Evolution is Just Junk Science

May 16, 2007

On May 17, 2:22 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> Good points--I agree--since abortions are legal--they should be done

> during the first trimester. The exception would be--if the mother's life

> was in danger.

Then you shouldn't be trying to get abortion clinics closed down. In

fact, it would be the last thing you should want.

Martin

May 16, 2007

On May 17, 2:28 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1179314767.865501.136...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > On May 16, 3:06 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > In article <1179294078.449622.33...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > On May 16, 2:27 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > > In article <1179291676.446593.281...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,

> Martin

>

> > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > > On May 16, 11:13 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > > > > In article

>

> > > <1179275214.207365.231...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > On May 16, 3:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

> > > > > > > > > The leaders of Planned Parenthood knew that it not a "mass of

> > > > > > > > > tissue"--even in the 1960's. They told that LIE so as to make

> > > it more

> > > > > > > > > likely that women would agree to have abortions. It's much

> harder to

> > > > > > > > > convince a pregnant woman to have an abortion once they realize

> > > > > that they

> > > > > > > > > have a living a baby in their womb. That is the reason the

> ACLU and

> > > > > > > > > perhaps other organizations such as Planned Parenthood want to

> > > have the

> > > > > > > > > law overturned that requires women seeking abortion to see 3D

> > > > > ultrasounds

> > > > > > > > > of their babies. They know that once those women see those

> > > > > pictures, they

> > > > > > > > > will decide NOT to have an abortion. Planned Parenthood derives

> > > > > money from

> > > > > > > > > abortions so they want as many women as possible to have

> > > > > abortions. That's

> > > > > > > > > why they want that law related to ultrasounds overturned. Does

> > > > > anyone know

> > > > > > > > > the net worth of Planned Parenthood. I heard a preacher say that

> > > > > it's over

> > > > > > > > > 1 billion dollars.

>

> > > > > > > > And preachers never lie, do they?

>

> > > > > > > I do not remember how that preacher came up with the billion dollar

> > > > > > > number. Perhaps he added up all of the money Planned

> Parenthood has made

> > > > > > > during the last 30 or more years. That figure would probably

> be over a

> > > > > > > billion dollars but am only guessing since I don't have the

> figures in

> > > > > > > front of me. I was only telling you what a preacher on television

> > > told his

> > > > > > > audience.

>

> > > > > > Does it occur to you that your preacher may have just been lying to

> > > > > > you? Have you never been lied to by another Christian? If you

> > > > > > yourself sometime tell lies then why do you believ other Christians

> > > > > > tell the truth?

>

> > > > > Has it occurred to you the preacher could have been telling the

> truth? Do

> > > > > you believe that Plannned Parenthood has earned as least a billion

> dollars

> > > > > during the past 30 years? Planned Parenthood is now a worldwide

> > > > > organization. That is probably how the preacher came up with the billion

> > > > > dollar number.

>

> > > > Has it occured to you that refering to something as a "billion dollar

> > > > industry" is still a lie if that billion dollars is coming in over

> > > > several years, not to mention thirty? The truth is that Planned

> > > > Parenthood is a non profit organization and DOES NOT make a profit but

> > > > rather relies on donations. Period.

>

> > > If the preacher stated: "Planned Parenthood has earned over a billion

> > > dollars over the past 30 years". That would not be a lie.

> > > If the preacher stated: "Planned Parenthood earned over a billion dollars

> > > last year." That would be a lie.

>

> > > It's my guess that he made the first statement and not the second statement.

>

> > So your original statement that you I "heard a preacher say that it

> > [the net worth of Planned Parenthood] is over 1 billion dollars" was

> > that you lying or you making an honest mistake? Because either way it

> > hurts your argument and makes it harder for us to believe anything you

> > say.

>

> It was an honest mistake. I believe lots of people lied to me in this

> thread or actually believed the words at the Planned Parenthood website

> that were probably written by a person that has a degree in Public

> Relations. The truth is that Planned Parenthood derives millions of

> dollars per year as a direct result of abortions.

Isn't it wrong to post lies regardless of which side you are on? My

views are a bit extreme in this regard: I don't see any justification

for lying. For starters, it is anti-educational and unscientific:

telling lies to people makes it impossible for them to know what is

true. Nor is it something Christians are supposed to do (for moral

reasons).

Martin

May 17, 2007

In article <1179357540.570843.290540@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 17, 2:03 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

> > You do not appear to care about the babies that have been killed and

> > unless I missed it, did not even mention the damage that has been done to

> > women that have had abortions. I have heard some of those women tell their

> > stories on Christian radio talk shows. I have heard them tell their

> > stories while giving their testimonies in church services. I am against

> > abortion but realize that abortion is legal. Since it is legal, I hope

> > that in the months and years to come that women will use the so called

> > abortion pill (morning after pill) during the first week of pregnancy.

> > Hopefully, this will cause many less women to develop severe depression as

> > a result of abortions. I hope that it will also cause thousands of

> > abortion clinics to close down and abortion doctors to go out of

business. ...

>

> Jason, do you realize that you are a patently evil man? Is this how

> you plan to go to heaven? By having clinics shut down?

