Guest Mike Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f22lad$bsi$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <1178869597.855167.31140@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On May 11, 5:36 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Really? I don't see how my behavior changed at all when I realized > that the >>>>> god of the Hebrew bible didn't exist. >>>> I know that my behaviour has improved since I realized that Moslems >>>> are no more evil than Christians. I'd hate to think what the average >>>> Christian would do to the average Moslem if he thought he could get >>>> away with it (or vice versa). >>>> >>>> Jason should take a look at this study done by theists like him and >>>> see what results they came up with. >>>> >>>> http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html >>>> >>>> "A few hundred years ago rates of homicide were astronomical in >>>> Christian Europe and the American colonies (Beeghley; R. Lane). In all >>>> secular developed democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen >>>> homicide rates drop to historical lows (Figure 2). The especially low >>>> rates in the more Catholic European states are statistical noise due >>>> to yearly fluctuations incidental to this sample, and are not >>>> consistently present in other similar tabulations (Barcley and >>>> Tavares). Despite a significant decline from a recent peak in the >>>> 1980s (Rosenfeld), the U.S. is the only prosperous democracy that >>>> retains high homicide rates, making it a strong outlier in this regard >>>> (Beeghley; Doyle, 2000). Similarly, theistic Portugal also has rates >>>> of homicides well above the secular developed democracy norm. Mass >>>> student murders in schools are rare, and have subsided somewhat since >>>> the 1990s, but the U.S. has experienced many more (National School >>>> Safety Center) than all the secular developed democracies combined. >>>> Other prosperous democracies do not significantly exceed the U.S. in >>>> rates of nonviolent and in non-lethal violent crime (Beeghley; >>>> Farrington and Langan; Neapoletan), and are often lower in this >>>> regard. The United States exhibits typical rates of youth suicide >>>> (WHO), which show little if any correlation with theistic factors in >>>> the prosperous democracies (Figure 3). The positive correlation >>>> between pro-theistic factors and juvenile mortality is remarkable, >>>> especially regarding absolute belief, and even prayer (Figure 4). Life >>>> spans tend to decrease as rates of religiosity rise (Figure 5), >>>> especially as a function of absolute belief. Denmark is the only >>>> exception. Unlike questionable small-scale epidemiological studies by >>>> Harris et al. and Koenig and Larson, higher rates of religious >>>> affiliation, attendance, and prayer do not result in lower juvenile- >>>> adult mortality rates on a cross-national basis.<6> >>>> >>>> "Although the late twentieth century STD epidemic has been curtailed >>>> in all prosperous democracies (Aral and Holmes; Panchaud et al.), >>>> rates of adolescent gonorrhea infection remain six to three hundred >>>> times higher in the U.S. than in less theistic, pro-evolution secular >>>> developed democracies. (Figure 6). At all ages levels are higher in >>>> the U.S., albeit by less dramatic amounts. The U.S. also suffers from >>>> uniquely high adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, which are >>>> starting to rise again as the microbe's resistance increases (Figure >>>> 7). The two main curable STDs have been nearly eliminated in strongly >>>> secular Scandinavia. Increasing adolescent abortion rates show >>>> positive correlation with increasing belief and worship of a creator, >>>> and negative correlation with increasing non-theism and acceptance of >>>> evolution; again rates are uniquely high in the U.S. (Figure 8). >>>> Claims that secular cultures aggravate abortion rates (John Paul II) >>>> are therefore contradicted by the quantitative data. Early adolescent >>>> pregnancy and birth have dropped in the developed democracies (Abma et >>>> al.; Singh and Darroch), but rates are two to dozens of times higher >>>> in the U.S. where the decline has been more modest (Figure 9). Broad >>>> correlations between decreasing theism and increasing pregnancy and >>>> birth are present, with Austria and especially Ireland being partial >>>> exceptions. Darroch et al. found that age of first intercourse, number >>>> of sexual partners and similar issues among teens do not exhibit wide >>>> disparity or a consistent pattern among the prosperous democracies >>>> they sampled, including the U.S. A detailed comparison of sexual >>>> practices in France and the U.S. observed little difference except >>>> that the French tend - contrary to common impression - to be somewhat >>>> more conservative (Gagnon et al.)." >>>> >>>> JRS stands for Journal of Religion and Society >>>> >>>> Martin >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> Martin, >>> Thanks--here are some statistics for you to consider >>> >>> Total number of inmates in Federal prisons, State prisons and all jails in >>> 1990 was 1,148,702 >>> >>> Total number of inmates in Federal prisons, State prisons and all jails in >>> 2003 was 2,078,570 >>> >>> Homicide rate (per 100,000) from 1950 to 2002: >>> In 1950--that figure was 4.4 >>> In 2002--that figure was 5.6 >>> source: 2005 Time Almanac >>> >>> These statistics proved to me that the crime rates are going up. >>> Jason >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> Pick the same friggin' time-frames, idiot. >> >> In EVERY category crime TOTALS (not just per-capita rates but the actual >> TOTALS) DROPPED from 1990 to 2003 (the time frame during which you cite >> that the prison population rose.) >> >> Year Population Index Violent Property Murder Rape Robbery >> assault Burglary Larceny Car-Theft >> 1990 248,709,873 14,475,600 1,820,130 12,655,500 23,440 102,560 >> 639,270 1,054,860 3,073,900 7,945,700 1,635,900 >> 1991 252,177,000 14,872,900 1,911,770 12,961,100 24,700 106,590 >> 687,730 1,092,740 3,157,200 8,142,200 1,661,700 >> 1992 255,082,000 14,438,200 1,932,270 12,505,900 23,760 109,060 >> 672,480 1,126,970 2,979,900 7,915,200 1,610,800 >> 1993 257,908,000 14,144,800 1,926,020 12,218,800 24,530 106,010 >> 659,870 1,135,610 2,834,800 7,820,900 1,563,100 >> 1994 260,341,000 13,989,500 1,857,670 12,131,900 23,330 102,220 >> 618,950 1,113,180 2,712,800 7,879,800 1,539,300 >> 1995 262,755,000 13,862,700 1,798,790 12,063,900 21,610 97,470 >> 580,510 1,099,210 2,593,800 7,997,700 1,472,400 >> 1996 265,228,572 13,493,863 1,688,540 11,805,300 19,650 96,250 >> 535,590 1,037,050 2,506,400 7,904,700 1,394,200 >> 1997 267,637,000 13,194,571 1,634,770 11,558,175 18,208 96,153 >> 498,534 1,023,201 2,460,526 7,743,760 1,354,189 >> 1998 270,296,000 12,475,634 1,531,044 10,944,590 16,914 93,103 >> 446,625 974,402 2,329,950 7,373,886 1,240,754 >> 1999 272,690,813 11,634,378 1,426,044 10,208,334 15,522 89,411 >> 409,371 911,740 2,100,739 6,955,520 1,152,075 >> 2000 281,421,906 11,608,072 1,425,486 10,182,586 15,586 90,178 >> 408,016 911,706 2,050,992 6,971,590 1,160,002 >> 2001 285,317,559 11,876,669 1,439,480 10,437,480 16,037 90,863 >> 423,5557 909,023 2,116,531 7,092,267 1,228,391 >> 2002 287,973,924 11,878,954 1,423,677 10,455,277 16,229 95,235 >> 420,806 891,407 2,151,252 7,057,370 1,246,646 >> 2003 290,690,788 11,826,538 1,383,676 10,442,862 16,528 93,883 >> 414,235 859,030 2,154,834 7,026,802 1,261,226 >> 2004 293,656,842 11,679,474 1,360,088 10,319,386 16,148 95,089 >> 401,470 847,381 2,144,446 6,937,089 1,237,851 >> 2005 296,410,404 11,556,854 1,390,695 10,166,159 16,692 93,934 >> 417,122 862,947 2,154,126 6,776,807 1,235,226 > > Get those same statistics for the year 1860 and/or 1960 and/or 1970. Don't need to. I've already blown your ass out of the water. Quote
Guest Budikka666 Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 On May 11, 6:39 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Please re-read your own words very carefully. My theory is that God > created life. Facts support my theory. What a LIAR you are! You couldn't come up with even one supported fact for your case when I challenged you on it. You ran away. So why are you still telling this lie? Post your supported "facts" right here or quit LYING. Budikka Quote
