Guest Ralph Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0107071743250001@66-52-22-4.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <uqdg83dmrrdkf9tkbqepbbq2avtaf05h2m@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 15:37:17 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0107071537170001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <4687FFEC.D670BAD6@osu.edu>, Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> >> >wrote: >> >> ... >> >> >> Tell me, Jason, where you stand on the Christian Right >> >> agenda to make fundamentalist Christianity the state religion >> >> of the United States. Are you for it or against it? >> >> I solemnly promise that a candid answer from you >> >> could not possibly make me think any less of you. >> >> >> >> Jim Burns >> > >> >We have no desire to force people to become Christians. When the Muslims >> >take over a country, they give people a choice: Become a Muslim or get >> >your head chopped off. >> >> Christians have done that in the past. Now they control so many >> countries that they don't have to do it that way. >> >> >Christians don't do it that way. We present the message and if people >> >such >> >as yourself decide to not become Christians, we would not harm you or >> >even >> >threaten your life. >> >> So you wish. >> >> >The answer to your question is that we will never make fundamentialist >> >Christianity the state religion. >> >> Then why are you trying? >> >> >I would be against any effort to make it >> >the state religion. Even when I lived in the Bible Belt and over 90% of >> >the people were Christians--we did not try to make fundamentalist >> >Christianity the Virginia State Religion. We did not even try to make it >> >the official County Religion. >> >> The Constitution forbid it, but you do want people to teach lies in >> science class that endorse your particular kind of Christianity. Isn't >> that a first step? >> >> >You have much more to fear from Muslims than you have to fear from >> >Christians. >> >> Not in the US. >> >> >On your next vacation, I advise you to visit one of the Muslim >> >Countries to learn the dangers of a religion controlling the government. >> >I >> >heard the testimony of a man that had a job in a Muslim country. He once >> >visited the area of the city where public punishments were done. He was >> >shocked when he saw thieves getting at least one hand chopped off. He >> >even >> >saw them chop off the head of a man that had been found guilty of >> >murder. >> >The crowd was clapping after each of those punishments or murders were >> >performed. >> > >> >You will never see that sort of thing done by Christians. >> >> Christians have done that for centuries. It took civil, secular >> government, destroying the power of Christianity to stop such abuse. >> >> Your ignorance of history is appalling. > > > We learned from our mistakes. Have you seen any evidence of the things > that you mentioned during your life time? > > I see it different. I see evolutionists that that rush to court to stop > any school systems from teaching Intelligent Design. They do not want any > competition. > > I see liberals rushing to court to force cities and counties to remove > crosses on government property. Many of those crosses have been in place > for over 100 years. However, those liberals will be able to find a liberal > judge that bases his decisions on personal policy preferences instead of > established laws. > > I see the Supreme Court making a decision indicating that unborn children > do not have the Right To Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. > > Beam me up Scotty, there is no intelligent life down here. I wish to hell he would, you're worth nothing down here. Quote
Guest johac Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 In article <1183283295.081990.319760@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 1, 2:32 pm, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > In article <1183197258.119270.49...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 30, 2:29 pm, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > In article <5ekj7bF398uh...@mid.individual.net>, > > > > "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > > > > > "johac" <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > > > > >news:jhachmann-5CD649.15412328062007@news.giganews.com... > > > > > > In article <5ehujiF385pl...@mid.individual.net>, > > > > > > "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> LOL! Diety Death Match? Who knows how to do claymation? > > > > > > > > LOL! I wish I knew how! I'd love to put something like that on > > > > > > YouTube. > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > That would be hilarious > > > > > > Heh! Heh! Tag team. Yaweh and Baal vs. Zeus and The FSM. :-) > > > > > "Baal" is a hebrew word meaning "lord" that was used to refer to any > > > god other than Yahweh so as far as we know the Baal that teh > > > Canaanites were worshipping _was_ Zeus. > > > > Could be, but according to this: > > > > http://www.pantheon.org/articles/b/baal.html > > > > it sounds like the Baal of the early OT was a different god. Possibly > > related to Yaweh, but not the same. He might have been the son of El who > > is sometimes identified with Yaweh. I don't think that Zeus got there > > until the Greeks arrived, particularly after Alexander's conquest. > > Yes, but the Jewish storm god Hadad was called Baal ("Lord") so the > old testament could be refering to him. > > (See http://www.pantheon.org/articles/h/hadad.html and > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadad ) > > And yet, according to the link you provided, > > "Baal, literal meaning is "lord," in the Canaanite pantheon was the > local title of fertility gods. Baal never emerged as a rain god until > later times when he assumed the special functions of each." > > So we could both be right: it could be that the Jews confused two gods > by calling them both Baal, one who was also known to the Greeks as > Zeus and the other being the ancient Sumerian fertility god, who would > have been the husband of Ishtar the Sumerian fertility goddess. What > a mess! The Hebrews were Canaanites. It's likely at one time they worshipped the same gods. So the confusion might be understandable. I would take this as more evidence that the Babble OT was written by men rather than dictated by some omnipotent being. Otherwise they'd all be on the same page. > > Martin -- John #1782 "We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides." - Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order. Quote