>

> Martin

Please re-read my post. The ABORTION clinics would close down because they

would not have any customers. The reason they would have no customers is

because of the abortion pill (morning after pill). As you know, the

morning after pills means that abortions inside ABORTION clinics would not

be needed. Of course, some clinics would probably remain open. I have read

articles indicating that the number of clinical abortions is already

starting to drop as a result of the abortion pill. I am against abortion

but know that it's legal. Since it is legal for women to have abortions--I

believe the morning after pill is far superior to a clinical abortion. Do

you agree or disagree?

jason

May 17, 2007

In article <1179358086.996653.87880@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 17, 2:28 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <1179314767.865501.136...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> >

> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > On May 16, 3:06 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > In article <1179294078.449622.33...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> >

> > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > On May 16, 2:27 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > > > In article <1179291676.446593.281...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,

> > Martin

> >

> > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > On May 16, 11:13 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > > > > > In article

> >

> > > > <1179275214.207365.231...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> >

> > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > On May 16, 3:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> >

> > > > > > > > > > The leaders of Planned Parenthood knew that it not a

"mass of

> > > > > > > > > > tissue"--even in the 1960's. They told that LIE so as

to make

> > > > it more

> > > > > > > > > > likely that women would agree to have abortions. It's much

> > harder to

> > > > > > > > > > convince a pregnant woman to have an abortion once

they realize

> > > > > > that they

> > > > > > > > > > have a living a baby in their womb. That is the reason the

> > ACLU and

> > > > > > > > > > perhaps other organizations such as Planned Parenthood

want to

> > > > have the

> > > > > > > > > > law overturned that requires women seeking abortion to

see 3D

> > > > > > ultrasounds

> > > > > > > > > > of their babies. They know that once those women see those

> > > > > > pictures, they

> > > > > > > > > > will decide NOT to have an abortion. Planned

Parenthood derives

> > > > > > money from

> > > > > > > > > > abortions so they want as many women as possible to have

> > > > > > abortions. That's

> > > > > > > > > > why they want that law related to ultrasounds

overturned. Does

> > > > > > anyone know

> > > > > > > > > > the net worth of Planned Parenthood. I heard a

preacher say that

> > > > > > it's over

> > > > > > > > > > 1 billion dollars.

> >

> > > > > > > > > And preachers never lie, do they?

> >

> > > > > > > > I do not remember how that preacher came up with the

billion dollar

> > > > > > > > number. Perhaps he added up all of the money Planned

> > Parenthood has made

> > > > > > > > during the last 30 or more years. That figure would probably

> > be over a

> > > > > > > > billion dollars but am only guessing since I don't have the

> > figures in

> > > > > > > > front of me. I was only telling you what a preacher on

television

> > > > told his

> > > > > > > > audience.

> >

> > > > > > > Does it occur to you that your preacher may have just been

lying to

> > > > > > > you? Have you never been lied to by another Christian? If you

> > > > > > > yourself sometime tell lies then why do you believ other

Christians

> > > > > > > tell the truth?

> >

> > > > > > Has it occurred to you the preacher could have been telling the

> > truth? Do

> > > > > > you believe that Plannned Parenthood has earned as least a billion

> > dollars

> > > > > > during the past 30 years? Planned Parenthood is now a worldwide

> > > > > > organization. That is probably how the preacher came up with

the billion

> > > > > > dollar number.

> >

> > > > > Has it occured to you that refering to something as a "billion dollar

> > > > > industry" is still a lie if that billion dollars is coming in over

> > > > > several years, not to mention thirty? The truth is that Planned

> > > > > Parenthood is a non profit organization and DOES NOT make a profit but

> > > > > rather relies on donations. Period.

> >

> > > > If the preacher stated: "Planned Parenthood has earned over a billion

> > > > dollars over the past 30 years". That would not be a lie.

> > > > If the preacher stated: "Planned Parenthood earned over a billion

dollars

> > > > last year." That would be a lie.

> >

> > > > It's my guess that he made the first statement and not the second

statement.

> >

> > > So your original statement that you I "heard a preacher say that it

> > > [the net worth of Planned Parenthood] is over 1 billion dollars" was

> > > that you lying or you making an honest mistake? Because either way it

> > > hurts your argument and makes it harder for us to believe anything you

> > > say.

> >

> > It was an honest mistake. I believe lots of people lied to me in this

> > thread or actually believed the words at the Planned Parenthood website

> > that were probably written by a person that has a degree in Public

> > Relations. The truth is that Planned Parenthood derives millions of

> > dollars per year as a direct result of abortions.

>

> Isn't it wrong to post lies regardless of which side you are on? My

> views are a bit extreme in this regard: I don't see any justification

> for lying. For starters, it is anti-educational and unscientific:

> telling lies to people makes it impossible for them to know what is

> true. Nor is it something Christians are supposed to do (for moral

> reasons).

>

> Martin

Martin,

Please tell me what lie that I told? I made an honest mistake. An honest

mistake is different than a lie. I still don't remember the exact words of

the television preacher. I don't take notes when I listen to a sermon.

Jason

May 17, 2007

In article <1179357905.306076.271930@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 17, 2:22 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

> > Good points--I agree--since abortions are legal--they should be done

> > during the first trimester. The exception would be--if the mother's life

> > was in danger.

>

> Then you shouldn't be trying to get abortion clinics closed down. In

> fact, it would be the last thing you should want.

>

> Martin

Martin,

None of the local "abortion" doctors in my small city operate abortion

clinics. Instead, they have regular patients and only do several abortions

per week. Even if all abortion clinics closed down as a direct result of

the morning after pill, doctors would still do abortions in their offices.

I doubt if ALL abortion clinics will close down as a result of the morning

after pill. It's my guess that lots of them will close down but in each

city several will remain open for business. It is true that Planned

Parenthood tells women that are seeking abortion about the morning after

pill? If not, I hope so.

Jason

May 17, 2007

On Mon, 14 May 2007 15:48:35 -0400, "H. Wm. Esque"

<HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>and neither do positive arguments prove that inanimate matter

>can give rise spontaneously to living organisms.

Matter is matter. Sometimes it got more and more complex. It was

still inanimate. Then it got just a little bit more complex - what we

call "alive". No big mystery. WE'RE the ones drawing the line

between "alive" and "inanimate" - there's no inherent division at that

level. There's no "Planck unit" of life. A piece of pre-RNA was

alive? Inanimate? It reproduced. It took in energy. It gave off

byproducts. It was more primitive than a virus.

>I guess this is where my problem comes down. I know if a coffee

>cup falls from the floor and shatters chaotically, the second law

>says left to it's own it cannot reassemble.