Guest 655321 Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f22lad$bsi$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <1178869597.855167.31140@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On May 11, 5:36 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Really? I don't see how my behavior changed at all when I realized > that the >>>>> god of the Hebrew bible didn't exist. >>>> I know that my behaviour has improved since I realized that Moslems >>>> are no more evil than Christians. I'd hate to think what the average >>>> Christian would do to the average Moslem if he thought he could get >>>> away with it (or vice versa). >>>> >>>> Jason should take a look at this study done by theists like him and >>>> see what results they came up with. >>>> >>>> http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html >>>> >>>> "A few hundred years ago rates of homicide were astronomical in >>>> Christian Europe and the American colonies (Beeghley; R. Lane). In all >>>> secular developed democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen >>>> homicide rates drop to historical lows (Figure 2). The especially low >>>> rates in the more Catholic European states are statistical noise due >>>> to yearly fluctuations incidental to this sample, and are not >>>> consistently present in other similar tabulations (Barcley and >>>> Tavares). Despite a significant decline from a recent peak in the >>>> 1980s (Rosenfeld), the U.S. is the only prosperous democracy that >>>> retains high homicide rates, making it a strong outlier in this regard >>>> (Beeghley; Doyle, 2000). Similarly, theistic Portugal also has rates >>>> of homicides well above the secular developed democracy norm. Mass >>>> student murders in schools are rare, and have subsided somewhat since >>>> the 1990s, but the U.S. has experienced many more (National School >>>> Safety Center) than all the secular developed democracies combined. >>>> Other prosperous democracies do not significantly exceed the U.S. in >>>> rates of nonviolent and in non-lethal violent crime (Beeghley; >>>> Farrington and Langan; Neapoletan), and are often lower in this >>>> regard. The United States exhibits typical rates of youth suicide >>>> (WHO), which show little if any correlation with theistic factors in >>>> the prosperous democracies (Figure 3). The positive correlation >>>> between pro-theistic factors and juvenile mortality is remarkable, >>>> especially regarding absolute belief, and even prayer (Figure 4). Life >>>> spans tend to decrease as rates of religiosity rise (Figure 5), >>>> especially as a function of absolute belief. Denmark is the only >>>> exception. Unlike questionable small-scale epidemiological studies by >>>> Harris et al. and Koenig and Larson, higher rates of religious >>>> affiliation, attendance, and prayer do not result in lower juvenile- >>>> adult mortality rates on a cross-national basis.<6> >>>> >>>> "Although the late twentieth century STD epidemic has been curtailed >>>> in all prosperous democracies (Aral and Holmes; Panchaud et al.), >>>> rates of adolescent gonorrhea infection remain six to three hundred >>>> times higher in the U.S. than in less theistic, pro-evolution secular >>>> developed democracies. (Figure 6). At all ages levels are higher in >>>> the U.S., albeit by less dramatic amounts. The U.S. also suffers from >>>> uniquely high adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, which are >>>> starting to rise again as the microbe's resistance increases (Figure >>>> 7). The two main curable STDs have been nearly eliminated in strongly >>>> secular Scandinavia. Increasing adolescent abortion rates show >>>> positive correlation with increasing belief and worship of a creator, >>>> and negative correlation with increasing non-theism and acceptance of >>>> evolution; again rates are uniquely high in the U.S. (Figure 8). >>>> Claims that secular cultures aggravate abortion rates (John Paul II) >>>> are therefore contradicted by the quantitative data. Early adolescent >>>> pregnancy and birth have dropped in the developed democracies (Abma et >>>> al.; Singh and Darroch), but rates are two to dozens of times higher >>>> in the U.S. where the decline has been more modest (Figure 9). Broad >>>> correlations between decreasing theism and increasing pregnancy and >>>> birth are present, with Austria and especially Ireland being partial >>>> exceptions. Darroch et al. found that age of first intercourse, number >>>> of sexual partners and similar issues among teens do not exhibit wide >>>> disparity or a consistent pattern among the prosperous democracies >>>> they sampled, including the U.S. A detailed comparison of sexual >>>> practices in France and the U.S. observed little difference except >>>> that the French tend - contrary to common impression - to be somewhat >>>> more conservative (Gagnon et al.)." >>>> >>>> JRS stands for Journal of Religion and Society >>>> >>>> Martin >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> Martin, >>> Thanks--here are some statistics for you to consider >>> >>> Total number of inmates in Federal prisons, State prisons and all jails in >>> 1990 was 1,148,702 >>> >>> Total number of inmates in Federal prisons, State prisons and all jails in >>> 2003 was 2,078,570 >>> >>> Homicide rate (per 100,000) from 1950 to 2002: >>> In 1950--that figure was 4.4 >>> In 2002--that figure was 5.6 >>> source: 2005 Time Almanac >>> >>> These statistics proved to me that the crime rates are going up. Define "prove." >> Pick the same friggin' time-frames, idiot. >> >> In EVERY category crime TOTALS (not just per-capita rates but the actual >> TOTALS) DROPPED from 1990 to 2003 (the time frame during which you cite >> that the prison population rose.) >> >> Year Population Index Violent Property Murder Rape Robbery >> assault Burglary Larceny Car-Theft >> 1990 248,709,873 14,475,600 1,820,130 12,655,500 23,440 102,560 >> 639,270 1,054,860 3,073,900 7,945,700 1,635,900 >> 1991 252,177,000 14,872,900 1,911,770 12,961,100 24,700 106,590 >> 687,730 1,092,740 3,157,200 8,142,200 1,661,700 >> 1992 255,082,000 14,438,200 1,932,270 12,505,900 23,760 109,060 >> 672,480 1,126,970 2,979,900 7,915,200 1,610,800 >> 1993 257,908,000 14,144,800 1,926,020 12,218,800 24,530 106,010 >> 659,870 1,135,610 2,834,800 7,820,900 1,563,100 >> 1994 260,341,000 13,989,500 1,857,670 12,131,900 23,330 102,220 >> 618,950 1,113,180 2,712,800 7,879,800 1,539,300 >> 1995 262,755,000 13,862,700 1,798,790 12,063,900 21,610 97,470 >> 580,510 1,099,210 2,593,800 7,997,700 1,472,400 >> 1996 265,228,572 13,493,863 1,688,540 11,805,300 19,650 96,250 >> 535,590 1,037,050 2,506,400 7,904,700 1,394,200 >> 1997 267,637,000 13,194,571 1,634,770 11,558,175 18,208 96,153 >> 498,534 1,023,201 2,460,526 7,743,760 1,354,189 >> 1998 270,296,000 12,475,634 1,531,044 10,944,590 16,914 93,103 >> 446,625 974,402 2,329,950 7,373,886 1,240,754 >> 1999 272,690,813 11,634,378 1,426,044 10,208,334 15,522 89,411 >> 409,371 911,740 2,100,739 6,955,520 1,152,075 >> 2000 281,421,906 11,608,072 1,425,486 10,182,586 15,586 90,178 >> 408,016 911,706 2,050,992 6,971,590 1,160,002 >> 2001 285,317,559 11,876,669 1,439,480 10,437,480 16,037 90,863 >> 423,5557 909,023 2,116,531 7,092,267 1,228,391 >> 2002 287,973,924 11,878,954 1,423,677 10,455,277 16,229 95,235 >> 420,806 891,407 2,151,252 7,057,370 1,246,646 >> 2003 290,690,788 11,826,538 1,383,676 10,442,862 16,528 93,883 >> 414,235 859,030 2,154,834 7,026,802 1,261,226 >> 2004 293,656,842 11,679,474 1,360,088 10,319,386 16,148 95,089 >> 401,470 847,381 2,144,446 6,937,089 1,237,851 >> 2005 296,410,404 11,556,854 1,390,695 10,166,159 16,692 93,934 >> 417,122 862,947 2,154,126 6,776,807 1,235,226 > > Get those same statistics for the year 1860 and/or 1960 and/or 1970. Here's a question: Do you consider kidnapping and enslaving Africans a criminal act, even though it wasn't against the law until late into the 19th century? How about the institutionalization of race-based deprivation of basic human rights that persisted well into the 20th? Since no one went to jail for breaking contracts with and stealing from the native American tribes, do you see this as helping your numbers? Maybe you don't care because you are not a member of the affected groups, but it doesn't really help your argument to claim that this country's past was allegedly morally superior because your Jesus cult had a stronger foothold. In fact, that these crimes against humanity were not considered punishable by imprisonment speaks to the opposite. WAKE UP. You've been schooled on the facts about crime before. Mike's chart above is at least the second time. You can't keep asking the same question until you get an answer you like. The facts just don't support your thesis. So just lay claim to your ignorance about crime and move on. -- 655321 Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 On Fri, 11 May 2007 13:01:29 -0400, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: - Refer: <5ajlqvF2o7li2U1@mid.individual.net> > >"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. He's one up on Jason's highly moral Catholic priests! At least Swaggart was not raping little boys. Jason is a freaking brainwashed liar. -- Quote
Guest 655321 Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 Jason wrote: > It's more complicated. God knew Adam and Eve would eventually sin So when he told them not to, he was just being facetious. > so he > had a plan prepared. His plan was to send Jesus but it took several > thousand years for him to implement the plan. O, brother. What comic book did you read this from? I guess you just have to find a way to rationalize away the quirks of one of the wackiest stories ever told. > During those years, he > prepared the hearts and minds of the people. ....because he was incapable of doing so instantaneously, is that right? Didn't he, in Exodus, harden the heart of the Pharaoh each time he was about to do as Moses asked? Was it just a problem of scale? > The animal and bird > sacrifices were part of that process of teaching the people that blood > needed to be shed for the remission of sins. You're a loon. > When Jesus died on the cross > and shed his blood--that was the last sacrifice that needed to be made. It So co-participation in an act of extreme cruelty toward an alleged demigod of peace was necessary proof of love. Logical! > was only effective because Jesus never sinned. He was like a spotless lamb > which is why John the Baptist referred to him as "the lamb of God" or the > "Lamb sent by God". This is a summary version of a complex doctrine. You bet it's complex. It has to be. Keep it simple, and the illogic of the story shines bright as a diamond. Muddy it up with voluminous, convoluted apologetics and the bizarreness is buried in a dungheap of verbiage. -- 655321 Quote
