Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <f22rg9$iak$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f22l0f$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! > > > > Murder is not the only reason that people are sent to prison. Try to get > > some figures for 1850 and 1950. > > You're the one who started citing murder stats. Then, when they're used > to show you are WRONG, all of a sudden they don't apply or are > meaningless. How typical for a liar. 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 <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. While we are on this earth, we can FREELY choose to love God or turn our backs on God. On judgement day, it will be easy for God to determine if loved him or turned our backs on him while we were on the earth. Whether or not God is looking in the future related to my life is of no concern to me. Even if God did that--so what--I will love God for the rest of my life. jason ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <0471i.21153$JZ3.3544@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>, 655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > 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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Good point. That's why I focused on Murder Rates when I done a google search for statistics. Here's the statistics: 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 Martin Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On May 12, 12:35 am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > "Martin Phipps" <martinphip...@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. The second law of thermodynamics is formulated differently for closed and open systems: for closed system it requires that entropy is always increasing; for open systems it requires that efficiency be always less than 100%. Both formulations result in "heat loss" and, hence, are equivalent. > > > 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. Yes. Ultimately the entropy of the entire universe is increasing. > > > 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. You're being naive. He should have known how thermodynamics relates to open systems. If anything he was being dishonest in trying to pass himself off as an expert and claiming he'd "proven" something. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 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 Martin Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On May 12, 2:53 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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. Why have you only picked two years? That does not show any trend. How do I know 1950 wasn't an anomolous year? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On May 12, 2:53 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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 http://www.murdervictims.com/murder_statistics.htm According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, homicide rates recently declined to levels last seen before 1970. The homicide rate doubled from the mid 1960's to the late 1970's. In 1980, it peaked at 10.2 per 100,000 population and subsequently fell off to 7.9 per 100,000 in 1985. It rose again in the late 1980's and early 1990's to a peak of 9.8 per 100,000 in 1991. Since then, the rate has declined, reaching 6.8 per 100,000 by 1997. Martin Quote
Guest 655321 Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <Jason-1105071757240001@66-52-22-112.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <0471i.21153$JZ3.3544@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>, 655321 > <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > > > 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 > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Good point. That's why I focused on Murder Rates when I done a google > search for statistics. Your "work" was worthless. The stats, presented independently as they are, show nothing. -- 655321 "We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On 11 May 2007 17:58:04 -0700, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: - Refer: <1178931484.446237.115210@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> >On May 12, 12:35 am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote: : >> I do not see him as deliberately dishonest. Mistaken, but not >> dishonest. > >You're being naive. He should have known how thermodynamics relates >to open systems. If anything he was being dishonest in trying to pass >himself off as an expert and claiming he'd "proven" something. > >Martin Mr. Esque has demonstrated time and time again that he has no problem whatsoever with blatant fraudulent dishonesty, provided that it is in support of his infantile delusions. -- Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 18:40:08 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <h21a43tsn3815kcq54g0chgce5tli4prgc@4ax.com>, Don Kresch ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> 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? > >God is omniscient and omni powerful Then god didn't create everything. 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 <h21a43tsn3815kcq54g0chgce5tli4prgc@4ax.com>, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > 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? God is omniscient and omni powerful. God can do anything that he wants to do. He can create anything that he wishes to create. If you reply, please don't snip anything that I stated in these 5 sentences. You done that the last time. > > > 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 Free Lunch Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On Fri, 11 May 2007 18:03:05 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1105071803050001@66-52-22-112.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >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 Free Lunch Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On Fri, 11 May 2007 17:57:24 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1105071757240001@66-52-22-112.