It's not alive. If it's made of clay, and you give it a few hundred

million years, it may advance far enough that we'd call it alive.

(What's amazing is that it took so LONG for life to appear. Or maybe

we just haven't found anything older.)

You're using mechanical analogies to explain nano-chemistry. The

differences are so great that not only aren't you in the ballpark,

you're in the wrong galaxy. Cups and houses don't work the way clays

and crystals do - on a molecular, or even atomic, level.

>This is what is meant by energy alone. It's the total amount of energy

>in a physical system which could be converted to work. It's the

>same as the thermodynamic term "free energy".

That's billions of watts per hour on this planet. Have you noticed

that big yellow ball in the sky that we see when it's not raining? The

planet is not a closed system, it's getting ENORMOUS amounts of energy

poured into it every second.

>Energy alone means an unguided, undirected force. Solar energy

>on the moon. I am in reference to energy that is undirected, unguided

>etc. A raging bull in a china shop is energy which leads to

>chaotic destruction.

Mechanics again.

Chemistry guides the energy. Inject a photon and the atom doesn't

chaotically fly apart, it absorbs 1 photon of energy, at whatever

energy level that photon is. There are rules that inhere to matter,

due to the nature of matter. The ability of molecules to clump is one

of them. The ability to reproduce when a molecule gets complex enough

is another one.

May 17, 2007

On May 17, 5:45 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1179344281.193023.30...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Hatter

> <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > But other systems of Religion have prophosies that have come true in

> > later stories of those relgions. How Achilles would die, or the fall

> > of troy for example. Several event in Roman history were fortold by

> > the oracle at Delphi...there are numberous examples.

> > Most of them not Jahweh related.

>

> > Which brings us back to why do you believe your texts of Jahweh, but

> > not these texts that also had tales of things fortold?

>

> Because many of the prophesies have come true is one of the reasons. I

> took a course in college related to the major religions in the World. It

> was my conclusion that Christianity was far superior to any of those other

> religions. The fact that my parents were Christians may also have played a

> role.

Did it ever opccur to you that perhaps NONE of the world's religions

are true? Why do you feel obliged to have to pick one?

Martin

May 17, 2007

On Wed, 16 May 2007 18:21:30 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>Please re-read my post. The ABORTION clinics would close down because they

>would not have any customers.

That would happen only if there were no unwanted pregnancies.

> The reason they would have no customers is

>because of the abortion pill (morning after pill). As you know, the

>morning after pills means that abortions inside ABORTION clinics would not

>be needed.

You have absolutely no idea how the pill works, do you?

>Since it is legal for women to have abortions--I

>believe the morning after pill is far superior to a clinical abortion. Do

>you agree or disagree?

Only for women who realize that they're pregnant the morning after.

What about a woman who doesn't realize that she's pregnant for a few

weeks? What about one who doesn't realize it for a couple of months?

May 17, 2007

On Wed, 16 May 2007 18:35:07 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>It's my guess that lots of them will close down but in each

>city several will remain open for business.

There are large parts of the population that don't live in cities. In

some of those small towns, the SOLE doctor doesn't believe in

abortion, even to save the woman's life. Close the abortion clinics

and some women may face 8 hour (or more) drives to the nearest place

they can obtain an abortion.

And, if the only pharmacy in town, and in nearby towns, refuses to

sell the morning after pill (which is quite a common practice among

pharmacies owned by, or manned by, some Christians), same problem.

May 17, 2007

In article <1179369893.911685.259180@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 17, 5:45 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <1179344281.193023.30...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Hatter

>

> > <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> > > But other systems of Religion have prophosies that have come true in

> > > later stories of those relgions. How Achilles would die, or the fall

> > > of troy for example. Several event in Roman history were fortold by

> > > the oracle at Delphi...there are numberous examples.

> > > Most of them not Jahweh related.

> >

> > > Which brings us back to why do you believe your texts of Jahweh, but

> > > not these texts that also had tales of things fortold?

> >

> > Because many of the prophesies have come true is one of the reasons. I

> > took a course in college related to the major religions in the World. It

> > was my conclusion that Christianity was far superior to any of those other

> > religions. The fact that my parents were Christians may also have played a

> > role.

>

> Did it ever opccur to you that perhaps NONE of the world's religions

> are true? Why do you feel obliged to have to pick one?

>

> Martin

Martin,

If you have ever studied the history of Indians and various isolated

groups of people in Africa, you would know that they believed in a God or

Gods. The reason is because they knew (without ever being told) that when

they died --that is was the beginning of a new life in heaven. That led

them to believe that God or Gods were watching over them. My parents were

Christians and most all of my friends were Christians. I was raised in the

mountains of Virginia which is part of the Bible Belt. Just like the

Indians and Africans that lived in the 1600's, I feel the same way they

felt--That God is watching over me and that I will have a better life in

heaven. Back to your question: No--it has never occurred to me that none

of the religions are true. I picked the best one that I could find and I

do not regret my decision. I don't worry about dying. It's my guess that

many atheists will decide to become Christians when their doctors tell

them a have a disease that will kill them in the near future. There are no

atheist in fox holes.

Jason

May 17, 2007

In article <87jn43lkl3i3vjasj89539j4gq7alv1ld2@4ax.com>, Al Klein

<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 May 2007 18:35:07 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

> >It's my guess that lots of them will close down but in each

> >city several will remain open for business.

>

> There are large parts of the population that don't live in cities. In

> some of those small towns, the SOLE doctor doesn't believe in

> abortion, even to save the woman's life. Close the abortion clinics

> and some women may face 8 hour (or more) drives to the nearest place

> they can obtain an abortion.

>

> And, if the only pharmacy in town, and in nearby towns, refuses to

> sell the morning after pill (which is quite a common practice among

> pharmacies owned by, or manned by, some Christians), same problem.