Guest 655321 Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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>: >>> 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? > > Yes--I have read the entire Bible. Those chapters related to those > thousands of laws were difficult to read. So, "difficult for Jason to read" = "unimportant"; and "easy for Jason to read" = "main." Got it. > I learned that most of those > laws were related to their situation and are not related to life in > America. There was no "America" back in those days. > For example, lots of the laws were related to livestock and > temple worship. People don't have livestock and temples now? >>> 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. Only the bad ones will support your claim. The foundations for the laws you are talking about predate the supposed "10 Commandments." Plus, many of the "10 Commandments" correspond to no encoded laws. Can you point out laws against blasphemy, covetousness, disrespecting one's parents, being a non-Judeo-Christian, and the like? Here's an invitation. First, list the so-called "10 Commandments"; then, tell us where in U.S. law each one is encoded. Be ready for some disappointment. -- 655321 Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 On Fri, 11 May 2007 17:16:25 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1105071716250001@66-52-22-112.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1178923441.783791.47270@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, >Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote: > >> On May 11, 6:39 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > Please re-read your own words very carefully. My theory is that God >> > created life. Facts support my theory. >> >> What a LIAR you are! You couldn't come up with even one supported >> fact for your case when I challenged you on it. You ran away. So why >> are you still telling this lie? >> >> Post your supported "facts" right here or quit LYING. >> >> Budikka > >The facts are in this book. If you choose not to read the facts--that's >not my fault: > >"Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow >A thorough examination of all the pre-human fossils > You are easily duped. Do you have any idea why Mr. Lubenow didn't write this as a scientific paper? Because scientists know that his book does not meet even the most basic standards of accuracy or honesty. He even had to have Baker Books, a religious publisher, publish the book. It isn't science. Don't claim for a second that it is. Quote
Guest H. Wm. Esque Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 "Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:4n5943dqlffbm4qqp1irv0hd6jkeu9t6dp@4ax.com... > On Fri, 11 May 2007 11:46:17 -0400, in alt.atheism , "H. Wm. Esque" > <HEsque@bellsouth.net> in <ad01i.1076$t7.843@bigfe9> wrote: > > > > >"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] > >><snip>> >> 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. > > Nope, it still fails. There is no thermodynamic argument against > life originating from non-life, none . > Trying to argue against this is impossible. It's trying to prove a negative. The positive position is the proposition that life can or has origionated spontaneously from inorganic matter. So the burden of responsibility is on those who advocate this. > > Let me give a quick (and therefore, of course, inaccurate, but good > enough for us now) summary of thermo. Thermodynamics is a question of > states, we compare two states of a system. In a simple case we take > some system at time T1 and the same system at time T2. We look at the > entropy of the system at S(T1) and S(T2) and determine if S(T2) is > reachable from S(T1) or, alternatively, we determine the necessary > inputs that are the minimum necessary to go from S(T1) to S(T2). > Nothing about mechanism, nothing about planning, just about energy > states. So the thermodynamic issue involving the origin of life is > simply if there is enough free energy on Earth to go from lifeless > stuff to life. And the answer, pretty bloody obviously, is of course > there is. Life may be slightly more ordered than non-life, but there > is plenty of free energy (aka high temp sunlight) to get it there. > Okay, but the SloT not withstanding, it's counterintuitive to think that energy alone acting upon chaotic matter is sufficient to drive forces to create _high_ multiple orders of complexity. Each of which is interdependent and predicated upon other levels of complexity. > > >> 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. > > I wonder why you use "anathema" here. > I just liked the sound of it. Maybe it was a little over the top. (: / > > These terms you present can > easily mislead someone. They are not part of the scientific discourse > because there is no objective support for them. > It difficult to think of the genetic code in terms as not having purpose and whose design is for encoding instructions aimed at for fashioning the bodies and functions of decendant organisms. Another would be the heart. It has purpose. It's purpose is for pumping blood throughout ta living body. It's designed to accomplish this function. > The original writer > was trying to make a non-scientific point and deliberately made claims > that are not supported by the science. Again, thermodynamics says > nothing about planning. It does not matter if the end state was > "planned", what matters is the entropy involved. > > >> 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. > > Deliberately so. Ordinary when? Now or 4 billion years ago. What > matters is what reactions would occur at the time life originated, now > what we humans ordinarily see today. > > >Spontaneous? > >I do not recall a specific meaning as it relates to thermo. But one > >definition is that in a closed system entropy spontaneously increases > >over time towards total equilibrium. > > Spontaneous reactions are those that are energetically favored. It > does not mean cause-free, but that is the intended implication. > > >> 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 inanimate > >matter. As far as I know this has not been demonstrated scientifically. > > Remember, the issue here is thermodynamics and nothing else. If > someone has a non-thermo objection to natural biogenesis they should > make it. We absolutely know that thermodynamically there is no > problem about life forming from non-life. It is really very simple: > take a bunch of life and calculate the entropy. Take the same amount > of stuff and calculate the entropy. Now figure out the free energy > needed to go from one state to the other and see if that energy is > available. It is, so there is no problem. Really, from the thermo > perspective, and that is the only one relevant to this argument, there > is no problem. > There is entirely too many unknowns to do this. > > To put this another way: we see life around us so we know that life is > thermodynamically allowed on Earth. That is actually sufficient to > refute this creationist claim. > Obviously, otherwise we would be here to discuss the matter. > > >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. > > Please find me something in thermodynamics about templates. You > can't because there isn't. Thermo is not about the mechanisms needed > to do something, it is about the energy needed between one state and > another. > It may be extra thermodynamic. A cup falls off a table and shatters there is > >> > >I agree, but a storm is hardly a highly complex edifice on the orders > >of magnitude of even the simplest single cell organism. > > Really? Thermodynamically a hurricane has far more "order" than a > whole hell of a lot of living creatures. A hurricane is a very highly > ordered complex thing. Ever look at the amount of energy required to > keep a hurricane going? It is amazing. > I cannot dispute the amount of energy required. But a hurricane is only one order of magnitude. > > [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 Don Kresch Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 16:51:50 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >Tokay, >I do believe there is proof (in the form of fossils) that God created life >on this earth. Fossils do not support that. > There have been at least two books about this subject. >There is NO proof that life evolve from non-life. Wrong. > You are intelligent >enough to know that scientists could design an experiment that would >create life from non-life if indeed it was possible. They're working on it. > They have tried to do >it but have always failed. The main reason those experiments always fail >is because life can NOT evolve from non-life. Liar. > God created life. Einstein >was asked about this subject. His reply was something like this: "A watch >needs a designer--life needed a designer". Cite, please. 