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <0471i.21153$JZ3.3544@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>, 655321 ><DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > >> 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 > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Good point. That's why I focused on Murder Rates when I done a google >search for statistics. Here's the statistics: > >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 <1178929264.256550.43990@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Martin, I am sorry--I have never taken any classes or read any books related to the Code of Hammurabi. Based upon what you posted, there does seem to be some similarities between many of the laws mentioned in the Bible and The Code of Hammurabi. Perhaps God also spoke to Hammuriabi. There is evidence in the Bible that God spoke to a Pharaoh that was not a Jew in order to save the life of Abraham --see Genesis 12: 11-20. God also spoke to a false prophet named Balaam--see Numbers 23: 5-12. Therefore, it's possible spoke to Hamuriabli. God can do anything that he wants to do. Of course, I am just guessing. jason ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <4v1a43lab9qmn0q0nqgg41ughdl08bpqqj@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > 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 655321 Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <Jason-1005071650430001@66-52-22-37.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Christians in name only. What makes you think that you are anything else? -- 655321 "We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi Quote
Guest 655321 Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <Jason-1005071716170001@66-52-22-37.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > If everyone in the world lived by the principles of life that Confucius > established, we would not need to build new prisons. Then you could be wrong about your stick-boy demigod! -- 655321 "We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On Fri, 11 May 2007 19:27:22 -0400, in alt.atheism , "H. Wm. Esque" <HEsque@bellsouth.net> in <rZ61i.3616$ya.3314@bignews8.bellsouth.net> wrote: > >"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in >message news:4n5943dqlffbm4qqp1irv0hd6jkeu9t6dp@4ax.com... >> On Fri, 11 May 2007 11:46:17 -0400, in alt.atheism , "H. Wm. Esque" >> <HEsque@bellsouth.net> in <ad01i.1076$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. Not at all. I have provided a positive argument for you, all you have to do is refute that argument. >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. I have been quite clear here, I have even emphasized the key terms but you have missed the point over and over. The question here was Kim's argument and that argument was that thermodynamics refuted evolution/abiogenesis. Get that? The question here is not how life originated but whether or not thermodynamics shows that there is no possible natural path. I have given a positive argument refuted his claim. If you wish to change the subject to a question of how life originated then make that clear. If you don't and keep ignoring what I do say I will assume it is deliberate. >> 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, Sorry, but the 2LoT is the issue here. We can go on to other topics only after we have dealt with this. >it's counterintuitive to think >that energy alone acting upon chaotic matter is sufficient to drive >forces to create _high_ multiple orders of complexity. I don't much care what is intuitive, there is lots about the world that is not intuitive, particularly for those who are not familiar with the material. And the phrase "energy alone" does not make sense. I am discussing energy/entropy here because that is the topic. We can discuss chemistry if you wish, but there is no point to going to that step until this has been cleared up. >Each of >which is interdependent and predicated upon other levels of >complexity. Complexity is one of those terms that makes intuitive sense until you actually look at it. When you do look you will find that lots of your intuitive ideas are flat out wrong. I can point you to several books on the topic if you are interested. >> >> 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. Sounds like you are not the "evolutionist" you claimed to be. When you start to look at biology you will find that things are stranger than you imagine. It only looks like human designed things (and humans are our only actual known example of designers) because human design uses evolution. I can discuss this at any length you want, but I first want to deal with the other issues. Digression is not our friend here. >> >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. Not at all. One more time: all that matters from a thermodynamic perspective is the initial state and the end state. That is it, you don't need to know a thing about intermediary states, but processes, about time. All that matters is whether or not the initial state can go to the final state. There are plenty of things that could happen thermodynamically that don't happen to occur. And if you don't understand or accept this then you need to re-study your thermo, this is basic stuff. So the thermo question is whether or not there is sufficient free energy on Earth to take non-living stuff and make it living. And that is rather trivially obviously so: the energy inputs from the Sun are sufficient for living things to make living stuff from non-living stuff. That observation shows that there is no thermodynamic problem, none. >> 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. That is true but irrelevant. I am not playing anthropic principle games, I am just discussing thermo. >> >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 You did not finish, but I can guess your point. And I will repeat: I am not doing anything here but refuting Kim's claim. (Well, I am trying to show that it is not simply wrong, it is totally and completely wrong.) We can go on to other questions about abiogenesis or evolution only after we have dealt with this. >> >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. Huh? One order of magnitude of what? >> [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 Martin Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On May 12, 2:59 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1178878950.032555.171...