Good points. People in some of the southern states (Bible Belt) already

have these sorts of problems. I read about one city that only had one

abortion clinic and it was almost always surrounded (during business

hours) with pro-life protesters.

May 17, 2007

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in

message news:23lm43995ur38d43htink7s8rpsdc8r244@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 15 May 2007 23:55:24 -0400, in alt.atheism , "H. Wm. Esque"

> <HEsque@bellsouth.net> in <Hgv2i.6966$163.4959@bignews3.bellsouth.net>

> wrote:

>

> >

> >"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in

> >message news:nhkh4358hjkbpa79dmqoeksor9klgns2da@4ax.com...

> >> On Mon, 14 May 2007 17:05:09 -0400, in alt.atheism , "H. Wm. Esque"

> >> <HEsque@bellsouth.net> in <3a42i.5031$ub.3065@bignews6.bellsouth.net>

> >> wrote:

> >

> ><snip>

> [snip]

>

> >> >You made my point. He voiced a different viewpoint from the

> >> >one you hold, therefore he is a liar. No room for disagreement

> >>

> >> In this case there really is no room for scientific disagreement.

> >> The issue is trivially obvious. If you know the relevant science then

> >> there is no problem. If you don't know the relevant science then it is

> >> rather dishonest to assert that you know enough. There is a burden

> >> upon people when they make such claims as Kim copied.

> >>

> >Above you stated that "the 'path' of how life formed is interesting".

>

> Interesting means something worthy of study.

>

> >The fact is we do not know the path. So, my question is: are you

> >being forthright with me? Is it possible that you are you inferring,

> >without justification, that the pathway is known?

>

> Since I have said the opposite, that we don't know the particular

> path, several time, it is unlikely that I would try to deceive you

> here. And since it is well known that we don't know how life got

> started it is unlikely I would pretend otherwise. We know several

> things about likely steps, but not a whole path, no less the whole

> path.

>

> >I can accept that there is no problem as far as scientist are concerned.

> >Appearently, they have worked it out to their satisfaction.

>

> That is to say that show who actually know the relevant material don't

> see any problem. I gave you a link to a Nobel Prize winning scientist

> who has done some very interesting work in this field. Are you going

> to bother to find out or do you prefer remaining ignorant?

>

> >I recognize the fact that the 2nd law does not contravene abiogeneses

> >or evolution, considering that life does exist and changed over time.

> >But frankly, I still have problems with the notion that the origin of

> >life is explained by noting the fact that ice forms and hurricanes

> >occur thus "proving" that the 2nd law allows complex structures to

> >form, hence life is permitted to form by the 2nd law. To me this is

> >a gargantuan stretch.

>

> Let me try this one more time: the claim was made that the 2LoT

> prohibits the formation of order without a "template". All that it

> takes to refute that claim is one example of the formation of such

> order: storms are a nice obvious example of this.

>

> >I see no point in continuing on this thread, Kim has departed

> >and to me personally, I can live with this level of uncertainty.

>

> I think that last word is ignorance.

>

Everyone is "ignorant" regarding subjects for which they

have limited backgrown. I am reading and trying to digest

the sites which you gave. But it is rather heavy going.

It's taking time.

>

> --

> Matt Silberstein

>

> Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

>

> http://www.beawitness.org

> http://www.darfurgenocide.org

> http://www.savedarfur.org

>

> "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

May 17, 2007

Jason wrote:

> It's my guess that many atheists will decide to become Christians

> It's my guess that lots of them will close down

> Someone told me that they visited

> It's my guess that he made the first statement

> It's my guess that he was losing lots of his regular patients

> That is probably how the preacher came up

> It's my opinion and the opinion of Bible scholars

> That figure would probably be over a billion dollars but am only guessing

> It's my opinion that the end goal of the free counseling programs

> I heard one preacher say that the net worth

> I heard one preacher say that Planned Parenthood even earns money

> I heard a preacher say that it's over 1 billion dollars.

> It's my guess that they advise most of the young woman to have an abortion.

> I do believe that God listens

> It's my opinion that God has absolute control

> It's my guess that many atheists will decide to become Christians

> It's my understanding that judgement day happens soon

> It's my guess that Mother Theresa received lots of rewards

> It's my opinion that after God finished creating mankind

> It appears to me (based upon newspaper articles and television news shows)

> Perhaps, Neanderthals were one of those races but that is my assumption.

> so it's my guess most of them agree with me.

> I once heard a preacher say something

> God could have spoken to both Moses and Hammurabi. I'm just guessing.

> It's my guess that most of the people that read that gospel

> It's my guess that in the 1950's and 1960's

> God can do anything that he wants to do. Of course, I am just guessing.

> It's much easier for me to believe that God created life

> I believe that Alcatraz (spelling?) is one of the oldest prisons in America

> as far as I know, a living cell has never evolved from amino acids.

> It's my opinion that atheists are more likely to commit Crimes than

Christians that take their religion seriously.

> I believe that lots of atheists are like that college professor.

> It's my opinion that Christians that take their religion very seriously

are less likely to go to jail or prison than atheists

> I don't know the reason. Perhaps they have different laws

> Perhaps people in Europe are not placed in prison

And all this in less than a week. You seem to have a lot to say for someone

who bases his views on guesses, hearsay and beliefs.

--

Come down off the cross

We can use the wood

Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House

May 17, 2007

On 16 Maj, 20:22, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1179316001.502902.218...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > On May 16, 3:35 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > In article <1179292465.099634.114...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > On May 16, 11:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > > In article

>

> <1179278239.106024.108...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

> > > > > > And yet during the first three months (when 90% of abortions take

> > > > > > place) that is all that the baby is. More abortions would take place

> > > > > > during the first three months if women were able to get easy access to

> > > > > > abortions. It is my personal opinion that women should not choose to

> > > > > > have abortions after three months and I would approve of any law that

> > > > > > discouraged women from having abortions after three months: it so

> > > > > > happens that late term abortiions are already illegal in 36 states.