Guest Martin Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On Jul 2, 6:37 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <4687FFEC.D670B...@osu.edu>, Jim Burns <burns...@osu.edu> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > > In article <468286BD.8080...@osu.edu>, James Burns > > > <burns...@osu.edu> wrote: > > [...] > > > > So, the ID folks want to establish a church in the US. > > > > It doesn't matter to me if you want to deny it; that's > > > > what it all comes down to when you peel the rhetoric off. > > > > There's been a lot of discussion in this thread about how > > > > ID is just wrong factually -- and it is -- but what I find > > > > much more disturbing is what the lessons of history show, > > > > over and over and over, when someone establishes or even > > > > tries to establish a church. > > > > > You, Jason, may well be willing to accept the human cost > > > > involved; I don't know. (Tell me, Jason, how you would > > > > feel about those deaths in the USSR if, instead of > > > > Stalin, it had been led by Jerry Falwell, establishing > > > > a Christian Empire? Would they have been worth the > > > > outcome?) I strongly suspect, though, that the 68% > > > > poll in Ohio did not talk about all this, though. > > > > How much support does your ID crowd really have, > > > > for, you know, the big picture <wink, wink>? > > > > I doubt that ID will ever be taught in the public schoools > > > so you have nothing to fear. Even if ID was taught, all of > > > the problems you discussed would probably not happen. I have > > > never done any research related to the many adults that are > > > graduates of Christian high schools. It's my guess that the > > > vast majority of them are not guilty of any of those things > > > that you mentioned in your post. > > > The efforts to get Intelligent Design into science classes > > is only part of the fundamentalist Christan agenda: to > > install their version of Christianity as the state religion > > of the US. > > > Another part is the "Christian Soldier" movement. When the > > chaplain at the United States Air Force Academy complained > > to her superiors that cadets were being pressured to become > > "saved", that is, fundamentalist Christian, she was transferred > > to Japan. She resigned shortly thereafter in protest. > > Google "Capt. Melinda Morton". > > > I find it very troubling that one religious group is working > > to exclude other groups from the military. What are they > > going to do with that control? > > > The most blatant example I can think of, though, is the > > fuss the Christian Right kicked up over the nomination > > of Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court. The Democrats were > > expected to complain, but the White House knew it could > > push it through over their objections. What stopped her > > nomination cold was Bush's own right wing saying she > > wasn't far enough right wing for them. > > > This was the personal lawyer of possibly the most > > conservative President ever, but that wasn't enough for > > them. I am reminded of the French Revolution, where > > those who had originally sent to the guillotine whatever > > nobility they could catch were later sent themselves > > for not being revolutionary enough. > > > The Christian Right are fools, though, (those who want > > to make their religion the state religion -- I doubt it's > > unanimous). The best way to kill a religion at its > > roots is to force it down people's throats using the > > power of the state. They are trading the long-term viability > > of their religion /as religion/ (instead of public ceremonies) > > for a very worldly display of political power. I think > > Jesus had a few ripe things to say about people like that. > > > Tell me, Jason, where you stand on the Christian Right > > agenda to make fundamentalist Christianity the state religion > > of the United States. Are you for it or against it? > > I solemnly promise that a candid answer from you > > could not possibly make me think any less of you. > > > Jim Burns > > We have no desire to force people to become Christians. When the Muslims > take over a country, they give people a choice: Become a Muslim or get > your head chopped off. > > Christians don't do it that way. We present the message and if people such > as yourself decide to not become Christians, we would not harm you or even > threaten your life. > > The answer to your question is that we will never make fundamentialist > Christianity the state religion. I would be against any effort to make it > the state religion. Even when I lived in the Bible Belt and over 90% of > the people were Christians--we did not try to make fundamentalist > Christianity the Virginia State Religion. We did not even try to make it > the official County Religion. > > You have much more to fear from Muslims than you have to fear from > Christians. On your next vacation, I advise you to visit one of the Muslim > Countries to learn the dangers of a religion controlling