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On May 11, 4:15 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > <snip> > > > 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". > > There are assumptions in the above report that may not be correct. Jason, you don't know how science works. I will copy and paste what I wrote above with emphasis. > > 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". As a scientist, I am fully capable of identifying assumptions: I don't need you to point them out for me. You, however, constantly need to have your assumptions pointed out to you: this entire thread is an on going example of that. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On May 12, 3:03 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1178870790.696144.222...@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On May 11, 7:43 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > 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. > > > You'll find that most college professors are atheists. Religious > > belief correlates negative with intelligence. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence > > > "According to a study by Paul Bell, published in the Mensa Magazine in > > 2002, there is an inverse correlation between religiosity and > > intelligence. Analyzing 43 studies carried out since 1927, Bell found > > that all but four reported such a connection, and he concluded that > > "the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is > > likely to be religious or hold 'beliefs' of any kind."[1] A survey > > published in Nature in 1998 confirms that belief in a personal God or > > afterlife is at an all time low among the members of the National > > Academy of Science, only 7.0% of which believed in a personal God as > > compared to more than 85% of the US general population.[2]" > > Let's say there is a college professor that is a Christian. If he decided > to become an atheist--would his intelligence level go higher? Whenever a Christian becomes an atheist, it is evidence that he has, indeed, already become more intelligent. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On May 12, 3:23 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Of course, mandantory sentencing played a role. It's my opinion that the > rise in atheism also played a role. Another wrong assumption. > I realize that many of the people are > atheists are kind and wonderful people. Many high school teachers and > college psychology professors are teaching courses in "situational > ethics". I took one of those stupid classes. The professor told us that in > some cases, it's alright for a straving person to steal food; for > relatives to kill elderly people that were disabled--I believe the term > was "euthanatize"; For women to kill their unborn babies--abortion. I > don't believe she told us that in some situations that it would be alright > to rob a bank or cheat on your taxes--but my memory is not perfect. > Situational Ethics means that people can violate the law if that person > has a good reason for violating the law. Those situational ethics classes > will cause the crime rate to go even higher in the years to come. Shop > lifting was not a major problem in the 1950's and 1960's. I challenge you > to google shoplifting statistics. Without any research, I know that it's > more of a problem now than it was in the 1960's or 1970's. I think you missed the point. "Situational ethics" does not mean "it's okay to commit crimes". The point of situational ethics is for people to rationally consider whether their laws are in fact morally correct rather than just blindly following them. If you were in Nazi Germany and the law required you to turn in your neighbour (who just happens to be Jewish), would it still be morally right to follow the letter of the law? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On May 12, 3:40 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > It's more complicated. God knew Adam and Eve would eventually sin so he > had a plan prepared. His plan was to send Jesus but it took several > thousand years for him to implement the plan. Where did the Neanderthals come in to this? By "several thousand years" do you mean 700 000 years ago? That would make Adam a Homo Erectus, Cain Cro Magnon and Abel a Neanderthal. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On May 12, 3:57 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Good point. However, there are lots of people that would steal food. I was > shocked when I saw two young girls (about 16 to 18 years old) in a huge > grocery store. They were eating some food that they had stolen. As I > walked by them, one of them say--"which grocery store are we going to go > to for dinner"? Those young girls were not homeless. They were dressed in > nice clothing and were well groomed. I believe they were praciticing > situational ethics. The psychology professor that I told you about in > another post would have been proud of those two young girls. Those girls > did NOT care about shoplifting laws. People who steal clothing form large > stores like Walmart or K Mart don't care about Jesus or Confucious or > reciprocity. Have you ever seen anything like that? Odds are they probably prayed for forgiveness every night and are convinced that God forgives them. 85% of Americans still believe in God in defiance to all logic. Martin Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 21:30:42 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <6e5a431pbl5bjls903shnga5l5pft1ictf@4ax.com>, Don Kresch ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 18:40:08 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >In article <h21a43tsn3815kcq54g0chgce5tli4prgc@4ax.com>, Don Kresch >> ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> > >> >> 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? >> > >> >God is omniscient and omni powerful >> >> Then god didn't create everything. >> > >Don, >This were my exact words I don't like weasel-word bullshit. I don't like idiots who refuse to logically think out their position. 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 Martin Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On May 12, 5:23 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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. I don't recall ever asking Jesus to suffer on my behalf. If I am truly doing something wrong by lusting after Angelina Jolie (and frankly I don't see how it's even anybody's business) then I will accept the punishment rather than expecting somebody else to suffer on my behalf. That's what being moral is all about. Martin 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.