> > > > > > (Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion) Here "late

> > > > > > term" refers to abortions that take place as early as five months into

> > > > > > the pregnancy. (See

>

> alsohttp://www.answers.com/topic/late-term-abortion

>

> > > > > > )

>

> > > > > I agree that abortions should only be legal during the first three

> months.

> > > > > The only exception would be if the mother's life was in danger.

>

> > > > That's not what I said.

>

> > > > 90% of abortions take place during the first three months anyway, I

> > > > would personally _discourage_ somebody from having an abortion after

> > > > three months but that's not the same thing as making it illegal after

> > > > three months: when I said "I would approve of any law that discouraged

> > > > women from having abortions after three months" I am not talking about

> > > > an outright ban because, frankly, it is ultimately a matter between a

> > > > woman and her doctor. I know (because my wife tells me) that the baby

> > > > is quite heavy after three months and only gets heavier so an unwanted

> > > > pregnancy might cause a woman to be unable to continue to work or

> > > > study or carry on a relationship or even keep her house clean, do her

> > > > own cooking, etc. Unless you've had a baby (and I haven't -not

> > > > personally although my wife has- and I know you haven't) then you

> > > > can't even imagine what that would be like. It is my own personal

> > > > opinion that the baby becomes a person at some point after the three

> > > > month period and before the baby is born and that a woman should give

> > > > serious thought to whether or not she wanted to have a late term

> > > > abortion. For a doctor to suggest that a woman considering a _late_

> > > > term abortion first undergo an ultrasound would not be unreasonable:

> > > > for the first three months, it would be an absolutely silly thing for

> > > > a doctor to suggest because all they will see is a collection of

> > > > cells. Really. Have you actually seen an ultrasound of a baby at two

> > > > months? I have. It was actually a bit disappointing.

>

> > > No, I have not seen an ultrasoud of a baby at two months. I have seen 3D

> > > ultrasounds of babies in the last trimester. I have seen detailed drawings

> > > in books about babies at every stage of development. It's really tiny

> > > during the first month.

>

> > My wife is pregnant right now and she is coming up for four months. A

> > month ago she had an ultrasound and we could see arms and legs and a

> > head but two months ago all we saw was a lump of flesh. The doctor

> > printed out a picture and he had to circle where the baby was because,

> > frankly, we couldn't tell. The baby obviously grows a lot during the

> > third month. It was actually a bit silly doing an ultrasound at two

> > months under the circumstances but it is a 100% reliable way of

> > determining whether or not a woman is pregnant.

>

> > This is the third time my wife has gotten pregnant since we were

> > married. Several years ago, my wife had a miscarriage after three

> > months. The baby came out and literally died in her hands. I have no

> > doubt that the baby had been alive and we both felt guilt wondering

> > what we could have done to prevent the miscarriage. I can understand

> > very well how women who have abortions feel with regards to depression

> > after the fact. They don't need religious people calling them

> > murderers: an early term abortion is a cessation of pregnancy and not

> > murder. I don't approve of late term abortions except for medical

> > emergencies: most doctors won't perform them and it would be

> > irresponsible for anyone to recommend one in so far as they could be a

> > danger to the mother herself. A woman would be well advised to either

> > have an abortion early (if she doesn't want the baby) or else consider

> > having the baby and then putting it up for adoption.

>

> > Martin

>

> Good points--I agree--since abortions are legal--they should be done

> during the first trimester. The exception would be--if the mother's life

> was in danger.

Why should that be an exception? You are (gasp!) contradicting

yourself.

May 17, 2007

On 16 Maj, 20:28, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1179314767.865501.136...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > On May 16, 3:06 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > In article <1179294078.449622.33...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin

snip

> > So your original statement that you I "heard a preacher say that it

> > [the net worth of Planned Parenthood] is over 1 billion dollars" was

> > that you lying or you making an honest mistake? Because either way it

> > hurts your argument and makes it harder for us to believe anything you

> > say.

>

> > Martin

>

> It was an honest mistake. I believe lots of people lied to me in this

> thread or actually believed the words at the Planned Parenthood website

> that were probably written by a person that has a degree in Public

> Relations. The truth is that Planned Parenthood derives millions of

> dollars per year as a direct result of abortions.

> Jason- Skjul tekst i anf

May 17, 2007

On May 17, 9:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1179358086.996653.87...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > On May 17, 2:28 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > In article <1179314767.865501.136...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > On May 16, 3:06 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > > In article <1179294078.449622.33...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > > On May 16, 2:27 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > > > > In article <1179291676.446593.281...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,

> > > Martin

>

> > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > On May 16, 11:13 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > > > > > > In article

>

> > > > > <1179275214.207365.231...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > On May 16, 3:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

> > > > > > > > > > > The leaders of Planned Parenthood knew that it not a

> "mass of

> > > > > > > > > > > tissue"--even in the 1960's. They told that LIE so as

> to make

> > > > > it more

> > > > > > > > > > > likely that women would agree to have abortions. It's much

> > > harder to

> > > > > > > > > > > convince a pregnant woman to have an abortion once

> they realize

> > > > > > > that they

> > > > > > > > > > > have a living a baby in their womb. That is the reason the

> > > ACLU and

> > > > > > > > > > > perhaps other organizations such as Planned Parenthood

> want to

> > > > > have the

> > > > > > > > > > > law overturned that requires women seeking abortion to

> see 3D

> > > > > > > ultrasounds

> > > > > > > > > > > of their babies. They know that once those women see those

> > > > > > > pictures, they

> > > > > > > > > > > will decide NOT to have an abortion. Planned

> Parenthood derives

> > > > > > > money from

> > > > > > > > > > > abortions so they want as many women as possible to have

> > > > > > > abortions. That's

> > > > > > > > > > > why they want that law related to ultrasounds

> overturned. Does

> > > > > > > anyone know

> > > > > > > > > > > the net worth of Planned Parenthood. I heard a

> preacher say that

> > > > > > > it's over

> > > > > > > > > > > 1 billion dollars.

