Guest The Chief Instigator Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) writes: >In article <5amg9cF2oe4edU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" ><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> snip >> > I consider God to be omniscient and omnipotent. He is also a dictator >> I could never worship a dictator. >I could--if that dictator was God. I would never worship a human dictator. >Back in the old days, people worshipped Caesar. Free clue: this isn't the old days, and no one needs to worship your alleged deity. -- Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273 LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15) NEXT GAME: October 2007, date/place/opponent TBA Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > There is a big difference between believing that God created life from > non-life and believing that life naturally evolved from non-life. (snip) You just don't have enough imagination to hypothesize a god that created the universe with the built-in and unstoppable properties that must produce life after the right amount of cause and effect has modified its matter. Others have no problem hypothesizing such a powerful god. Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <GrqdnZkQdNyMsdvbnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish >> Once you understand that the whole story is mythology, other >> choices open up. >> >> In the mean time, you will probably sleep better if you keep >> sucking up to your imaginary, hypothetical god. >> >> I understand. I once feared the same demon. > > On judgement day, you will really be shocked. If I die and am still conscious, I will be shocked. I am looking forward to being dead, someday. Life, without end, in any form, is unimaginably horrible for me. Judgment and anything it involves will be small, compared to that shock. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <464627b9$0$21840$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Martin > <usenet1@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <4645e8ec$0$6946$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, Martin >>> <usenet1@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <4644db72$0$6942$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, Martin >>>>> <usenet1@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life. They have no >>>>>>> proof that it ever happened. >>>>>> errr HELLO! >>>>>> >>>>>> You might not exist, but I believe I do. Therefore life _came_ (not >>>>>> evolved) from non-life >>>>>> >>>>>> What the hell are you on about? >>>>>> >>>>>> Even if you belive your shite about god, then you also belive life came >>>>>> from non-life, what was all that crap about dirt and breathing in life? >>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>> >>>>> There is a BIG difference between believing that life evolved from >>>>> non-life and believing that a creator God was able to take natural >>>>> materials and create life from that natural materials. It's much easier >>>>> for me to believe that God created life than to believe what you appear to >>>>> believe. >>>> You stated "Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life." >>>> >>>> Are you now backtracking on that statement? >>> Not really. It must be faith because there is no evidence that live >>> evolved from non-life. >> Your own fucking bible states that life came from non-life. What the >> hell are you on man? >> >> Whether it was puffed into existance or came from self-replicating >> molecules, life came from non-life one way or another. Go back 4.5Gyears >> and the earth was a ball of molten rock, now it's teaming with life. >> What does that tell you? Once there was no life, now there is. If life >> didn't come from non-life where the hell DID it come from >>> > > There is a big difference between believing that God created life from > non-life and believing that life naturally evolved from non-life. > > Let's say that I used a helecopter to place a brand new car deep in a > jungle that a tribe of people lived in that had never before seen a > vehicle. > > Perhaps some of those people may believe the car came about as a result of > natural forces. Perhaps some of the other people may believe the car was > designed and created. > > Do you see my point? > Jason > > Ever heard of "Cargo-cult"? Tokay -- Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books. Francis Bacon Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <GrqdnZkQdNyMsdvbnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <hJSdnSrqr5mbn9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish >>> <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>> >>>>> I consider God to be omniscient and omnipotent. He is also a dictator but >>>>> that is not a problem for Christians. God is a loving God and would be a >>>>> wonderful dictator. >>>> That is the fear talking. >>>> >>>> This loving hypothetical god also is said to have nearly >>>> sterilized the planet, because it had a temper tantrum when >>>> its creation did not perform up to its expectations, yet, >>>> had been created exactly as it wished it to be and had been >>>> foreseen to be. How could it have been otherwise if this >>>> hypothetical loving god was really omniscient and >>>> omnipotent? That is one crazy and sadistic hypothetical >>>> demon, you got there. >>>> >>>> You better keep complimenting it and kissing its ass, or it >>>> might do you and infinite punishment. >>>> >>>>> I would not trust a dictator that was human but would >>>>> trust God since God is perfect. >>>> (snip) >>>> >>>> Kiss kiss (don't hurt me). >>> The other alternative is going to hell and being forced to worship Satan. >>> I believe my choice is better. >> Once you understand that the whole story is mythology, other >> choices open up. >> >> In the mean time, you will probably sleep better if you keep >> sucking up to your imaginary, hypothetical god. >> >> I understand. I once feared the same demon. > > On judgement day, you will really be shocked. > > Like I said, Zeus will be pretty pissed with you.... Tokay -- Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books. Francis Bacon Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <f257ki$lcn$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f2550t$g79$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <f24v38$480$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > >>> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>> In article <1178952813.290283.81980@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > >>>>> gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 11 Maj, 23:59, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>>>>> <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. > >>>>>> The Bible says they were. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> God did not want programmed > >>>>>>> robots that would be programmed to worship him. > >>>>>> One can only be perfect if one is a robot? God must be a robot. > >>>>> A programmed robot would do exactly what the robot was programmed to do. > >>>>> On the other hand, the people that God created had free will. God has free > >>>>> will. Neither God or people are robots. > >>>> Well, one could argue that a robot build to do what he is told and does > >>>> what he is told is perfect. > >>>> But forget it, thats not the issue. > >>>> > >>>> If god has free will and people have free will and god is omniscient, > >>>> omnipotent and benevolent.... ehm. No. Does not work. > >>>> > >>>> Let's try this another way. God is omnipotent, omniscient and > >>>> benevolent. And has free will (Ehm. So he can change his mind and knew > >>>> it before?). And I have free will and will burn in hell if I do not > >>>> believe in god, who did know from the start that I would not believe in > >>>> him (thats what omniscient means).... No, does not work either. > >>>> > >>>> And so on, ad infinitum... > >>> The earth is like a test for all of us. We have free will. During our time > >>> on the earth, we can either love God or turn our backs on God. On > >>> judgement day, God will make the judgement based on whether we loved him > >>> (while on earth) or turned out backs on him (while on earth). The people > >>> that pass the test will go to heaven and people that turned their backs on > >>> God will go to hell. > >> Ok, that's the proof for your god not being benevolent right there. He > >> is omnipotent and can do anything. He is omniscient and knows > >> everything. He made this test, fully knowing what would happen. You > >> cannot argue that from your point of view. > >> > >>> It's a waste of effort and can even become obsessive if we concern > >>> ourselves with whether or not God has pre-ordained us to love or hate him. > >> But he has. You said so. This is what "omniscient" and "omnipotent" mean. > >> > >>> There was a time in history where Christians actually believed that God > >>> had pre-ordained some people to love him and had pre-ordained other people > >>> to go to hell. > >> Again, "omniscient" and "omnipotent". So whatever happens is because > >> your god did it. And he knew what would happen. Maybe on purpose, maybe > >> not, but he did it and knew what would happen. Where does "free will" > >> come in? > >> > >> Those Christians that believed that doctrine were > >>> mis-interpreting several scripture. They actually walked around the small > >>> towns telling everyone that they were members of the "elect". They were so > >>> proud. They were actually committing the sin of PROUDNESS. > >> Which your god must have known beforehand, because he knows everything. > > > >> Tokay > > Ok, start again, and reality check with it. > > > > > Tokay, > > You are making it MUCH more complicated than it really is. Free will means > > that God is letting us live our lives anyway we want to live it. Whether > > we pass the test or fail the test--it's up to us. > > And god knew if we pass of fail. That's omniscient. > > > > > For example, when I went to college, the college administrators made it > > clear what we needed to do in order to graduate. All of the students had > > free will. Some of us passed the test and obtained degrees. Lots of > > students failed the test and did not get degrees. Let's say the > > administrators (based on SAT tests and our high school grades and courses) > > knew which students would graduate and also knew which students would > > flunk out. That meant nothing to me and I did not worry about it. I done > > my best to pass the tests. I obtained my degree. > > These administrators are neither omniscient nor omnipotent. They think > they know who will pass and who will fail beforehand, but they don't > know for sure. If they knew for sure, there would be no point in > actually doing the test. Also, they never claim to be benevolent. > > > > > Each of us can love God or turn our backs on God. If we want to spend > > eternity in heaven--the logical alternative is to love God. If people > > choose to turn their backs on God, it is NOT God's fault if they end up > > in hell. It's that person's fault. > > No. It is gods fault (if he existed and had all these attributes). He > did it and he knew what would happen (OMNISCIENT! THATS what that word > MEANS!). > > So which way would you like it? Make your pick. Either he is omnipotent > and omniscient (NOT benevolent) then it is his fault (he did it and > knew what would happen), or he is not omnipotent or omniscient (you can > have one, but not both), then, and only then can it be my fault. > (If he is just omnipotent, he could do anything but would not know the > result beforehand. If he is just omniscient, he would know what would > happen, but could not do anything about it.) > > He can be omniscient and omnipotent, but then, he is one sick bugger > playing games (which is the opposite of benevolent). > > So if he is omniscient AND omnipotent it is his fault and he is > playing dirty games. Sick games. As crazy as a rabbit on speed. Worse, > actually. > > Tokay > > P.S.: But since he doesn't exist, I don't worry about this particular > cosmic zombie. Tokay, An omnipotent and omniscient God can do anything that he wants to do. In this case, he gave us free will. At the end of our test period (on this earth), he will make a judgement on whether we loved God or turned our backs on God. I made the choice of loving God. It's up to you about whether to love God or turn your back on God. If you end up in hell, it's not God's fault--it will be your fault. I don't understand why anyone would want to spend eternity in hell. One person told me that he did not believe there was a heaven or hell. That person is taking a really big gamble. If he is wrong, he will spend eternity in hell. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <joidnaPoJuZeq9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> >>> There is a big difference between believing that God created life from >>> non-life and believing that life naturally evolved from non-life. >> (snip) >> >> You just don't have enough imagination to hypothesize a god >> that created the universe with the built-in and unstoppable >> properties that must produce life after the right amount of >> cause and effect has modified its matter. >> >> Others have no problem hypothesizing such a powerful god. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > It's far easier for me to believe that God created life than for it is for > me to believe that life naturally evolved from non-life. > > If I saw a new car setting in a junk yard, I would not assume or believe > that the car must have come about from an explosion that happened at that > junk yard. It would be easier for me to believe that car was designed and > created. You mistake "evolution" for "chance". Look up the "perfect 747" one of these days and why it is not applicable. Abiogenesis "might" actually have an aspect of "chance". But even chance can have results, if given enough time. If you play the same lottery numbers long enough you almost certainly will win. You just have to play them for 50.000 years or so (that's a wild guess. Oh, well. I just did the maths. Was a wee bit wrong. On average you'd have to play for 1442307 years and a few months....Wups. One and a half million years....). Still, be are talking billions of years for abiogenesis and evolution combined. And you only need the starting point. Evolution has nothing to do with chance. Far from it. > > When Einstein was asked about this subject, he pulled out his pocket watch > and showed it to the reporter that asked the question. He stated, "This > watch had a designer and life had a designer." I agree with Einstein > Jason > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Since you seem to hate snipping, I leave that in and only add that I don't think Einstein said anything like that or meant a "creator" in sense of a god. Tokay -- Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books. Francis Bacon Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On Sat, 12 May 2007 15:38:28 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1205071538290001@66-52-22-50.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <464627b9$0$21840$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Martin ><usenet1@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <4645e8ec$0$6946$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, Martin >> > <usenet1@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> >>> In article <4644db72$0$6942$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, Martin >> >>> <usenet1@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Jason wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life. They have no >> >>>>> proof that it ever happened. >> >>>> errr HELLO! >> >>>> >> >>>> You might not exist, but I believe I do. Therefore life _came_ (not >> >>>> evolved) from non-life >> >>>> >> >>>> What the hell are you on about? >> >>>> >> >>>> Even if you belive your shite about god, then you also belive life came >> >>>> from non-life, what was all that crap about dirt and breathing in life? >> >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >>> >> >>> There is a BIG difference between believing that life evolved from >> >>> non-life and believing that a creator God was able to take natural >> >>> materials and create life from that natural materials. It's much easier >> >>> for me to believe that God created life than to believe what you appear to >> >>> believe. >> >> You stated "Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life." >> >> >> >> Are you now backtracking on that statement? >> >>> >> > >> > Not really. It must be faith because there is no evidence that live >> > evolved from non-life. >> >> Your own fucking bible states that life came from non-life. What the >> hell are you on man? >> >> Whether it was puffed into existance or came from self-replicating >> molecules, life came from non-life one way or another. Go back 4.5Gyears >> and the earth was a ball of molten rock, now it's teaming with life. >> What does that tell you? Once there was no life, now there is. If life >> didn't come from non-life where the hell DID it come from >> > >> > > >There is a big difference between believing that God created life from >non-life and believing that life naturally evolved from non-life. So, why can't your God use evolution? Who are you to tell God how to do things? >Let's say that I used a helecopter to place a brand new car deep in a >jungle that a tribe of people lived in that had never before seen a >vehicle. > >Perhaps some of those people may believe the car came about as a result of >natural forces. Perhaps some of the other people may believe the car was >designed and created. > >Do you see my point? Yes, you, like many zealots, worship your own ignorance and are so taken with yourselves that you cannot imagine that the earth really isn't that important in the universe. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On Sat, 12 May 2007 15:39:42 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1205071539420001@66-52-22-50.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <GrqdnZkQdNyMsdvbnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish ><jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <hJSdnSrqr5mbn9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish >> > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> >> >>> I consider God to be omniscient and omnipotent. He is also a dictator but >> >>> that is not a problem for Christians. God is a loving God and would be a >> >>> wonderful dictator. >> >> That is the fear talking. >> >> >> >> This loving hypothetical god also is said to have nearly >> >> sterilized the planet, because it had a temper tantrum when >> >> its creation did not perform up to its expectations, yet, >> >> had been created exactly as it wished it to be and had been >> >> foreseen to be. How could it have been otherwise if this >> >> hypothetical loving god was really omniscient and >> >> omnipotent? That is one crazy and sadistic hypothetical >> >> demon, you got there. >> >> >> >> You better keep complimenting it and kissing its ass, or it >> >> might do you and infinite punishment. >> >> >> >>> I would not trust a dictator that was human but would >> >>> trust God since God is perfect. >> >> (snip) >> >> >> >> Kiss kiss (don't hurt me). >> > >> > The other alternative is going to hell and being forced to worship Satan. >> > I believe my choice is better. >> >> Once you understand that the whole story is mythology, other >> choices open up. >> >> In the mean time, you will probably sleep better if you keep >> sucking up to your imaginary, hypothetical god. >> >> I understand. I once feared the same demon. > >On judgement day, you will really be shocked. > There is no evidence that there will be a judgement day. There is no evidence that any gods exist. There is no evidence that the god you worship is the right god. There is no evidence that you won't be the one going to hell for worshipping the wrong god. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <464627b9$0$21840$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Martin <usenet1@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <4645e8ec$0$6946$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, Martin > > <usenet1@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <4644db72$0$6942$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, Martin > >>> <usenet1@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Jason wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life. They have no > >>>>> proof that it ever happened. > >>>> errr HELLO! > >>>> > >>>> You might not exist, but I believe I do. Therefore life _came_ (not > >>>> evolved) from non-life > >>>> > >>>> What the hell are you on about? > >>>> > >>>> Even if you belive your shite about god, then you also belive life came > >>>> from non-life, what was all that crap about dirt and breathing in life? > >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >>> > >>> There is a BIG difference between believing that life evolved from > >>> non-life and believing that a creator God was able to take natural > >>> materials and create life from that natural materials. It's much easier > >>> for me to believe that God created life than to believe what you appear to > >>> believe. > >> You stated "Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life." > >> > >> Are you now backtracking on that statement? > >>> > > > > Not really. It must be faith because there is no evidence that live > > evolved from non-life. > > Your own fucking bible states that life came from non-life. What the > hell are you on man? > > Whether it was puffed into existance or came from self-replicating > molecules, life came from non-life one way or another. Go back 4.5Gyears > and the earth was a ball of molten rock, now it's teaming with life. > What does that tell you? Once there was no life, now there is. If life > didn't come from non-life where the hell DID it come from > > > > There is a big difference between believing that God created life from non-life and believing that life naturally evolved from non-life. Let's say that I used a helecopter to place a brand new car deep in a jungle that a tribe of people lived in that had never before seen a vehicle. Perhaps some of those people may believe the car came about as a result of natural forces. Perhaps some of the other people may believe the car was designed and created. Do you see my point? Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <GrqdnZkQdNyMsdvbnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <hJSdnSrqr5mbn9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >> > >>> I consider God to be omniscient and omnipotent. He is also a dictator but > >>> that is not a problem for Christians. God is a loving God and would be a > >>> wonderful dictator. > >> That is the fear talking. > >> > >> This loving hypothetical god also is said to have nearly > >> sterilized the planet, because it had a temper tantrum when > >> its creation did not perform up to its expectations, yet, > >> had been created exactly as it wished it to be and had been > >> foreseen to be. How could it have been otherwise if this > >> hypothetical loving god was really omniscient and > >> omnipotent? That is one crazy and sadistic hypothetical > >> demon, you got there. > >> > >> You better keep complimenting it and kissing its ass, or it > >> might do you and infinite punishment. > >> > >>> I would not trust a dictator that was human but would > >>> trust God since God is perfect. > >> (snip) > >> > >> Kiss kiss (don't hurt me). > > > > The other alternative is going to hell and being forced to worship Satan. > > I believe my choice is better. > > Once you understand that the whole story is mythology, other > choices open up. > > In the mean time, you will probably sleep better if you keep > sucking up to your imaginary, hypothetical god. > > I understand. I once feared the same demon. On judgement day, you will really be shocked. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <6ibc43h9341rqn6krh8uq0uidm73lg7srt@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 12 May 2007 12:52:36 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-1205071252360001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <1178955578.365189.164140@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> On May 12, 9:48 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > >> > I do notice that you happened to select 1950 to make your claims. What > >> > do you think the murder rate was in 1935? 1925? 1915? 1890? Other > >> > earlier years? Murder rates change over time. Your 55 years is a fairly > >> > small tracing. > >> > >> Going back to 1890 would make things worse. What sort of records did > >> they keep back then? If a man was caught red handed commiting murder > >> and hanged within a week then would there be records about it let > >> alone statistics that survive to this day to tell us about it? And > >> what about unsolved cases? How many murders never got recorded as > >> murders because there was no conclusive forensic evidence to indicate > >> foul play? > >> > >> Martin > > > >Martin, > >The main reason that I only went back to 1950 is because things like the > >depression and World Wars may have had an effect on the figures. > > But so have the events of the past fifty years. The world changes over > time and our country changes with it. I had to start somewhere--1950 was my choice--perhaps you would have made a different choice. I was born in 1950 which was another reason for my choice. I doubt that we could rely statistics from the Old West days since lots of murderers were hanged instead of being sent to prison. Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <jq-dnZbrc6MQqtvbnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> On judgement day, you will really be shocked. >> If I die and am still conscious, I will be shocked. I am >> looking forward to being dead, someday. Life, without end, >> in any form, is unimaginably horrible for me. >> >> Judgment and anything it involves will be small, compared to >> that shock. > > But what if you are wrong and you end up standing in front of the > judgement seat of God. After I get over the shock of still being conscious, the next big shock would be finding out that things are run by something like your hypothetical god instead on one of the thousands of other hypothetical gods, or by something even more unimaginable. Have you calculated your chances of worshiping the wrong hypothetical god and earning the wrath of another one? There are lots to choose from. My odds are just about the same as yours, as far as I can tell. Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In alt.atheism On Sat, 12 May 2007 16:11:58 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <joidnaPoJuZeq9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish ><jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> >> > There is a big difference between believing that God created life from >> > non-life and believing that life naturally evolved from non-life. >> (snip) >> >> You just don't have enough imagination to hypothesize a god >> that created the universe with the built-in and unstoppable >> properties that must produce life after the right amount of >> cause and effect has modified its matter. >> >> Others have no problem hypothesizing such a powerful god. > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >It's far easier for me to believe that God created life than for it is for >me to believe that life naturally evolved from non-life. Easier isn't necessarily correct. >When Einstein 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 Don Kresch Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 23:22:56 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <q3ga43d5v4e9esn9g75h0b7ksd2mcotfe7@4ax.com>, Don Kresch ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> 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. >> >> >> >I don't like people that delete important words They weren't important. That's why they were deleted. 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 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In alt.atheism On Sat, 12 May 2007 11:42:09 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <1178955188.610779.153760@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 12, 9:40 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > God is omniscient and omni powerful. God can do anything that he wants to >> > do. He can create anything that he wishes to create. >> >> Can God create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it? Can God see >> what He will do tomorrow and then change his mind? >> >> > If you reply, please >> > don't snip anything that I stated in these 5 sentences. You done that the >> > last time. >> >> Stop typing these "Do not snip" sentences if you don't want them >> snipped. >> >> Martin > >Martin, >That person was snipping half of my sentences in order to quote me out of >context. Liar. 