the government. I > heard the testimony of a man that had a job in a Muslim country. He once > visited the area of the city where public punishments were done. He was > shocked when he saw thieves getting at least one hand chopped off. He even > saw them chop off the head of a man that had been found guilty of murder. > The crowd was clapping after each of those punishments or murders were > performed. > > You will never see that sort of thing done by Christians. http://straitway.org/2001/03012001.htm Church History "Kill Them All, Let God Sort Them Out!" This saying, actually used in some circles today and historically in military situations, got its beginning during the terrible persecution that Christians suffered in 13th Century Europe. The freedoms we enjoy could not be imagined in that world over seven hundred years ago. It is important for us today, to know the hard-hearted mindset of those who opposed the Truth fueled by the evil machinations of a Machiavellian-style papacy in Rome. The policy set by Rome at that time is still in force doctrinally. This is known as "Nulla salus extra ecclesium" ("Outside the Church there is no salvation.") It was "open season" on those who taught any doctrine other than that which the Pope allowed and this made such people enemies of the Catholic Church. In 1210 AD, Pope Innocent III unleashed "orders of fire and sword" against a group of heretics throughout Europe, mostly remembered as Cathars. Of special note, at the great city of Beziers, France there was a terrible massacre of heretics. Though the actual count will never be known, it is thought that perhaps 100,000 people were ultimately slaughtered. The papal forces besieged Beziers and all inside were commanded to surrender and repent. The heretics inside, also known as Waldensians or Albigensians, were believers in a widespread form of gnosticism which threatened the greedy and materialistic goals of the Papacy. According to a Catholic source, "Caesarius of Heisterbach: Medieval Heresies," after the city was taken, at a cost in life of thousands of defenders, about 450 heretics were "examined" by the inquisitors and many of them claimed to be Christians rather than being heretics and would not repent. Others claimed to be good Catholics and did not want to die. Fearing the possibility that these were lying, must have caused the infamous phrase to first be uttered. In Latin, "Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset" or "Kill them all. God will know His own." This was a misunderstood reference to 2 Tim. 2:19 which in part reads, "The Lord knoweth them that are his" (KJV). About fifty were hanged, the rest were burned to death. At this time, most Catholics felt that life on earth was simply a brief interlude to prepare for the hereafter. If one led a godly life, God would know of it, and the reward would be eternal paradise. So, this statement made perfect sense according to the concepts of Catholic righteousness. If every single soul in Beziers were killed, the good would go to Heaven and the evil would go to Hell, and so the papal killers were doing God's work. The New Testament says, John 5:22, "For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son," (NKJ) And, obviously, man is not to murder (Luke 18:20; James 2:11). Were there New Testament Christians in Beziers? The Cathars were truly heretics, but we also can see from the testimonies the Catholic examiners themselves left behind, there could have been a good many true Christians among them. At this time in history and for centuries before this there were many regions of Europe that had been benign homes for the faithful. Though always a serious persecutor of the faithful, the Catholic Church truly became the main exterminator of Christians when it became militarily powerful beginning in the 12th Century. Shouldn't we be thankful we are so blessed to live in the times we do! "Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors..." (Rom. 8:37; read verses 35-39). - Marc Smith Martin Quote
Guest johac Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 In article <2bqe839of0oeet6j5bn5ahckfapuln9dnm@4ax.com>, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 23:23:27 -0700, johac > <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: > - Refer: <jhachmann-9C667C.23232730062007@news.giganews.com> > >In article <q3dc83183vrussfbg4n0uk217oqfrss1uu@4ax.com>, > > Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 23:29:32 -0700, johac > >> <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> - Refer: <jhachmann-D5E3F6.23293229062007@news.giganews.com> > >> >In article <5ekj7bF398uh2U1@mid.individual.net>, > >> > "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> "johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > >> >> news:jhachmann-5CD649.15412328062007@news.giganews.com... > >> >> > In article <5ehujiF385pl0U1@mid.individual.net>, > >> >> > "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> "johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > >> >> >> news:jhachmann-5CB182.16175027062007@news.giganews.com... > >> >> >> > In article <5efchvF36n37vU1@mid.individual.net>, > >> >> >> > "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> "Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message > >> >> >> >> news:1vj3835t86vajghq9n05jc1n7qdhe7ntud@4ax.com... > >> >> >> >> > On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 15:58:27 -0700, johac > >> >> >> >> > <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > - Refer: <jhachmann-2EB388.15582726062007@news.giganews.com> > >> >> >> >> >>In article > >> >> >> >> >><Jason-2506071038350001@66-52-22-83.