>

> > > > > > > > > > And preachers never lie, do they?

>

> > > > > > > > > I do not remember how that preacher came up with the

> billion dollar

> > > > > > > > > number. Perhaps he added up all of the money Planned

> > > Parenthood has made

> > > > > > > > > during the last 30 or more years. That figure would probably

> > > be over a

> > > > > > > > > billion dollars but am only guessing since I don't have the

> > > figures in

> > > > > > > > > front of me. I was only telling you what a preacher on

> television

> > > > > told his

> > > > > > > > > audience.

>

> > > > > > > > Does it occur to you that your preacher may have just been

> lying to

> > > > > > > > you? Have you never been lied to by another Christian? If you

> > > > > > > > yourself sometime tell lies then why do you believ other

> Christians

> > > > > > > > tell the truth?

>

> > > > > > > Has it occurred to you the preacher could have been telling the

> > > truth? Do

> > > > > > > you believe that Plannned Parenthood has earned as least a billion

> > > dollars

> > > > > > > during the past 30 years? Planned Parenthood is now a worldwide

> > > > > > > organization. That is probably how the preacher came up with

> the billion

> > > > > > > dollar number.

>

> > > > > > Has it occured to you that refering to something as a "billion dollar

> > > > > > industry" is still a lie if that billion dollars is coming in over

> > > > > > several years, not to mention thirty? The truth is that Planned

> > > > > > Parenthood is a non profit organization and DOES NOT make a profit but

> > > > > > rather relies on donations. Period.

>

> > > > > If the preacher stated: "Planned Parenthood has earned over a billion

> > > > > dollars over the past 30 years". That would not be a lie.

> > > > > If the preacher stated: "Planned Parenthood earned over a billion

> dollars

> > > > > last year." That would be a lie.

>

> > > > > It's my guess that he made the first statement and not the second

> statement.

>

> > > > So your original statement that you I "heard a preacher say that it

> > > > [the net worth of Planned Parenthood] is over 1 billion dollars" was

> > > > that you lying or you making an honest mistake? Because either way it

> > > > hurts your argument and makes it harder for us to believe anything you

> > > > say.

>

> > > It was an honest mistake. I believe lots of people lied to me in this

> > > thread or actually believed the words at the Planned Parenthood website

> > > that were probably written by a person that has a degree in Public

> > > Relations. The truth is that Planned Parenthood derives millions of

> > > dollars per year as a direct result of abortions.

>

> > Isn't it wrong to post lies regardless of which side you are on? My

> > views are a bit extreme in this regard: I don't see any justification

> > for lying. For starters, it is anti-educational and unscientific:

> > telling lies to people makes it impossible for them to know what is

> > true. Nor is it something Christians are supposed to do (for moral

> > reasons).

> Please tell me what lie that I told? I made an honest mistake. An honest

> mistake is different than a lie. I still don't remember the exact words of

> the television preacher. I don't take notes when I listen to a sermon.

Jason, we just can't take your word for anything anymore. What

difference does it make if you made an honest mistake or if you

deliberately set out to deceive? I would hope that in the future you

can get your facts straight.

Frankly, when you say "I believe lots of people lied to me in this

thread" the impression I get is that you are arguing that it is okay

for you to lie because other people are lying too. I hope I am wrong

but I see no other reason for you to use the classic "But they've lied

too" argument if you are not admitting to (knowingly or unknowingly)

posting lies. Perhaps you can tell us what lies you've been told on

this thread.

Martin

May 17, 2007

On 16 Maj, 20:36, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <pNG2i.385$C96....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>,

>

> b...@nonespam.com wrote:

> > Jason wrote:

> > > In article <1179294078.449622.33...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

> > >> On May 16, 2:27 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > >>> In article <1179291676.446593.281...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> > >>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > >>>> On May 16, 11:13 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > >>>>> In article

> > > <1179275214.207365.231...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> > >>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > >>>>>> On May 16, 3:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > >>>>>>> The leaders of Planned Parenthood knew that it not a "mass of

> > >>>>>>> tissue"--even in the 1960's. They told that LIE so as to make

> > > it more

> > >>>>>>> likely that women would agree to have abortions. It's much harder to

> > >>>>>>> convince a pregnant woman to have an abortion once they realize

> > >>> that they

> > >>>>>>> have a living a baby in their womb. That is the reason the ACLU and

> > >>>>>>> perhaps other organizations such as Planned Parenthood want to

> > > have the

> > >>>>>>> law overturned that requires women seeking abortion to see 3D

> > >>> ultrasounds

> > >>>>>>> of their babies. They know that once those women see those

> > >>> pictures, they

> > >>>>>>> will decide NOT to have an abortion. Planned Parenthood derives

> > >>> money from

> > >>>>>>> abortions so they want as many women as possible to have

> > >>> abortions. That's

> > >>>>>>> why they want that law related to ultrasounds overturned. Does

> > >>> anyone know

> > >>>>>>> the net worth of Planned Parenthood. I heard a preacher say that

> > >>> it's over

> > >>>>>>> 1 billion dollars.

> > >>>>>> And preachers never lie, do they?

> > >>>>> I do not remember how that preacher came up with the billion dollar

> > >>>>> number. Perhaps he added up all of the money Planned Parenthood has made

> > >>>>> during the last 30 or more years. That figure would probably be over a

> > >>>>> billion dollars but am only guessing since I don't have the figures in

> > >>>>> front of me. I was only telling you what a preacher on television

> > > told his

> > >>>>> audience.

> > >>>> Does it occur to you that your preacher may have just been lying to

> > >>>> you? Have you never been lied to by another Christian? If you

> > >>>> yourself sometime tell lies then why do you believ other Christians

> > >>>> tell the truth?