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 655321 Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 Jason wrote: > Murder is not the only reason that people are sent to prison. Another is that the number of laws punishable by imprisonment has gone up. > Try to get some figures for 1850 and 1950. They won't help you. You have chosen to sidestep this fact. -- 655321 Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 16:39:08 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <f22oue$qdm$01$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris ><tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > <snip> >> > >> > >> >>>> Jason, we're not going to suffer for any sin- unless, of course, you get >> >>>> caught. >> >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >>> >> >>> Steve, >> >>> That's funny. We have to go to jail or prison if we get caught related to >> >>> a major sin like murder or stealing. However, God knows about every sin >> >>> which is why Christians ask forgiveness for our sins. >> >> Provided of course, you can first of all demonstrate that a God exists. >> > >> > Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life. They have no >> > proof that it ever happened. >> >> Facts support the theory. Could not be shown to be wrong so far which is >> one property of a valid scientific theory. >> >> > Christians have faith that God exists and created life on this earth. Even >> > Darwin believed that God created life and after he finished--evolution >> > took over. >> >> Facts do not support that theory. In fact it lacks all properties of a >> scientific theory. > >Please re-read your own words very carefully. My guess is that God >created life. I edited that for honesty. I replaced "theory" with "guess", since "theory" means something different. > Facts support my guess. Edit there, too. But you're wrong. >The Facts that support my theory are in this book: "Bones of Contention" >by Marvin L. Lubenow. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_lubenow.html Excerpt: "Firstly, he argues that a species cannot survive once it has given rise to a new species. Unlike many other creationists, he does at least attempt to give some justification for this. Supposedly, the newer, fitter descendant species, would, because of its superiority, drive its parent species to extinction. The argument is incorrect because members of the parent species may live in a separate region from the new species. If the species come into contact again, there may be no competition because they have diverged enough to occupy different ecological niches. (Many scientists would argue that even the requirement for a separate region is unnecessary.) Additionally, it is a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory to claim that a new species is "superior", in an absolute sense, to its parent species. Typically, both species will be "superior" at living in their own niches. This argument is so broad that it would not only disprove human evolution but all evolution; Lubenow is basically asserting that a species cannot split into two species. Obviously this is not the view of speciation accepted by evolutionists, since it would follow that the number of living species could never increase. Nor, in fact, is it a view of speciation generally accepted by creationists, most of whom believe that many living species descended from the same biblical 'kind'. In fact, this argument is so weak that even Answers in Genesis has abandoned it ; as they correctly point out, "... there's nothing in evolutionary theory that requires the main group to become extinct." The argument is also contradicted by real world examples, such as that of the 13 species of finch which live on the Galapagos Islands. There is such compelling evidence that these are descended from a common ancestor that even most creationists accept them as evidence of evolution "within a created kind". If Lubenow was correct, even such micro-evolution would be impossible. By his argument, newly-evolved finch species should drive their ancestors to extinction. This does not happen, of course, because they all live on different foods." 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 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 17:13:05 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <e0s943dd673i94od9t9k38caiteu39l9nv@4ax.com>, Don Kresch ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 14:59:38 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> ><snip> >> > >> > >> >> >It's more complicated. God knew Adam and Eve would eventually sin so he >> >> >had a plan prepared. >> >> >> >> But if they were created perfect, they wouldn't sin. >> > >> >Good point. They were NOT created perfect. >> >> How can a perfect being create something imperfect? > >God created people that had free will. Not possible. > Free will is neither perfect or >imperfect. Even the created angels had free will--Satan exercised his free >will when he started a rebellion. Wrong. It wasn't satan--it was lucifer. Remember: satan is just a title. It means "adversary". A satan was doing the work of the lord in Chapter 22 of the Book of Numbers. That angel of the lord standing in Balaam's way? If you read the hebrew, the word is SATAN! Further, you appear not to understand logical consequences. >> >> Yet it cannot hold. Since god is omniscient and created >> everything (according to the doctrine of your religion), there can be >> no free will. It's not possible. > >I disagree. I have free will--you have free will. Fine. Then either god is not omniscient, or god didn't create everything. Which one gets thrown out? >> >> > His plan was to send Jesus but it took several >> >> >thousand years for him to implement the plan. During those years, he >> >> >prepared the hearts and minds of the people. The animal and bird >> >> >sacrifices were part of that process of teaching the people that blood >> >> >needed to be shed for the remission of sins. When Jesus died on the cross >> >> >and shed his blood--that was the last sacrifice that needed to be made. >> >> >> >> Wrong. It violated Levitical law. It was an invalid sacrifice. >> > >> >I disagree. >> >> Feel free to do so, but that doesn't mean anything. It >> violates Levitical Law--which is GOD'S LAW. >> >> >It was a valid sacrifice. God can establish his own >> >laws--remember the 10 commandments. >> >> Remember that there are actually 613 commandments. > >There were 10 commandments written on that plate. There are 613 commandments in the OT. You appear to know nothing of judaism or the OT. >> > I am not an expert related to >> >Levitical law--is it true that those laws were established by people? >> >> Nope. Those are god's laws. >> >> >> >> > It >> >> >was only effective because Jesus never sinned. He was like a spotless lamb >> >> >> >> Jesus was a lamb? A REAL lamb? No wait--he was human. Only a >> >> REAL lamb would do--not a metaphor. >> > >> >I don't remember the correct term for it--perhaps "symbolism". >> >> A metaphor is a type of symbolism. But it still must be a REAL >> lamb, not a symbol. > >I disagree Feel free. But Leviticus backs me up on this. You appear to not know anything about your own bible. 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 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 In article <f22oue$qdm$01$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > >>>> Jason, we're not going to suffer for any sin- unless, of course, you get > >>>> caught. > >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >>> > >>> Steve, > >>> That's funny. We have to go to jail or prison if we get caught related to > >>> a major sin like murder or stealing. However, God knows about every sin > >>> which is why Christians ask forgiveness for our sins. > >> Provided of course, you can first of all demonstrate that a God exists. > > > > Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life. They have no > > proof that it ever happened. > > Facts support the theory. Could not be shown to be wrong so far which is > one property of a valid scientific theory. > > > Christians have faith that God exists and created life on this earth. Even > > Darwin believed that God created life and after he finished--evolution > > took over. > > Facts do not support that theory. In fact it lacks all properties of a > scientific theory. Please re-read your own words very carefully. My theory is that God created life. Facts support my theory. Could not be shown to be wrong so far wrong so far which is one property of a valid scientific theory. The Facts that support my theory are in this book: "Bones of Contention" by Marvin L. Lubenow. A thorough examination all the supposed pre-human fossils. Also: "On The Seventh Day" by Editor J.F. Ashton. It's a collection of essays of over 40 doctorate-holding scientists who have a firm belief in God and explain how thier knowledge of science backs and confirms their faith. > > > > >>> I try to do it at least once a day. > >> You sin every day and have to ask forgiveness? > > > > Yes, many of the sins are related to my thought processes. Example: > > thinking about Angela Jolene. One elderly lady that I heard about was > > concerned