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > >> >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >>> In article <5ea5jrF383thsU1@mid.individual.net>, > >> >> >> >> >>> "Robibnikoff" > >> >> >> >> >>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >>> > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote > >> >> >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> >> >>> > snip > >> >> >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> >> >>> > > If they read their Bibles, they will know all about the > >> >> >> >> >>> > > true > >> >> >> >> >>> > > God. > >> >> >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> >> >>> > What makes your god the "true" one? > >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >>> Books have been written on that subject. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >>I read books on Greek mythology. Does that mean that Zeus is > >> >> >> >> >>the > >> >> >> >> >>true > >> >> >> >> >>god? > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > Of course. > >> >> >> >> > The non-existent Zeus can kick the non-existent YHWH's butt any > >> >> >> >> > time! > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> True, but as a long-time fan of Norse mythology, I think Odin > >> >> >> >> could > >> >> >> >> give > >> >> >> >> Zeus a run for his money > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > I don't know. Maybe we could get all the gods in an arena and let > >> >> >> > them > >> >> >> > fight it out to see who's the toughest non-existent being. Sort of > >> >> >> > a > >> >> >> > divine bum fight. :-) > >> >> >> > >> >> >> LOL! Diety Death Match? Who knows how to do claymation? > >> >> > > >> >> > LOL! I wish I knew how! I'd love to put something like that on > >> >> > YouTube. > >> >> > :-) > >> >> > >> >> That would be hilarious > >> > > >> >Heh! Heh! Tag team. Yaweh and Baal vs. Zeus and The FSM. :-) > >> > >> With Xena & Hera for spice! > > > >And Aphrodite (in her nightie) and Astarte! > > Let's Party! > > ding ding > > "Round Won" Can I get in on round two, or better round threesome? > > -- -- John #1782 "We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides." - Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order. Quote
Guest 655321 Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 In article <Jason-0107071506180001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > The end goal of the evolutionists is to keep Intelligent Design from being > taught. That's not true, really. The goal of scientists is to keep science in the curriculum, and to exclude that which is not science. One effect of such an endeavor is the keeping out of ID. > The reason is because they believe that the children would realize > that Intelligent Design makes more sense than evolution. Your God Quote
Guest 655321 Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 In article <Jason-0107071551110001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f5ag831b4s3rkgq5dn0oed7jc0249tke85@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > There is no science of Intelligent Design. ID is a religiously-motivated > > lie. That is the only fact there is about ID. Deal with it. > > I do believe the evolutionists do not want any competition in much the > same way that the Christians did not want any competition in 1925--the > date of the Scopes Monkey Trial. Since when is lying okay, Jason? You really are a mendacious twit fighting for the grand cause of making sure that everyone is as willfully ignorant as you are. THEREFORE, personal attacks on you are justified, as far as I am concerned. You have tossed civil discourse into the trash heap. Your ICR handlers must be proud of the monster they have created. -- 655321 "We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi Quote
Guest 655321 Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 In article <Jason-0107071537170001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > We have no desire to force people to become Christians. That was your old strategy, which is employed less often now than before. Now you try to trick people into becoming Christians by lying to them. And it works sometimes. -- 655321 "We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi Quote
Guest 655321 Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 In article <Jason-0107071543400001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article > <DipthotDipthot-759FEF.10192201072007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > 655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > > > In article > > <Jason-3006071525500001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > It's very different. God created life from non-life. That is VERY > > > different than life forming naturally from non-life. > > > > It is VERY different. The existence of a god that created life is just > > one more thing to prove. The ID-er has that much more to experiment for > > and to prove. > > I agree. .... and zero such scientific studies have been proposed, much less performed. The DI, for one, hasn't even attempted such a thing, because it doesn't know where to start. The ICR, since it has nothing but disdain for science, won't even bother. They work from the unproven assertion that Biblegod Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 09:34:56 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: - Refer: <f68ai0$fd8$2@news04.infoave.net> >Michael Gray wrote: >> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 23:20:45 -0700, johac >> <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> Aha! So you are in league with the Devil! >> >> Little League. >> Satan's on first. > >WHO's on first. Did the great saints Abbott and Costello teach you ANYTHING? > > sheesh Jason's on third. (Well, its the same as "I don't know") -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 08:20:35 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: - Refer: <jgaf83l2r95mr6204bq6b4jimp79o7bent@4ax.com> >On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 18:10:31 +0930, in alt.atheism >Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in ><41qe83tfoice8le29tkr2q15a5k7ndjdb7@4ax.com>: >>On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 23:39:57 -0700, johac >><jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> - Refer: <jhachmann-9D2451.23395730062007@news.giganews.com> >>>In article <o1dc831153t79bca8qe0addiio9hpratem@4ax.com>, >>> Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 23:18:12 -0700, johac >>>> <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> - Refer: <jhachmann-51A355.23181229062007@news.giganews.com> >>>> >In article <nai983h7frhfr6kddnhkm21qhoe9a1700g@4ax.com>, >>>> > Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:44:09 -0700, johac >>>> >> <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >> - Refer: <jhachmann-476633.15440928062007@news.giganews.com> >>>> >> >In article <740783hjnp1rl69hncffbem3j5p90ls05v@4ax.com>, >>>> >> > Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: >>>> >> > >>>> >> >> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:17:50 -0700, johac >>>> >> >> <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >> >> - Refer: <jhachmann-5CB182.16175027062007@news.giganews.com> >>>> >> >> >In article <5efchvF36n37vU1@mid.individual.net>, >>>> >> >> > "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> >> "Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message >>>> >> >> >> news:1vj3835t86vajghq9n05jc1n7qdhe7ntud@4ax.com... >>>> >> >> >> > On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 15:58:27 -0700, johac >>>> >> >> >> > <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >> >> >> > - Refer: <jhachmann-2EB388.15582726062007@news.giganews.com> >>>> >> >> >> >>In article >>>> >> >> >> >><Jason-2506071038350001@66-52-22-83.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, >>>> >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>> In article <5ea5jrF383thsU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >>>> >> >> >> >>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >>>> >> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >> >>> > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote >>>> >> >> >> >>> > >>>> >> >> >> >>> > snip >>>> >> >> >> >>> > >>>> >> >> >> >>> > > If they read their Bibles, they will know all about the true >>>> >> >> >> >>> > > God. >>>> >> >> >> >>> > >>>> >> >> >> >>> > What makes your god the "true" one? >>>> >> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >> >>> Books have been written on that subject. >>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>I read books on Greek mythology. Does that mean that Zeus is the >>>> >> >> >> >>true >>>> >> >> >> >>god? >>>> >> >> >> > >>>> >> >> >> > Of course. >>>> >> >> >> > The non-existent Zeus can kick the non-existent YHWH's butt any >>>> >> >> >> > time! >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> True, but as a long-time fan of Norse mythology, I think Odin could >>>> >> >> >> give >>>> >> >> >> Zeus a run for his money >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> >I don't know. Maybe we could get all the gods in an arena and let them >>>> >> >> >fight it out to see who's the toughest non-existent being. Sort of a >>>> >> >> >divine bum fight. :-) >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Is that "bum" as in "vagrant", or "bum" as in "derriere"? >>>> >> > >>>> >> >Vagrants. A few years back some idiots in this country were paying >>>> >> >homeless people to fight each other while being taped. The would sell >>>> >> >the tapes to bigger idiots who got off watching such violence. >>>> >> >>>> >> The Police will watch anything... >>>> > >>>> >Yep. They may have been the ones doing the taping. >>>> >>>> Gaffer tape... >>> >>>Gaffer tape? >> >>A traditional police method of silencing torture victims, sorry: >>voluntary interviewees, without leaving gag marks. > >How did we go from the Police to the police? In a "sting" operation. -- Quote
Guest 655321 Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 In article <xQXhi.4767$K9.225@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0107071543400001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article > > <DipthotDipthot-759FEF.10192201072007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > > 655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > > > >> In article > >> <Jason-3006071525500001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > >> > It's very different. God created life from non-life. That is VERY > >> > different than life forming naturally from non-life. > >> > >> It is VERY different. The existence of a god that created life is just > >> one more thing to prove. The ID-er has that much more to experiment for > >> and to prove. > > > > I agree. > > How would you know, you scientific illiterate?? Ralph, let's just accept this as another concession that Jason will forget that he made by the time he posts again. -- 655321 "We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi Quote