> > >>> Has it occurred to you the preacher could have been telling the truth? Do

> > >>> you believe that Plannned Parenthood has earned as least a billion dollars

> > >>> during the past 30 years? Planned Parenthood is now a worldwide

> > >>> organization. That is probably how the preacher came up with the billion

> > >>> dollar number.

> > >> Has it occured to you that refering to something as a "billion dollar

> > >> industry" is still a lie if that billion dollars is coming in over

> > >> several years, not to mention thirty? The truth is that Planned

> > >> Parenthood is a non profit organization and DOES NOT make a profit but

> > >> rather relies on donations. Period.

>

> > >> Martin

>

> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

> > > If the preacher stated: "Planned Parenthood has earned over a billion

> > > dollars over the past 30 years". That would not be a lie.

>

> > If he had the figures to back it up it wouldn't be. But it is still

> > dishonest because he implies that the money was earned strictly from

> > abortions, which it definitely was not.

>

> > > If the preacher stated: "Planned Parenthood earned over a billion dollars

> > > last year." That would be a lie.

>

> > That would also be a lie.

>

> > > It's my guess that he made the first statement and not the second statement.

>

> > Why do you say that? If he lied about one thing, there is no reason to

> > believe that he didn't lie about the other.

>

> I don't know whether he actually lied but it was my impression that he was

> saying that Planned Parenthood earned most of the billion dollars as a

> result of charging people for abortions. Someone told me that they visited

> the Planned Parenthood website and found out they only derive three

> percent of their profits from abortions. It's possible that I

> mis-understood the television preacher.-

He lied and you are spreading his lie. Planned Parenthood is a non-

profit organisation. That is a matter of public record.

May 17, 2007

On May 17, 9:21 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1179357540.570843.290...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > On May 17, 2:03 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

> > > You do not appear to care about the babies that have been killed and

> > > unless I missed it, did not even mention the damage that has been done to

> > > women that have had abortions. I have heard some of those women tell their

> > > stories on Christian radio talk shows. I have heard them tell their

> > > stories while giving their testimonies in church services. I am against

> > > abortion but realize that abortion is legal. Since it is legal, I hope

> > > that in the months and years to come that women will use the so called

> > > abortion pill (morning after pill) during the first week of pregnancy.

> > > Hopefully, this will cause many less women to develop severe depression as

> > > a result of abortions. I hope that it will also cause thousands of

> > > abortion clinics to close down and abortion doctors to go out of

> business. ...

>

> > Jason, do you realize that you are a patently evil man? Is this how

> > you plan to go to heaven? By having clinics shut down?

>

> Please re-read my post. The ABORTION clinics would close down because they

> would not have any customers. The reason they would have no customers is

> because of the abortion pill (morning after pill). As you know, the

> morning after pills means that abortions inside ABORTION clinics would not

> be needed. Of course, some clinics would probably remain open. I have read

> articles indicating that the number of clinical abortions is already

> starting to drop as a result of the abortion pill. I am against abortion

> but know that it's legal. Since it is legal for women to have abortions--I

> believe the morning after pill is far superior to a clinical abortion. Do

> you agree or disagree?

And if the crime rate continues to drop then we won't need as many

homocide cops. So what? It's not like we won't have police stations

or doctor's clinics in the future. I don't understand why you think

it is a good thing for clinics to shut down. Correct me if I'm wrong

but I would imagine most (if not all)clinics where abortions are

performed also perform other services too. The big problem here is

that where you see "big business" the rest of us see "medical

procedure". Doctors who perform abortions are not _just_ "abortion

doctors": they are qualified practicianers with medical degrees. I

therefore still think it is patently evil of you to gleefully

anticipate the shutting down of their clinics.

Martin

May 17, 2007

On May 17, 9:35 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1179357905.306076.271...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > On May 17, 2:22 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

> > > Good points--I agree--since abortions are legal--they should be done

> > > during the first trimester. The exception would be--if the mother's life

> > > was in danger.

>

> > Then you shouldn't be trying to get abortion clinics closed down. In

> > fact, it would be the last thing you should want.

> None of the local "abortion" doctors in my small city operate abortion

> clinics. Instead, they have regular patients and only do several abortions

> per week. Even if all abortion clinics closed down as a direct result of

> the morning after pill, doctors would still do abortions in their offices.

> I doubt if ALL abortion clinics will close down as a result of the morning

> after pill. It's my guess that lots of them will close down but in each

> city several will remain open for business. It is true that Planned

> Parenthood tells women that are seeking abortion about the morning after

> pill?

Yes.

> If not, I hope so.

Did you ever bother to check out their website?

http://www.plannedparenthood.org

Martin

May 17, 2007

On May 17, 9:21 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> Since it is legal for women to have abortions--I

> believe the morning after pill is far superior to a clinical abortion. Do

> you agree or disagree?

Better yet, Planned Parenthood can advise wome as to the wide range of

contraceptives available: whereas abortions are -technically- a method

of birth control, it would be better for a woman not wanting to get

pregnant to use contraceptives rather than rely on abortion. It is

worth pointing out that the Catholic Church is against contraception.

Why? Do they really think sex should only be for procreation? What

perspective do the men of the Catholic Church have with regards to

this issue when the only sex they have is with little boys? I lived

in the Philippines for two whole years and I know first hand the

damage that overpopulation can do not only to families but to a

country's entire economy.