about her sin which were negative thoughts about a bad neighbor. > > Don't worry--I have never killed anyone or robbed any stores or banks. > > Some Christians believe that all sins are equal. I disagree--I believe > > that murdering someone is a more serious sin than having a negative > > thought about a neighbor. > > Well, at least a bit of reason. > > > > > > >> Why? > >> I haven't sinned at all today, or yesterday. > >> What are you, some kind of repeat offender? ;-) > > > > Yes. However, I will not have to suffer for my sins since Jesus has > > already suffered for my sins. Only Non-Christians will have to suffer for > > their sins. That's why I wish that everyone was a Christian. > > Classic scapegoat. > I suffer for my "sins". Since I am responsible for what I do anyway > (other than you, it seems), I "suffer". Oh, I could take more of that. > And I am no masochist.... > > > >>> I know the story of one elderly lady that called her > >>> pastor and requested a conference to discuss her sin. The pastor wondered > >>> what sort of sin an elderly lady would be concerned about. The sin: The > >>> lady had a negative thought about a bad neighbor. > >>> Jason > >> Why would that be a sin? > >> Maybe the neighbour was an asshole, and deserved far more than a negative > >> thought. > > > > That lady considered it to be a sin and she was correct. The Bible says > > that we should love our neighbor as we love ourselves. The Bible does not > > "neighbor" is a pretty specific term, don't you think? > > > say that we should hate out neighbors as we hate outselves. I do believe > > she was over-concerned about her sin--perhaps even obsessive. She should > > have asked for forgiveness and not obsessed about it--that's what I do. I > > Ask for forgiveness? For what? If said neighbor is an idiot, so what? > Why should I "love" him? Ok, I might not say to his face that I think he > is an idiot (just theory, in fact, my neighbors are quite nice), but > thinking that? And would it not make much more sense to ask the neighbor > forgiveness than a totally unrelated sky pixie? > > > also avoid committing major sins. It would be great if I could avoid all > > sins but that's difficult. There are lots of beautiful young women in this > > town and they dress in such a way that it's difficult to not take a second > > look. I am a member of a co-ed health fitness program. > > So you like what you see? Hey, thats cool. Maybe they like what they see > when they see you. No idea. They might be a little put off, once they > talk to you. No sin there that makes any sense, though. > Hm... come to think of it, the women I would find attractive actually > would think that (pardon my french) "jesus-freaks" are not admissable. > So we are in a different ballpark, concerning that. > > Good thing, in my opinion. > > > Tokay Quote
Guest Steve O Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1105071713050001@66-52-22-112.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > God created people that had free will. Free will is neither perfect or > imperfect. Even the created angels had free will--Satan exercised his free > will when he started a rebellion. Even Angels have free will. God does not > want programmed robots that are programmed to say, "I love God". He wants > angels and people to love and worship God because they want to love and > worship God. You don't appear to know much about the doctrine of free > will. Books have been written about that subject. > > . >> >> Yet it cannot hold. Since god is omniscient and created >> everything (according to the doctrine of your religion), there can be >> no free will. It's not possible. > > I disagree. I have free will--you have free will. Then you have just demonstrated why there is no God. You aren't listening to what you are being told - if there was an omniscient, all powerful God who knows exactly what will happen in the future and is in control of what will happen from the moment of creation- there can be no free will, as God will already know what you will do before you were even created- IOW, no free will. You are quite clear on the fact that there is free will, therefore, by your own statement, there is no God. -- 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 Jim07D7 Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: <...> >Here are some statistics that I found. I will let you tell me whether or >not the murder rate was higher during 1950's compared to the 1990's and >2000's. I did not see any 5's or higher in the 1950's but saw lots of 8s >and 9s in the 1990's and 2000's > >Homicide Rate (per 100,000), 1950 Quote
Guest 655321 Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 Jason wrote: > Thanks, > Here are some statistics that I found. I will let you tell me whether or > not the murder rate was higher during 1950's compared to the 1990's and > 2000's. I did not see any 5's or higher in the 1950's but saw lots of 8s > and 9s in the 1990's and 2000's > > Homicide Rate (per 100,000), 1950 Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 In article <f22pim$42r$00$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > >>> Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life. They have no > >>> proof that it ever happened. > >> We do have proof that life happened, and it would be fair to asume that > >> before life existed, there was no life. > >> What other explanation do you have? > >> Creationists believe the entire universe was waved into existence by a > >> supreme and magicial invisible sky fairy. > >> > >> > >>> Christians have faith that God exists and created life on this earth. > >> So who created God? > > I have been asked this question before: My answer is "That I don't know > > how God came to be--when I get to heaven--I'll ask God or an angel how God > > came to be." > > Which is hardly proof of anything. > > > > >> Be careful if you answer, "God has always existed" > >> > >> > >>> Even Darwin believed that God created life and after he finished--evolution > >>> took over. > >> Assuming that he did, what difference would that make? > > None, of course. Evolution and abiogenesis are two different theories. > > > > > Lots of evolutionists seem to idolize Charles Darwins---perhaps you are > > one of the ones that don't idolize Darwin.I have never idolized Darwin. > > First, what the heck is an "evolutionist"? Someone who thinks evolution > is a valid theory and not disproven to date? Sorry to diappoint you. > That would be a rational human. And/Or a scientist. > Second, "idolize"? Where did you get that notion? > I might think he had a great mind to see what nobody before him saw. But > I don't idolize him. What he did in his spare time is of no interest to me. > (Side note, totally unrelated. Why it should be important how many times > a politician did marry? He did not get the post of prime minister or > chancellor or president because of his private life. But because what he > stands for on political matters. Ex german chancellor was married three > times (IIRC), once during his term. Ex foreign minister five times. > Nobody cared.) > So why should I care if Darwin liked blond women? Or obese ones? It has > nothing to do with his work, namely evolutionary theory. This is far > from "idolizing". > > > Tokay ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Tokay, I do believe there is proof (in the form of fossils) that God created life on this earth. There have been at least two books about this subject. There is NO proof that life evolve from non-life. You are intelligent enough to know that scientists could design an experiment that would create life from non-life if indeed it was possible. They have tried to do it but have always failed. The main reason those experiments always fail is because life can NOT evolve from non-life. God created life. Einstein was asked about this subject. His reply was something like this: "A watch needs a designer--life needed a designer". Of course, he was correct. jason Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 17:51:48 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <5akd8hF2oeg1dU1@mid.individual.net>, "Steve O" ><spamhere@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1105071713050001@66-52-22-112.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > God created people that had free will. Free will is neither perfect or >> > imperfect. Even the created angels had free will--Satan exercised his free >> > will when he started a rebellion. Even Angels have free will. God does not >> > want programmed robots that are programmed to say, "I love God". He wants >> > angels and people to love and worship God because they want to love and >> > worship God. You don't appear to know much about the doctrine of free >> > will. Books have been written about that subject. >> > >> > . >> >> >> >> Yet it cannot hold. Since god is omniscient and created >> >> everything (according to the doctrine of your religion), there can be >> >> no free will. It's not possible. >> > >> > I disagree. I have free will--you have free will. >> >> Then you have just demonstrated why there is no God. >> You aren't listening to what you are being told - if there was an >> omniscient, all powerful God who knows exactly what will happen in the >> future and is in control of what will happen from the moment of creation- >> there can be no free will, as God will already know what you will do before >> you were even created- IOW, no free will. >> You are quite clear on the fact that there is free will, therefore, by your >> own statement, there is no God. > >That debate could go on forever. The bottom line is that we have free >will. Ok. Then either god is not omniscient or god didn't create everything. Which will it be? 