Guest David V. Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 Jason wrote: > > We learned from our mistakes. Have you seen any evidence of > the things that you mentioned during your life time? Only because they are not allowed to do those things any more. They learned nothing. > I see it different. I see evolutionists that that rush to > court to stop any school systems from teaching Intelligent > Design. They do not want any competition. competition would be fine, if it were honest. ID is not. > I see liberals rushing to court to force cities and counties > to remove crosses on government property. Many of those > crosses have been in place for over 100 years. Does breaking the law for 100 years make it right? Do our laws mean nothing to you? > However, those liberals will be able to find a liberal judge > that bases his decisions on personal policy preferences > instead of established laws. The established law says those crosses are illegal. Put them all over your own property, all over your churches. Keep them off of public owned property. > I see the Supreme Court making a decision indicating that > unborn children do not have the Right To Life, Liberty and the > Pursuit of Happiness. I hear you saying that women are worthless except for being a walking womb. They have no right what so ever to their own bodies. > Beam me up Scotty, there is no intelligent life down here. Yes, thanks to people like you. -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 Should Only Naturalistic Explanations Be Allowed in Our Science Classrooms? A look at the creation/evolution controversy from the perspective of a Cobb County parent. I live in Cobb County, GA, where there has been a heated controversy over stickers placed in front of public school biology textbooks that say, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." The stickers were placed in the books in response to a last-minute petition signed by over two thousand concerned parents. Much later, only six parents, backed by the ACLU, challenged the constitutionality of the stickers in court and won. The school board appealed, and late last year, a three judge appeals panel of the 11th US Circuit Court heard arguments from both sides. As of this writing, the decision of the Federal Appeals Court has yet to be announced. This is yet another battleground in the controversy over whether or not ideas that make room for religious concepts should be allowed in public school science. Although I am a science layman, I have four children in public school, so this controversy has naturally been of great interest to me. Few would deny that parents should rightly have a voice in issues that affect the education of their children, especially parents who have taken the time to familiarize themselves regarding those issues. In light of that, I would like to use that voice to share some observations and concerns regarding this subject, from the perspective of a concerned parent. I will begin by discussing the stickers, and then move on to some of the broader implications that this controversy, and others like it, have regarding science and public school science. The wording of these stickers has been criticized because they use the words Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 In alt.atheism On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 17:43:25 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >We learned from our mistakes. Have you seen any evidence of the things >that you mentioned during your life time? > >I see it different. I see evolutionists that that rush to court to stop >any school systems from teaching Intelligent Design. They do not want any >competition. ID isn't competition, you dumbfuck. ID is religion. It is not science any more than astrology is. >I see the Supreme Court making a decision indicating that unborn children >do not have the Right To Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. They don't. If you think they do, then you would deny the woman HER right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 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 July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 Question for group: Martin told me that single animal cells evolved into animal cell colonies. If that is true, how do you explain this: Single-celled Transformers: Marine Phytoplankton Changes Form To Protect Itself source: Science Daily A tiny single-celled organism that plays a key role in the carbon cycle of cold-water oceans may be a lot smarter than scientists had suspected. Researchers report the first evidence that a common species of saltwater algae -- also known as phytoplankton -- can change form to protect itself against attack by predators that have very different feeding habits. Suppressing colony formation is a useful strategy against copepods because they prefer to eat colonies of phytoplankton. (Credit: Jeremy Long) To boost its survival chances, Phaeocystis globosa will enhance or suppress the formation of colonies based on whether nearby grazers prefer eating large or small particles. "Based on chemical signals from attacked neighbors, Phaeocystis globosa enhances colony formation if that's the best thing to do for survival, or it suppresses the formation of colonies in favor of growing as small solitary cells if that's the best thing to do," http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070615133823.htm Quote
Guest Ralph Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-0107071935450001@66-52-22-111.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > Question for group: > Martin told me that single animal cells evolved into animal cell colonies. > If that is true, how do you explain this: > > Single-celled Transformers: Marine Phytoplankton Changes Form To Protect > Itself > > source: Science Daily > > A tiny single-celled organism that plays a key role in the carbon cycle of > cold-water oceans may be a lot smarter than scientists had suspected. > > Researchers report the first evidence that a common species of saltwater > algae -- also known as phytoplankton -- can change form to protect itself > against attack by predators that have very different feeding habits. > > Suppressing colony formation is a useful strategy against copepods because > they prefer to eat colonies of phytoplankton. (Credit: Jeremy Long) > > To boost its survival chances, Phaeocystis globosa will enhance or > suppress the formation of colonies based on whether nearby grazers prefer > eating large or small particles. "Based on chemical signals from attacked > neighbors, Phaeocystis globosa enhances colony formation if that's the > best > thing to do for survival, or it suppresses the formation of colonies in > favor of growing as small solitary cells if that's the best thing to do," > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070615133823.htm No more answering questions for you, liar. Quote