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 Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Don Kresch wrote: > In alt.atheism On Sat, 12 May 2007 16:11:58 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > (Jason) let us all know that: > >> In article <joidnaPoJuZeq9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish >> <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: >> >>> Jason wrote: >>> >>>> There is a big difference between believing that God created life from >>>> non-life and believing that life naturally evolved from non-life. >>> (snip) >>> >>> You just don't have enough imagination to hypothesize a god >>> that created the universe with the built-in and unstoppable >>> properties that must produce life after the right amount of >>> cause and effect has modified its matter. >>> >>> Others have no problem hypothesizing such a powerful god. >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> It's far easier for me to believe that God created life than for it is for >> me to believe that life naturally evolved from non-life. > > Easier isn't necessarily correct. Not really, no. If it actually was easier, I'd probably give it some merit. Of course "easier" isn't necessarily correct. Occams Razor, though, says that the easier explanation is more likely to be correct. The error here is that a "god" is not easier. You start from scratch and build your way up. Abiogenesis starts from atoms. Pretty simple stuff (well, on this level, at least). A "god" is one hellishly complex thing. Where did he come from? So, you see, it is not "easier" it is much more complex. Tokay -- Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books. Francis Bacon Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f25ev3$mb3$00$2@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <464627b9$0$21840$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Martin >>> <usenet1@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <4645e8ec$0$6946$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, Martin >>>>> <usenet1@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>> In article <4644db72$0$6942$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, Martin >>>>>>> <usenet1@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life. They have no >>>>>>>>> proof that it ever happened. >>>>>>>> errr HELLO! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You might not exist, but I believe I do. Therefore life _came_ (not >>>>>>>> evolved) from non-life >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What the hell are you on about? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Even if you belive your shite about god, then you also belive > life came >>>>>>>> from non-life, what was all that crap about dirt and breathing in life? >>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is a BIG difference between believing that life evolved from >>>>>>> non-life and believing that a creator God was able to take natural >>>>>>> materials and create life from that natural materials. It's much easier >>>>>>> for me to believe that God created life than to believe what you > appear to >>>>>>> believe. >>>>>> You stated "Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life." >>>>>> >>>>>> Are you now backtracking on that statement? >>>>> Not really. It must be faith because there is no evidence that live >>>>> evolved from non-life. >>>> Your own fucking bible states that life came from non-life. What the >>>> hell are you on man? >>>> >>>> Whether it was puffed into existance or came from self-replicating >>>> molecules, life came from non-life one way or another. Go back 4.5Gyears >>>> and the earth was a ball of molten rock, now it's teaming with life. >>>> What does that tell you? Once there was no life, now there is. If life >>>> didn't come from non-life where the hell DID it come from >>> There is a big difference between believing that God created life from >>> non-life and believing that life naturally evolved from non-life. >>> >>> Let's say that I used a helecopter to place a brand new car deep in a >>> jungle that a tribe of people lived in that had never before seen a >>> vehicle. >>> >>> Perhaps some of those people may believe the car came about as a result of >>> natural forces. Perhaps some of the other people may believe the car was >>> designed and created. >>> >>> Do you see my point? >>> Jason >>> >>> >> Ever heard of "Cargo-cult"? >> >> >> Tokay > > No > > Google might help. Or Wikipedia. Or what dictionary you prefer. Tokay -- Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books. Francis Bacon Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <jq-dnZbrc6MQqtvbnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <GrqdnZkQdNyMsdvbnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish >>>> Once you understand that the whole story is mythology, other >>>> choices open up. >>>> >>>> In the mean time, you will probably sleep better if you keep >>>> sucking up to your imaginary, hypothetical god. >>>> >>>> I understand. I once feared the same demon. >>> On judgement day, you will really be shocked. >> If I die and am still conscious, I will be shocked. I am >> looking forward to being dead, someday. Life, without end, >> in any form, is unimaginably horrible for me. >> >> Judgment and anything it involves will be small, compared to >> that shock. > > But what if you are wrong and you end up standing in front of the > judgement seat of God. > > Zeus will be pretty pissed.... Tokay -- Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books. Francis Bacon Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <joidnaPoJuZeq9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> >>> There is a big difference between believing that God created life from >>> non-life and believing that life naturally evolved from non-life. >> (snip) >> >> You just don't have enough imagination to hypothesize a god >> that created the universe with the built-in and unstoppable >> properties that must produce life after the right amount of >> cause and effect has modified its matter. >> >> Others have no problem hypothesizing such a powerful god. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > It's far easier for me to believe that God created life than for it is for > me to believe that life naturally evolved from non-life. (snip) Is "easier" the way you think through everything? It is hard for me to imagine magic that turns the desire of a hypothetical god into physical reality. Saying it is "easy" but imagining what it would involve leaves me at the starting gate. But I guess when godly magic is allowed, everything and anything is "easy". But the solid ground beneath your feet turns to fog. Not an "easy" way for me to live. Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In alt.atheism On Sat, 12 May 2007 11:49:10 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <5alq3oF2oseo3U1@mid.individual.net>, "Steve O" ><spamhere@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> "Tokay Pino Gris" <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote in message >> news:f247a9$n2t$01$2@news.t-online.com... >> > Jason wrote: >> >> 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. >> > >> > The saying is "omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent". Which just is not >> > possible. At least one of the three is a contradiction. Make your pick. >> > >> I don't think he really understands the implications in order to pick one. >> He just doesn't seem to have the capacity to understand why free will and an >> omnipotent, omniscient creator God are contradictory. > >I consider God to be omniscient and omnipotent. And did god create everything? If so, then there's no free will. 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 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In alt.atheism On Sat, 12 May 2007 15:39:42 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <GrqdnZkQdNyMsdvbnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish ><jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <hJSdnSrqr5mbn9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish >> > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> >> >>> I consider God to be omniscient and omnipotent. He is also a dictator but >> >>> that is not a problem for Christians. God is a loving God and would be a >> >>> wonderful dictator. >> >> That is the fear talking. >> >> >> >> This loving hypothetical god also is said to have nearly >> >> sterilized the planet, because it had a temper tantrum when >> >> its creation did not perform up to its expectations, yet, >> >> had been created exactly as it wished it to be and had been >> >> foreseen to be. How could it have been otherwise if this >> >> hypothetical loving god was really omniscient and >> >> omnipotent? That is one crazy and sadistic hypothetical >> >> demon, you got there. >> >> >> >> You better keep complimenting it and kissing its ass, or it >> >> might do you and infinite punishment. >> >> >> >>> I would not trust a dictator that was human but would >> >>> trust God since God is perfect. >> >> (snip) >> >> >> >> Kiss kiss (don't hurt me). >> > >> > The other alternative is going to hell and being forced to worship Satan. >> > I believe my choice is better. >> >> Once you understand that the whole story is mythology, other >> choices open up. >> >> In the mean time, you will probably sleep better if you keep >> sucking up to your imaginary, hypothetical god. >> >> I understand. I once feared the same demon. > >On judgement day, you will really be shocked. Childish threats make us laugh at you. 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 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In alt.atheism On Sat, 12 May 2007 16:34:08 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <jq-dnZbrc6MQqtvbnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish ><jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <GrqdnZkQdNyMsdvbnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish >> >> >> Once you understand that the whole story is mythology, other >> >> choices open up. >> >> >> >> In the mean time, you will probably sleep better if you keep >> >> sucking up to your imaginary, hypothetical god. >> >> >> >> I understand. I once feared the same demon. >> > >> > On judgement day, you will really be shocked. >> >> If I die and am still conscious, I will be shocked. I am >> looking forward to being dead, someday. Life, without end, >> in any form, is unimaginably horrible for me. >> >> Judgment and anything it involves will be small, compared to >> that shock. > >But what if you are wrong and you end up standing in front of the >judgement seat of God. > What if you're wrong and you end up standing in front of Shiva? 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 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 23:50:28 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <1178944566.218962.104970@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Martin ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On May 12, 9:58 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > I am sorry--I have never taken any classes or read any books related to the >> > Code ofHammurabi. Based upon what you posted, there does seem to be some >> > similarities between many of the laws mentioned in the Bible and The Code >> > ofHammurabi. 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. >> >> No, no, Hammurabi _said_ that God spoke to him. His name for God was >> "Anu". This predates anything Biblical and shows that the laws that >> God supposedly gave to Moses were already known to Semetic people. At >> best you could argue that they were a reminder. >> >Martin, >I recall learning about that from a television special. If it's on TV, it MUST be true. > As far as I know, >there is NO proof that Moses was familiar with the Hammurabi code. There's really no proof that Moses existed. 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 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 22:47:50 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <1178942351.345553.104330@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >Martin, >I am sure that you believe everything that is stated above. You know more >about science than I know and I respect your knowledge. However, I have >read conflicting information in other sources. Do you concede that 50 >years from now, scientists will know more about genetics than they >presently know? Do you concede that there are people that know as much >about science that you know that have different opinions than you related >to this subject? >Please comment on this statement: >When I was in college, You were never in college. 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
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.