Martin

May 17, 2007

On May 16, 5:45 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1179344281.193023.30...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,Hatter

>

> <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On May 16, 12:01 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > In article <1179282445.318098.21...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,

>

> > > Hatte...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > > On May 15, 6:29 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > > In article <1179261773.675753.166...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,Hatter

>

> > > > > <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > On May 15, 2:47 pm, ayers...@hotmail.com wrote:

> > > > > > > On May 15, 1:14 pm, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>

> > > > > > > > Jason wrote:

> > > > > > > > > In article <f24i3n$ee...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> > > > > > > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>

> > > > > > > > >> Jason wrote:

> > > > > > > > >>> Thanks,

> > > > > > > > >>> Here are some statistics that I found. I will let you tell me

> > > > > whether or

> > > > > > > > >>> not the murder rate was higher during 1950's compared to the

> > > > > 1990's and

> > > > > > > > >>> 2000's. I did not see any 5's or higher in the 1950's but saw

> > > > > lots of 8s

> > > > > > > > >>> and 9s in the 1990's and 2000's

> > > > > > > > >> No-one said the murder rates were NOT lower in the 1950's.

> > > But you also

> > > > > > > > >> haven't shown what the prison population was in the

> 1950's so those

> > > > > > > > >> figures don't mean diddly here. You started off talking about

> > > what the

> > > > > > > > >> prison population numbers were in 1990 so you have to use the

> > > SAME year

> > > > > > > > >> for the crime rate numbers. If you want to use crime rate

> > > numbers from

> > > > > > > > >> the 50's the provide the SAME year's prison populations.

>

> > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

> > > > > > > > > Someone else made some good points about statistics related to

> > > prison

> > > > > > > > > populations. Various new laws; mandantory sentence laws; three

> > > strikes

> > > > > > > > > laws; illegal immigrants and various other factors effect prison

> > > > > > > > > populations. I concentrated on murder in my google search since

> > > > > MURDER is

> > > > > > > > > one of those crimes that has always been against the law.

> > > > > > > > > Jason

>

> > > > > > > > And yet AGAIN, you ignore the point. The point was NOT what

> crime you

> > > > > > > > focused on but that you tried weaseling the data by using two

> > > different

> > > > > > > > ranges of years.

>

> > > > > > > Yes the alternative to theory is the truth. THE WORD OF GOD.- Hide

> > > > > quoted text -

>

> > > > > > Which god?

>

> > > > > Jehovah

>

> > > > Ok, why should I believe in Jehovahs word over several of the other

> > > > God-Creators?

> > > > They also have texts that present theories other than evolution and

> > > > Jehovahs claims.

>

> > > >Hatter

>

> > >Hatter,

> > > Because Jehovah is the one true God. Many of the prophesies mentioned by

> > > Old Testament Prophets have come true. One example:

> > > Isaiah 53:5 But he was pierced through for our transgressions.

> > > As you know, Jesus died for our sins and transgressions and was even

> > > pierced with a sword.- Hide quoted text -

>

> > > - Show quoted text -

>

> > But other systems of Religion have prophosies that have come true in

> > later stories of those relgions. How Achilles would die, or the fall

> > of troy for example. Several event in Roman history were fortold by

> > the oracle at Delphi...there are numberous examples.

> > Most of them not Jahweh related.

>

> > Which brings us back to why do you believe your texts of Jahweh, but

> > not these texts that also had tales of things fortold?

>

> >Hatter

>

> Hatter,

> Because many of the prophesies have come true is one of the reasons. I

> took a course in college related to the major religions in the World. It

> was my conclusion that Christianity was far superior to any of those other

> religions. The fact that my parents were Christians may also have played a

> role.

> Jason- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

Retroactive intrpretation of poetic language is an easy way out. You

can take a fictional universe...such as the one from the X-men comic

books/movies and show how the passages of Nostradomas or the Bible

predict those purely fictional elements.

I'm guessing the course was run by a Christian, so the information you

were given was already biased.

I think it is the last thing you mentioned that is the biggest

influence.

Your parents were Christian, Your culture is predominently Christian,

The course on major religions was probably taught by a Christian.

These three things do not equal it being correct or superior to

anything else, other than in a subjective manner.

However, I want to thank you for remaining honest, thoughtful, and

calm.

Hatter

May 17, 2007

On Wed, 16 May 2007 22:45:28 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>In article <87jn43lkl3i3vjasj89539j4gq7alv1ld2@4ax.com>, Al Klein

><rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

>

>> On Wed, 16 May 2007 18:35:07 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>

>> >It's my guess that lots of them will close down but in each

>> >city several will remain open for business.

>>

>> There are large parts of the population that don't live in cities. In

>> some of those small towns, the SOLE doctor doesn't believe in

>> abortion, even to save the woman's life. Close the abortion clinics

>> and some women may face 8 hour (or more) drives to the nearest place

>> they can obtain an abortion.

>>

>> And, if the only pharmacy in town, and in nearby towns, refuses to

>> sell the morning after pill (which is quite a common practice among

>> pharmacies owned by, or manned by, some Christians), same problem.

>

>Good points. People in some of the southern states (Bible Belt) already

>have these sorts of problems. I read about one city that only had one

>abortion clinic and it was almost always surrounded (during business

>hours) with pro-life protesters.

Stupidity isn't limited to the south. That's only the buckle of the

Bible belt. The belt stretches to the entire country - anywhere there

are people with 17th century morals and 1st century education.

May 17, 2007

Jason wrote:

> In article <1179357540.570843.290540@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>> On May 17, 2:03 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>

>>> You do not appear to care about the babies that have been killed and

>>> unless I missed it, did not even mention the damage that has been done to

>>> women that have had abortions. I have heard some of those women tell their

>>> stories on Christian radio talk shows. I have heard them tell their

>>> stories while giving their testimonies in church services. I am against

>>> abortion but realize that abortion is legal. Since it is legal, I hope

>>> that in the months and years to come that women will use the so called

>>> abortion pill (morning after pill) during the first week of pregnancy.

>>> Hopefully, this will cause many less women to develop severe depression as

>>> a result of abortions. I hope that it will also cause thousands of

>>> abortion clinics to close down and abortion doctors to go out of

> business. ...

>> Jason, do you realize that you are a patently evil man? Is this how

>> you plan to go to heaven? By having clinics shut down?

>>

>> Martin