Guest John Baker Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 19:17:38 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: <snip fuckwittery> Did you have a point, other than the one under your hat? Religion does not belong in a science class, no matter who wants it there. If you Bible-banging retards want your kids taught myths instead of facts, send them to a Christian school. Quote
Guest John Baker Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 17:43:25 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >In article <uqdg83dmrrdkf9tkbqepbbq2avtaf05h2m@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 15:37:17 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0107071537170001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <4687FFEC.D670BAD6@osu.edu>, Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote: >> >> ... >> >> >> Tell me, Jason, where you stand on the Christian Right >> >> agenda to make fundamentalist Christianity the state religion >> >> of the United States. Are you for it or against it? >> >> I solemnly promise that a candid answer from you >> >> could not possibly make me think any less of you. >> >> >> >> Jim Burns >> > >> >We have no desire to force people to become Christians. When the Muslims >> >take over a country, they give people a choice: Become a Muslim or get >> >your head chopped off. >> >> Christians have done that in the past. Now they control so many >> countries that they don't have to do it that way. >> >> >Christians don't do it that way. We present the message and if people such >> >as yourself decide to not become Christians, we would not harm you or even >> >threaten your life. >> >> So you wish. >> >> >The answer to your question is that we will never make fundamentialist >> >Christianity the state religion. >> >> Then why are you trying? >> >> >I would be against any effort to make it >> >the state religion. Even when I lived in the Bible Belt and over 90% of >> >the people were Christians--we did not try to make fundamentalist >> >Christianity the Virginia State Religion. We did not even try to make it >> >the official County Religion. >> >> The Constitution forbid it, but you do want people to teach lies in >> science class that endorse your particular kind of Christianity. Isn't >> that a first step? >> >> >You have much more to fear from Muslims than you have to fear from >> >Christians. >> >> Not in the US. >> >> >On your next vacation, I advise you to visit one of the Muslim >> >Countries to learn the dangers of a religion controlling the government. I >> >heard the testimony of a man that had a job in a Muslim country. He once >> >visited the area of the city where public punishments were done. He was >> >shocked when he saw thieves getting at least one hand chopped off. He even >> >saw them chop off the head of a man that had been found guilty of murder. >> >The crowd was clapping after each of those punishments or murders were >> >performed. >> > >> >You will never see that sort of thing done by Christians. >> >> Christians have done that for centuries. It took civil, secular >> government, destroying the power of Christianity to stop such abuse. >> >> Your ignorance of history is appalling. > > >We learned from our mistakes. Have you seen any evidence of the things >that you mentioned during your life time? I've seen plenty of evidence that I would see those things if the fundies thought they could get away with it. > >I see it different. I see evolutionists that that rush to court to stop >any school systems from teaching Intelligent Design. "Intelligent Design" is not science. How many times do we have to tell you that? >hey do not want any >competition. Fuck you, you lying sack of shit. > >I see liberals rushing to court to force cities and counties to remove >crosses on government property. Many of those crosses have been in place >for over 100 years. However, those liberals will be able to find a liberal >judge that bases his decisions on personal policy preferences instead of >established laws. Moron. > >I see the Supreme Court making a decision indicating that unborn children >do not have the Right To Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. > >Beam me up Scotty, there is no intelligent life down here. There sure as hell isn't where you're sitting, that's for damned sure. > Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On Jul 2, 10:17 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Should Only Naturalistic Explanations > Be Allowed in Our Science Classrooms? Yes. Martin Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 In alt.atheism On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 19:17:38 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: > > > Should Only Naturalistic Explanations > Be Allowed in Our Science Classrooms? Yes, since the supernatural is a begged question. Allowing in non-rational "explanations" which have no evidence behind them does a great disservice to children. 