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 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <e0s943dd673i94od9t9k38caiteu39l9nv@4ax.com>, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 14:59:38 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > (Jason) let us all know that: > > ><snip> > > > > > >> >It's more complicated. God knew Adam and Eve would eventually sin so he > >> >had a plan prepared. > >> > >> But if they were created perfect, they wouldn't sin. > > > >Good point. They were NOT created perfect. > > How can a perfect being create something imperfect? God created people that had free will. Free will is neither perfect or imperfect. Even the created angels had free will--Satan exercised his free will when he started a rebellion. Even Angels have free will. God does not want programmed robots that are programmed to say, "I love God". He wants angels and people to love and worship God because they want to love and worship God. You don't appear to know much about the doctrine of free will. Books have been written about that subject. .. > > Yet it cannot hold. Since god is omniscient and created > everything (according to the doctrine of your religion), there can be > no free will. It's not possible. I disagree. I have free will--you have free will. > > > > >> > >> > His plan was to send Jesus but it took several > >> >thousand years for him to implement the plan. During those years, he > >> >prepared the hearts and minds of the people. The animal and bird > >> >sacrifices were part of that process of teaching the people that blood > >> >needed to be shed for the remission of sins. When Jesus died on the cross > >> >and shed his blood--that was the last sacrifice that needed to be made. > >> > >> Wrong. It violated Levitical law. It was an invalid sacrifice. > > > >I disagree. > > Feel free to do so, but that doesn't mean anything. It > violates Levitical Law--which is GOD'S LAW. > > >It was a valid sacrifice. God can establish his own > >laws--remember the 10 commandments. > > Remember that there are actually 613 commandments. There were 10 commandments written on that plate. > > > I am not an expert related to > >Levitical law--is it true that those laws were established by people? > > Nope. Those are god's laws. > > > >> > It > >> >was only effective because Jesus never sinned. He was like a spotless lamb > >> > >> Jesus was a lamb? A REAL lamb? No wait--he was human. Only a > >> REAL lamb would do--not a metaphor. > > > >I don't remember the correct term for it--perhaps "symbolism". > > A metaphor is a type of symbolism. But it still must be a REAL > lamb, not a symbol. I disagree--you don't appear the concept of symbolism. There are lots of examples of smybolism in the Bible: Check Psalms 18: 8 In that Psalm, David is praising God: He states: "I have called upon thee, for thou wilt hear me, O God: incline thine ear unto me and hear my speech...Keep Me as the apple of the eye; hide me under the shadow of thy wings..." Needless to say, David knew that God does NOT have wings--it was a true case of symbolism. > > > 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 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <1178923441.783791.47270@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote: > On May 11, 6:39 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > Please re-read your own words very carefully. My theory is that God > > created life. Facts support my theory. > > What a LIAR you are! You couldn't come up with even one supported > fact for your case when I challenged you on it. You ran away. So why > are you still telling this lie? > > Post your supported "facts" right here or quit LYING. > > Budikka The facts are in this book. If you choose not to read the facts--that's not my fault: "Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow A thorough examination of all the pre-human fossils Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On May 11, 3:30 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 11, 4:22 am, George <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote: > > > On May 10, 5:19 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > You seem to be argumenatative. The 10 commandments are the main laws that > > > God established. Of course, there are other rules and laws in other parts > > > of the Bible. In fact, back in the 1700's and 1800's --many or even most > > > laws were based on the Bible. > > > jason > > > Utter bloody rubbish! > > You want the origin of your ten commandments look no further than > > Hammurabi 18-17th centuries bc. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi > http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM > > 282 commandments in total. This is me following up on my last post. The question is, of course, are the ten commandments a subset of the Code of Hammurabi. It dawned on me that this would be an easy thing to show. I. I am the Lord your God II. Thou shall have no other gods before me. III. Thou shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God. Law #103 If, while on the journey, an enemy take away from him anything that he had, the broker shall swear by God [Anu?] and be free of obligation. (See also 106, 107, 120, 126 and 249 for other examples of oaths made to Anu.) IV. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. There's no analogue to this in the Code of Hammurabi, but this is not surprising because the Code of Hummurabi was written from the point of view of slave owners. Law #282 If a slave say to his master: "You are not my master," if they convict him his master shall cut off his ear. Good luck getting weekends off then if you're a slave. V. Honor your parents Law #195 If a son strike his father, his hands shall be hewn off. VI. Thou shall not murder Law #153 If the wife of one man on account of another man has their mates (her husband and the other man's wife) murdered, both of them shall be impaled. Law #252. If he kill a man's slave, he shall pay one-third of a mina. VII. Thou shall not commit adultery. Law #129 If a man's wife be surprised (in flagrante delicto) with another man, both shall be tied and thrown into the water, but the husband may pardon his wife and the king his slaves. VIII. Thou shall not steal Law #6 If any one steal the property of a temple or of the court, he shall be put to death, and also the one who receives the stolen thing from him shall be put to death. Law #253 If any one agree with another to tend his field, give him seed, entrust a yoke of oxen to him, and bind him to cultivate the field, if he steal the corn or plants, and take them for himself, his hands shall be hewn off. Law #259 If any one steal a water-wheel from the field, he shall pay five shekels in money to its owner. Law #260 If any one steal a shadduf (used to draw water from the river or canal) or a plow, he shall pay three shekels in money. IX. Thou shall not bear false witness. Law #127 If any one "point the finger" (slander) at a sister of a god or the wife of any one, and can not prove it, this man shall be taken before the judges and his brow shall be marked. (by cutting the skin, or perhaps hair.) X. You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's Law #130 If a man violate the wife (betrothed or child-wife) of another man, who has never known a man, and still lives in her father's house, and sleep with her and be surprised, this man shall be put to death, but the wife is blameless. Granted, it's not the exact same law, but the Code of Hammurabi was intended as not just simply a list of commandments but as a legal system: there's no way to convict anyone of "coveting"; he'd actually have to be caught "violating". (Off topic) What is fascinating is this: Law #206 If during a quarrel one man strike another and wound him, then he shall swear, "I did not injure him wittingly," and pay the physicians. Law #215 If a physician make a large incision with an operating knife and cure it, or if he open a tumor (over the eye) with an operating knife, and saves the eye, he shall receive ten shekels in money. Law #218 If a physician make a large incision with the operating knife, and kill him, or open a tumor with the operating knife, and cut out the eye, his hands shall be cut off. Law #219 If a physician make a large incision in the slave of a freed man, and kill him, he shall replace the slave with another slave. Law #220 If he had opened a tumor with the operating knife, and put out his eye, he shall pay half his value. Law #221 If a physician heal the broken bone or diseased soft part of a man, the patient shall pay the physician five shekels in money. Law #224 If a veterinary surgeon perform a serious operation on an ass or an ox, and cure it, the owner shall pay the surgeon one-sixth of a shekel as a fee. Law #225 If he perform a serious operation on an ass or ox, and kill it, he shall pay the owner one-fourth of its value. What the hell happened to medicine by Biblical times? It would be thousands of years before any doctor performed an operation again! Martin Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >In article <6iv943l5f1ipf034p02n84m8m3jeii1eai@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >> >> <...