. For example, people raised in stable home > environments are less likely to get involved in criminal behavior than > people raised in disfuctional family situations. Agreed, but religion has nothing to do with the functionality of a family. I agree that prisons are > a wonderful place to discover Christianity. Perhaps we should send all unbelievers to prison? > Jason > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 On 10 May 2007 23:57:59 -0700, in alt.atheism , Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> in <1178866679.831844.82990@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote: >On May 11, 2:08 am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> "Martin" <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1178806728.032464.171000@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...> On May 10, 8:44 am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >> > > Quite frankly, I would like to see some one actually rebut his positions >> > > rather than attacking him personally. >> >> > Aaron spoke of the "Myth of the Open System" but there is no such >> > myth: the Earth is an open system and it is getting energy from the >> > sun which fuels the evolution process. Happy now? Many people said >> > this already, by the way. >> >> Then these many people made a "knee-jerk" conclusion based >> upon this statement "Myth of the open system" and read nothing >> that followed. >> >> The "myth" Kim was in reference to was the myth perpetuated >> by some evolutionist that "open systems are beyond the scope >> of this law (2nd law of thermodynamics)". >> >> On this, Kim is correct. The SLot applies to open systems >> and closed systems alike. So, his argument is misscharacterized >> by about 100%. > >Actually, he's wrong. The second law of thermodynamics applies to >closed systems. The 2LoT also applies to open systems. It is formulated differently, though, and does not forbid local decrease in entropy. [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 Mike Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. And isn't that what I ALREADY said? 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. So how does all this support your position that the increase in atheism and the increase in the prison population have ANYTHING to do with each other? Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. 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. Do your OWN homework and PROVE that it's higher instead of simply coming up with your wild-assed guesses and assertions. The population of state prison inmates almost doubled between 1990 > and 2003 according to the statistics on page 382 of the 2005 Time Almanac. DUE TO INCREASED USE OF MANDATORY SENTENCING LAWS! (How often does this need to be repeated?) The crime rate was DOWN during that same period (again, how often does this need to be repeated?) Quote
Guest H. Wm. Esque Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 "Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:ru874398mppthnb45lrnpq7hj3feddtpip@4ax.com... > 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." > Obviously, here he was expressing a personal opinion, based upon what he read. > > 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. " > Using the word "Planned" is tantamount to acknowledging a creator. > > The following, again, is so wrong as to be sad: > "Evolutionary theory ignores this fundamental law of physics." > I think one explanation for why he does this is that he confuses the origin of life from inanimate matter with change. > > 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. " > Certain words are anathema to scientific naturalism such as: planned, purpose, design and direction. > > 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.) > "Under ordinary conditions" is rather ambiguous. Spontaneous? I do not recall a specific meaning as it relates to thermo. But one defination is that in a closed system entropy spontaneously increases over time towards total equalibrium. > > 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." > Ok, I understand this. > > 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." > So far, this is the only point I'm unsure about and it's a point Kim made. Complex living beings can be generated from inabinate matter. As far as I know this has not been demonstrated scientifically. Amino acids and other molecules can form spontaneously under certain conditions, but this is not organisms which can undergo metabolization and reproduction. A template (rna/dna) is needed in order for this to occur. > > 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. > I agree, but a storm is hardly a highly complex edifice on the orders of magnitude of even the simplest single cell organism. > > 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. > True _unless_ there is actually an incompatibility with Slot then all bets are off. > > >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 directed at him causes > >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 Mike Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <go57431ut1omedgtbkc799inqcftvjinhb@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein > <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> 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. I.e. there's good people who are atheists and there are bad people who are religious. Go figure. 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 H. Wm. Esque Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 "Martin Phipps" <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1178866679.831844.82990@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On May 11, 2:08 am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > "Martin" <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > news:1178806728.032464.171000@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...> On May 10, 8:44 am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > Quite frankly, I would like to see some one actually rebut his positions > > > > rather than attacking him personally. > > > > > Aaron spoke of the "Myth of the Open System" but there is no such > > > myth: the Earth is an open system and it is getting energy from the > > > sun which fuels the evolution process. Happy now? Many people said > > > this already, by the way. > > > > Then these many people made a "knee-jerk" conclusion based > > upon this statement "Myth of the open system" and read nothing > > that followed. > > > > The "myth" Kim was in reference to was the myth perpetuated > > by some evolutionist that "open systems are beyond the scope > > of this law (2nd law of thermodynamics)". > > > > On this, Kim is correct. The SLot applies to open systems > > and closed systems alike. So, his argument is misscharacterized > > by about 100%. > > Actually, he's wrong. The second law of thermodynamics applies to > closed systems. There's nothing preventing open systems from getting > energy from outside (by definition) and using it so long as less than > 100% of the energy coming in is used. The percentage of energy put to > good use is called the efficiency of the system. > I'm not sure of what you are saying here. It seems that you are denying that Slot applies to "open systems" on one hand, but then describing the earth as an "open systems" on the other. If so we are saying the same thing. The earth is an open system receiving energy from the sun. > > > 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". > > The point is that while he admitted that the Earth got energy from the > sun, he denied that this meant that the entropy of the Earth could > decrease. This is 100% wrong. > Basically it's a trade off - an exchange. Where a decrease in entropy occurs in one area a increase occurs in the surroundings. > > > 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. > > I see no honesty in your defense of his deliberate dishonesty. > I do not see him as deliberately dishonest. Mistaken, but not dishonest. > > > > Oh 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. > > The irony is that I was refering to your own post. > I do snip from time to time, but often I just ignore whatever preceeds the last input. > > Martin > Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message snip > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 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. Hmmm, well Jimmy Swaggart appears to take his religion VERY seriously, yet he got caught soliciting the services of a prostitute - and had apparently inquired about screwing the prostitute's daughter. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in snip > It's my opinion that atheists are more likely to commit Crimes than > Christians that take their religion seriously. How nice for you. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in snip > I know the answer--God created all life forms on this earth. Prove it. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in snip .. I agree that prisons are > a wonderful place to discover Christianity. > Jason And buggery. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrotesnip > Martin, > If you are ever in a life boat, please don't throw an elderly man > overboard so that you will be able to have more water for yourself. WTF? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest ZenIsWhen Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1005072137200001@66-52-22-112.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <70b743l9mj86hncc0mpstnd0h47907uj9v@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> 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. You draw two conclusions (one completely imagined) from one quote. WHERE does it say "gawd" wants people to get married? 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. Other rules and laws (if you assume the bible to mean ANYTHING) come from Jewish tradition - not gawd! >> >> What do you mean by 'main'? Have you read the laws of the Old Testament? > > Yes--I have read the entire Bible. Those chapters related to those > thousands of laws were difficult to read. I learned that most of those > laws were related to their situation and are not related to life in > America. For example, lots of the laws were related to livestock and > temple worship. >> >> > 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. > > I disagree. Ask any college professor that teaches courses related to the > history of America. If you make the claim, YOU have to supply the evidence. "Ask any college professor" is only an indication of your ignorance and LACK of evidence! BTW .. MANY, MANY laws are the result of social interactions that were being followed for a LONG time before someone created YOUR religion. That the bible ADDED them means the bible did NOT create them! 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.