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 Phipps Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 On Jul 2, 10:35 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Question for group: > Martin told me that single animal cells evolved into animal cell colonies. > If that is true There's no IF about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_multicellularity "The third, final and most convincing explanation of multicellularisation is the Colonial Theory which was proposed by Haeckel in 1874. The theory claims that the symbiosis of many organisms of the same species (unlike the symbiotic theory, which suggests the symbiosis of different species) led to a multicellular organism. At least some, presumably land-evolved, multicellularity occurs by cells separating and then rejoining (i.e., cellular slime molds) whereas for the majority of multicellular types (those which evolved within aquatic environments), multicellularity occurs as a consequence of cells failing to separate following division[2]. The mechanism of this latter colony formation can be as simple as incomplete cytokinesis, though multicelluarity is also typically consided to involve cellular differentiation[3] "The advantage of the Colonial Theory hypothesis is that it has been seen to occur independently numerous times (in 16 different protoctistan phyla). For instance, Dictyostelium is an amoeba which groups together during times of food shortage, forming a colony that moves as one to a new location. Some of these amoeba then become slightly differentiated from each other. Other examples of colonial organisation in protozoa are Eudorina and Volvox (the latter of which consist around 10,000 cells, only about 25-35 which reproduce - 8 asexually and around 15-25 sexually). It can often be hard to tell, however, what is a colonial protist and what is a multicellular organism in its own right. "Most scientists accept that is by the Colonial theory that Multicellular organisms evolved." Martin Quote
Guest David V. Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 Jason wrote: > Should Only Naturalistic Explanations > Be Allowed in Our Science Classrooms? No, only explanations backed up by evidence. -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest David V. Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 Jason wrote: > Question for group: Martin told me that single animal cells > evolved into animal cell colonies. If that is true, how do you > explain this: > > Single-celled Transformers: Marine Phytoplankton Changes Form > To Protect Itself It's called evolution, something you refuse to understand. -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 In article <DtidnbMBPbT77hXbnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > Question for group: Martin told me that single animal cells > > evolved into animal cell colonies. If that is true, how do you > > explain this: > > > > Single-celled Transformers: Marine Phytoplankton Changes Form > > To Protect Itself > > It's called evolution, something you refuse to understand. or reverse evolution Quote
Guest Jason Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 In article <1183347076.966093.157610@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 2, 10:35 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > Question for group: > > Martin told me that single animal cells evolved into animal cell colonies. > > If that is true > > There's no IF about it. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_multicellularity > > "The third, final and most convincing explanation of > multicellularisation is the Colonial Theory which was proposed by > Haeckel in 1874. The theory claims that the symbiosis of many > organisms of the same species (unlike the symbiotic theory, which > suggests the symbiosis of different species) led to a multicellular > organism. At least some, presumably land-evolved, multicellularity > occurs by cells separating and then rejoining (i.e., cellular slime > molds) whereas for the majority of multicellular types (those which > evolved within aquatic environments), multicellularity occurs as a > consequence of cells failing to separate following division[2]. The > mechanism of this latter colony formation can be as simple as > incomplete cytokinesis, though multicelluarity is also typically > consided to involve cellular differentiation[3] > > "The advantage of the Colonial Theory hypothesis is that it has been > seen to occur independently numerous times (in 16 different > protoctistan phyla). For instance, Dictyostelium is an amoeba which > groups together during times of food shortage, forming a colony that > moves as one to a new location. Some of these amoeba then become > slightly differentiated from each other. Other examples of colonial > organisation in protozoa are Eudorina and Volvox (the latter of which > consist around 10,000 cells, only about 25-35 which reproduce - 8 > asexually and around 15-25 sexually). It can often be hard to tell, > however, what is a colonial protist and what is a multicellular > organism in its own right. > > "Most scientists accept that is by the Colonial theory that > Multicellular organisms evolved." > > Martin Martin, These are the steps that you posted: > > > > STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) > > > > STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual > > > > reproduction) > > > > STEP 3 Animal cell colony (with cells depending upon each other for > > > > survival) > > > > STEP 4 Multicelled animal (with cells differentiated according to > > > > function) > > > > STEP 5 Vertibrates (example: fish) > > > > STEP 6 Amphibians (example: frog) > > > > STEP 7 Reptiles (example: lizard) > > > > STEP 8 Mammals (example: mouse) > > > > STEP 9 Primates (example: chimpanzee) > > > > STEP 10 Man (examples: me and you) I did not notice in the above steps any mention of cell colonies evolving into non-colonies. According to the steps mentioned above, it seems to me that the cell colonies should evolve into a multicelled life form. In this case, the cell colonies became single cells. Would this be called de-evolution or reverse evolution? 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.