> >> >Here are some statistics that I found. I will let you tell me whether or >> >not the murder rate was higher during 1950's compared to the 1990's and >> >2000's. I did not see any 5's or higher in the 1950's but saw lots of 8s >> >and 9s in the 1990's and 2000's >> > >> >Homicide Rate (per 100,000), 1950 Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <f22lad$bsi$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <1178869597.855167.31140@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> On May 11, 5:36 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Really? I don't see how my behavior changed at all when I realized that the > >>> god of the Hebrew bible didn't exist. > >> I know that my behaviour has improved since I realized that Moslems > >> are no more evil than Christians. I'd hate to think what the average > >> Christian would do to the average Moslem if he thought he could get > >> away with it (or vice versa). > >> > >> Jason should take a look at this study done by theists like him and > >> see what results they came up with. > >> > >> http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html > >> > >> "A few hundred years ago rates of homicide were astronomical in > >> Christian Europe and the American colonies (Beeghley; R. Lane). In all > >> secular developed democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen > >> homicide rates drop to historical lows (Figure 2). The especially low > >> rates in the more Catholic European states are statistical noise due > >> to yearly fluctuations incidental to this sample, and are not > >> consistently present in other similar tabulations (Barcley and > >> Tavares). Despite a significant decline from a recent peak in the > >> 1980s (Rosenfeld), the U.S. is the only prosperous democracy that > >> retains high homicide rates, making it a strong outlier in this regard > >> (Beeghley; Doyle, 2000). Similarly, theistic Portugal also has rates > >> of homicides well above the secular developed democracy norm. Mass > >> student murders in schools are rare, and have subsided somewhat since > >> the 1990s, but the U.S. has experienced many more (National School > >> Safety Center) than all the secular developed democracies combined. > >> Other prosperous democracies do not significantly exceed the U.S. in > >> rates of nonviolent and in non-lethal violent crime (Beeghley; > >> Farrington and Langan; Neapoletan), and are often lower in this > >> regard. The United States exhibits typical rates of youth suicide > >> (WHO), which show little if any correlation with theistic factors in > >> the prosperous democracies (Figure 3). The positive correlation > >> between pro-theistic factors and juvenile mortality is remarkable, > >> especially regarding absolute belief, and even prayer (Figure 4). Life > >> spans tend to decrease as rates of religiosity rise (Figure 5), > >> especially as a function of absolute belief. Denmark is the only > >> exception. Unlike questionable small-scale epidemiological studies by > >> Harris et al. and Koenig and Larson, higher rates of religious > >> affiliation, attendance, and prayer do not result in lower juvenile- > >> adult mortality rates on a cross-national basis.<6> > >> > >> "Although the late twentieth century STD epidemic has been curtailed > >> in all prosperous democracies (Aral and Holmes; Panchaud et al.), > >> rates of adolescent gonorrhea infection remain six to three hundred > >> times higher in the U.S. than in less theistic, pro-evolution secular > >> developed democracies. (Figure 6). At all ages levels are higher in > >> the U.S., albeit by less dramatic amounts. The U.S. also suffers from > >> uniquely high adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, which are > >> starting to rise again as the microbe's resistance increases (Figure > >> 7). The two main curable STDs have been nearly eliminated in strongly > >> secular Scandinavia. Increasing adolescent abortion rates show > >> positive correlation with increasing belief and worship of a creator, > >> and negative correlation with increasing non-theism and acceptance of > >> evolution; again rates are uniquely high in the U.S. (Figure 8). > >> Claims that secular cultures aggravate abortion rates (John Paul II) > >> are therefore contradicted by the quantitative data. Early adolescent > >> pregnancy and birth have dropped in the developed democracies (Abma et > >> al.; Singh and Darroch), but rates are two to dozens of times higher > >> in the U.S. where the decline has been more modest (Figure 9). Broad > >> correlations between decreasing theism and increasing pregnancy and > >> birth are present, with Austria and especially Ireland being partial > >> exceptions. Darroch et al. found that age of first intercourse, number > >> of sexual partners and similar issues among teens do not exhibit wide > >> disparity or a consistent pattern among the prosperous democracies > >> they sampled, including the U.S. A detailed comparison of sexual > >> practices in France and the U.S. observed little difference except > >> that the French tend - contrary to common impression - to be somewhat > >> more conservative (Gagnon et al.)." > >> > >> JRS stands for Journal of Religion and Society > >> > >> Martin > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Martin, > > Thanks--here are some statistics for you to consider > > > > Total number of inmates in Federal prisons, State prisons and all jails in > > 1990 was 1,148,702 > > > > Total number of inmates in Federal prisons, State prisons and all jails in > > 2003 was 2,078,570 > > > > Homicide rate (per 100,000) from 1950 to 2002: > > In 1950--that figure was 4.4 > > In 2002--that figure was 5.6 > > source: 2005 Time Almanac > > > > These statistics proved to me that the crime rates are going up. > > Jason > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Pick the same friggin' time-frames, idiot. > > In EVERY category crime TOTALS (not just per-capita rates but the actual > TOTALS) DROPPED from 1990 to 2003 (the time frame during which you cite > that the prison population rose.) > > Year Population Index Violent Property Murder Rape Robbery > assault Burglary Larceny Car-Theft > 1990 248,709,873 14,475,600 1,820,130 12,655,500 23,440 102,560 > 639,270 1,054,860 3,073,900 7,945,700 1,635,900 > 1991 252,177,000 14,872,900 1,911,770 12,961,100 24,700 106,590 > 687,730 1,092,740 3,157,200 8,142,200 1,661,700 > 1992 255,082,000 14,438,200 1,932,270 12,505,900 23,760 109,060 > 672,480 1,126,970 2,979,900 7,915,200 1,610,800 > 1993 257,908,000 14,144,800 1,926,020 12,218,800 24,530 106,010 > 659,870 1,135,610 2,834,800 7,820,900 1,563,100 > 1994 260,341,000 13,989,500 1,857,670 12,131,900 23,330 102,220 > 618,950 1,113,180 2,712,800 7,879,800 1,539,300 > 1995 262,755,000 13,862,700 1,798,790 12,063,900 21,610 97,470 > 580,510 1,099,210 2,593,800 7,997,700 1,472,400 > 1996 265,228,572 13,493,863 1,688,540 11,805,300 19,650 96,250 > 535,590 1,037,050 2,506,400 7,904,700 1,394,200 > 1997 267,637,000 13,194,571 1,634,770 11,558,175 18,208 96,153 > 498,534 1,023,201 2,460,526 7,743,760 1,354,189 > 1998 270,296,000 12,475,634 1,531,044 10,944,590 16,914 93,103 > 446,625 974,402 2,329,950 7,373,886 1,240,754 > 1999 272,690,813 11,634,378 1,426,044 10,208,334 15,522 89,411 > 409,371 911,740 2,100,739 6,955,520 1,152,075 > 2000 281,421,906 11,608,072 1,425,486 10,182,586 15,586 90,178 > 408,016 911,706 2,050,992 6,971,590 1,160,002 > 2001 285,317,559 11,876,669 1,439,480 10,437,480 16,037 90,863 > 423,5557 909,023 2,116,531 7,092,267 1,228,391 > 2002 287,973,924 11,878,954 1,423,677 10,455,277 16,229 95,235 > 420,806 891,407 2,151,252 7,057,370 1,246,646 > 2003 290,690,788 11,826,538 1,383,676 10,442,862 16,528 93,883 > 414,235 859,030 2,154,834 7,026,802 1,261,226 > 2004 293,656,842 11,679,474 1,360,088 10,319,386 16,148 95,089 > 401,470 847,381 2,144,446 6,937,089 1,237,851 > 2005 296,410,404 11,556,854 1,390,695 10,166,159 16,692 93,934 > 417,122 862,947 2,154,126 6,776,807 1,235,226 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Thanks, Here are some statistics that I found. I will let you tell me whether or not the murder rate was higher during 1950's compared to the 1990's and 2000's. I did not see any 5's or higher in the 1950's but saw lots of 8s and 9s in the 1990's and 2000's Homicide Rate (per 100,000), 1950 Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <f22rhj$iak$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f22lad$bsi$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <1178869597.855167.31140@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >>> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On May 11, 5:36 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Really? I don't see how my behavior changed at all when I realized > > that the > >>>>> god of the Hebrew bible didn't exist. > >>>> I know that my behaviour has improved since I realized that Moslems > >>>> are no more evil than Christians. I'd hate to think what the average > >>>> Christian would do to the average Moslem if he thought he could get > >>>> away with it (or vice versa). > >>>> > >>>> Jason should take a look at this study done by theists like him and > >>>> see what results they came up with. > >>>> > >>>> http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html > >>>> > >>>> "A few hundred years ago rates of homicide were astronomical in > >>>> Christian Europe and the American colonies (Beeghley; R. Lane). In all > >>>> secular developed democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen > >>>> homicide rates drop to historical lows (Figure 2). The especially low > >>>> rates in the more Catholic European states are statistical noise due > >>>> to yearly fluctuations incidental to this sample, and are not > >>>> consistently present in other similar tabulations (Barcley and > >>>> Tavares). Despite a significant decline from a recent peak in the > >>>> 1980s (Rosenfeld), the U.S. is the only prosperous democracy that > >>>> retains high homicide rates, making it a strong outlier in this regard > >>>> (Beeghley; Doyle, 2000). Similarly, theistic Portugal also has rates > >>>> of homicides well above the secular developed democracy norm. Mass > >>>> student murders in schools are rare, and have subsided somewhat since > >>>> the 1990s, but the U.S. has experienced many more (National School > >>>> Safety Center) than all the secular developed democracies combined. > >>>> Other prosperous democracies do not significantly exceed the U.S. in > >>>> rates of nonviolent and in non-lethal violent crime (Beeghley; > >>>> Farrington and Langan; Neapoletan), and are often lower in this > >>>> regard. The United States exhibits typical rates of youth suicide > >>>> (WHO), which show little if any correlation with theistic factors in > >>>> the prosperous democracies (Figure 3). The positive correlation > >>>> between pro-theistic factors and juvenile mortality is remarkable, > >>>> especially regarding absolute belief, and even prayer (Figure 4). Life > >>>> spans tend to decrease as rates of religiosity rise (Figure 5), > >>>> especially as a function of absolute belief. Denmark is the only > >>>> exception. Unlike questionable small-scale epidemiological studies by > >>>> Harris et al. and Koenig and Larson, higher rates of religious > >>>> affiliation, attendance, and prayer do not result in lower juvenile- > >>>> adult mortality rates on a cross-national basis.<6> > >>>> > >>>> "Although the late twentieth century STD epidemic has been curtailed > >>>> in all prosperous democracies (Aral and Holmes; Panchaud et al.), > >>>> rates of adolescent gonorrhea infection remain six to three hundred > >>>> times higher in the U.S. than in less theistic, pro-evolution secular > >>>> developed democracies. (Figure 6). At all ages levels are higher in > >>>> the U.S., albeit by less dramatic amounts. The U.S. also suffers from > >>>> uniquely high adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, which are > >>>> starting to rise again as the microbe's resistance increases (Figure > >>>> 7). The two main curable STDs have been nearly eliminated in strongly > >>>> secular Scandinavia. Increasing adolescent abortion rates show > >>>> positive correlation with increasing belief and worship of a creator, > >>>> and negative correlation with increasing non-theism and acceptance of > >>>> evolution; again rates are uniquely high in the U.S. (Figure 8). > >>>> Claims that secular cultures aggravate abortion rates (John Paul II) > >>>> are therefore contradicted by the quantitative data. Early adolescent > >>>> pregnancy and birth have dropped in the developed democracies (Abma et > >>>> al.; Singh and Darroch), but rates are two to dozens of times higher > >>>> in the U.S. where the decline has been more modest (Figure 9). Broad > >>>> correlations between decreasing theism and increasing pregnancy and > >>>> birth are present, with Austria and especially Ireland being partial > >>>> exceptions. Darroch et al. found that age of first intercourse, number > >>>> of sexual partners and similar issues among teens do not exhibit wide > >>>> disparity or a consistent pattern among the prosperous democracies > >>>> they sampled, including the U.S. A detailed comparison of sexual > >>>> practices in France and the U.S. observed little difference except > >>>> that the French tend - contrary to common impression - to be somewhat > >>>> more conservative (Gagnon et al.)." > >>>> > >>>> JRS stands for Journal of Religion and Society > >>>> > >>>> Martin > >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >>> > >>> Martin, > >>> Thanks--here are some statistics for you to consider > >>> > >>> Total number of inmates in Federal prisons, State prisons and all jails in > >>> 1990 was 1,148,702 > >>> > >>> Total number of inmates in Federal prisons, State prisons and all jails in > >>> 2003 was 2,078,570 > >>> > >>> Homicide rate (per 100,000) from 1950 to 2002: > >>> In 1950--that figure was 4.4 > >>> In 2002--that figure was 5.6 > >>> source: 2005 Time Almanac > >>> > >>> These statistics proved to me that the crime rates are going up. > >>> Jason > >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> Pick the same friggin' time-frames, idiot. > >> > >> In EVERY category crime TOTALS (not just per-capita rates but the actual > >> TOTALS) DROPPED from 1990 to 2003 (the time frame during which you cite > >> that the prison population rose.) > >> > >> Year Population Index Violent Property Murder Rape Robbery > >> assault Burglary Larceny Car-Theft > >> 1990 248,709,873 14,475,600 1,820,130 12,655,500 23,440 102,560 > >> 639,270 1,054,860 3,073,900 7,945,700 1,635,900 > >> 1991 252,177,000 14,872,900 1,911,770 12,961,100 24,700 106,590 > >> 687,730 1,092,740 3,157,200 8,142,200 1,661,700 > >> 1992 255,082,000 14,438,200 1,932,270 12,505,900 23,760 109,060 > >> 672,480 1,126,970 2,979,900 7,915,200 1,610,800 > >> 1993 257,908,000 14,144,800 1,926,020 12,218,800 24,530 106,010 > >> 659,870 1,135,610 2,834,800 7,820,900 1,563,100 > >> 1994 260,341,000 13,989,500 1,857,670 12,131,900 23,330 102,220 > >> 618,950 1,113,180 2,712,800 7,879,800 1,539,300 > >> 1995 262,755,000 13,862,700 1,798,790 12,063,900 21,610 97,470 > >> 580,510 1,099,210 2,593,800 7,997,700 1,472,400 > >> 1996 265,228,572 13,493,863 1,688,540 11,805,300 19,650 96,250 > >> 535,590 1,037,050 2,506,400 7,904,700 1,394,200 > >> 1997 267,637,000 13,194,571 1,634,770 11,558,175 18,208 96,153 > >> 498,534 1,023,201 2,460,526 7,743,760 1,354,189 > >> 1998 270,296,000 12,475,634 1,531,044 10,944,590 16,914 93,103 > >> 446,625 974,402 2,329,950 7,373,886 1,240,754 > >> 1999 272,690,813 11,634,378 1,426,044 10,208,334 15,522 89,411 > >> 409,371 911,740 2,100,739 6,955,520 1,152,075 > >> 2000 281,421,906 11,608,072 1,425,486 10,182,586 15,586 90,178 > >> 408,016 911,706 2,050,992 6,971,590 1,160,002 > >> 2001 285,317,559 11,876,669 1,439,480 10,437,480 16,037 90,863 > >> 423,5557 909,023 2,116,531 7,092,267 1,228,391 > >> 2002 287,973,924 11,878,954 1,423,677 10,455,277 16,229 95,235 > >> 420,806 891,407 2,151,252 7,057,370 1,246,646 > >> 2003 290,690,788 11,826,538 1,383,676 10,442,862 16,528 93,883 > >> 414,235 859,030 2,154,834 7,026,802 1,261,226 > >> 2004 293,656,842 11,679,474 1,360,088 10,319,386 16,148 95,089 > >> 401,470 847,381 2,144,446 6,937,089 1,237,851 > >> 2005 296,410,404 11,556,854 1,390,695 10,166,159 16,692 93,934 > >> 417,122 862,947 2,154,126 6,776,807 1,235,226 > > > > Get those same statistics for the year 1860 and/or 1960 and/or 1970. > > Don't need to. I've already blown your ass out of the water. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Thanks, Here are some statistics that I found. I will let you tell me whether or not the murder rate was higher during 1950's compared to the 1990's and 2000's. I did not see any 5's or higher in the 1950's but saw lots of 8s and 9s in the 1990's and 2000's Homicide Rate (per 100,000), 1950 Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <f22l0f$bfg$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f222v4$n6c$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> 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?) > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Homicide Rate per 100,000 from 1950 to 2002 > > 1950----4.6 > > 2002----5.6 > > http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm > > National rates for the past 10 years (during the time that you said > prison population was increasing. > > 1990 10.0 > 1991 10.5 > 1992 10.0 > 1993 10.1 > 1994 9.6 > 1995 8.7 > 1996 7.9 > 1997 7.4 > 1998 6.8 > 1999 6.2 > 2000 6.1 > 2001 7.1 (includes the deaths from 9/11) > 2002 6.1 > > > Notice anything happening over the past several years (i.e. during the > time frame you were talking about prison populations doubling?) You had > to go back to 1950 to find figures to try and support your crap. > > During the time that prison population was doubling, the murder rate > dropped to almost HALF! Thanks, Here are some statistics that I found. I will let you tell me whether or not the murder rate was higher during 1950's compared to the 1990's and 2000's. I did not see any 5's or higher in the 1950's but saw lots of 8s and 9s in the 1990's and 2000's Homicide Rate (per 100,000), 1950 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.