Evolution is Just Junk Science

[Guest Richard Clayton]

Jason wrote:

> In article <hSsXi.2201$b%1.2036@trnddc01>, Richard Clayton

> <pockZIGetnZIGerd@verizon.net> wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>>> In article <1wsXi.16271$Rg1.8897@trnddc05>, Richard Clayton

>>> <pockZIGetnZIGerd@verizon.net> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Jason wrote:

>>>>> In article <fgkpmf$8le$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

>>>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> Jason wrote:

>>>>>>> In article <fgf89f$93i$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

>>>>>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Jason wrote:

>>>>>>>>> Iran is the problem since they have a religious nut case as a

> president.

>>>>>>>> Jason, you've already sat there and admitted that you'd rather see

>>>>>>>> 8,000,000 people definitely die in NYC rather than blow up a sub

> full of

>>>>>>>> "religious nut case" and some kids when those "religious nut

> case"

>>>>>>>> are definitely armed with multiple nukes and ready, willing and

> able to

>>>>>>>> use them in a matter of hours. Now you want to blow up the "religious

>>>>>>>> nut case" as well as possibly thousands of innocent people in order

>>>>>>>> to POSSIBLY save several million when you don't know if these

> "religious

>>>>>>>> nut case" even HAVE any nukes at all yet, much less the

> authority or

>>>>>>>> will to use them.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Can you get any MORE deranged?

>>>>>>> 55% of Americans agree with me related to this issue.

>>>>>> So? That doesn't make you any less deranged.

>>>>> If you was president of America and the director of the CIA showed you a

>>>>> satellite photo of people in Iran loading warheads on two long range

>>>>> missiles-- Would you order the military to destroy the nuclear facilites

>>>>> in Iran and also destroy the long range missiles?

>>>> The last time the President and cherry-picked CIA spokespeople

>>> insisted

>>>> a country had weapons of mass destruction, it turned out to be a lie.

>>>> Why should anybody trust them a second time?

>>> You failed to answer a simple question.

>> The answer was implicit, but since you seem to have missed it, here's

>> the simple version: No. The President lacks credibility.

>

> I did not ask you what President Bush would do. I asked you what YOU would

> do if YOU were president. So let's try again. Here is the question:

 

You know, I misread your question the first time. My apologies.

> If you was president of America and the director of the CIA showed you a

> satellite photo of people in Iran loading warheads on two long range

> missiles-- Would you order the military to destroy the nuclear facilites

> in Iran and also destroy the long range missiles?

 

No. In the scenario you describe, those are just missiles and warheads;

lots of Middle East countries possess missiles and warheads, and frankly

we can't vaporize them all. You can also get into moral debates about

whether our natural sovereignty involves the right to wage preemptive

war on anybody who might conceivably, someday, maybe, be able to hurt us.

 

I'd also wonder about the objectivity of the CIA, since the current

administration has a policy of rewarding people who tell them what they

want to hear, and ignoring those who don't. What I realize-- and the

current President apparently doesn't-- is that this creates a culture of

yes-men.

 

The scenario you describe also doesn't seem to be based on any

real-world situation; as I pointed out, the last time the President and

his cronies scared us into a war, all of their reasons turned out to be

completely fraudulent.

--

[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]

Richard Clayton

"Freedom is the right of all sentient beings."

[Guest Tokay Pino Gris]

Jason wrote:

> In article <lue105-ou2.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

>

>> [snips]

>>

>> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 11:30:34 -0800, Jason wrote:

>>

>>> It's much easier to fire cruise missles at the nuclear facilities in Iran

>>> or use our bombers to drop bunker buster bombs on their nuclear

>>> facilities.

>> Far-reaching technical operations in which any of a thousand things can go

>> wrong, and in which even if everything goes right, collateral damage is

>> significant.

>>

>>> I don't have the skills needed to assassinate any person.

>> Beating someone over the head with a stick does not require significant

>> skill.

>

> A long range sniper rifle would be needed and it would be difficult to

> smuggle that sort of rifle from America into Iran.

>

>

 

Ehm. No, not exactly. Quite easy, in fact.

 

Tokay

 

--

 

This fellow Charles Lindbergh will never make it. He's doomed.

 

Harry Guggenheim, millionaire aviation enthusiast.

[Guest Tokay Pino Gris]

Jason wrote:

> In article <v7gsi3ddancgq75k6p64qkmqrg4uo35ua5@4ax.com>, Al Klein

> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

>

>> On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 18:31:59 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>

>>> In article <rbtpi35q3qu5jjt9pldcje1pkletqbjs37@4ax.com>, Al Klein

>>> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

>>>

>>>> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 23:01:42 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> In article <h9pni35dqntdgaie6rug1quf011jqm71n4@4ax.com>, Al Klein

>>>>> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 20:13:25 GMT, cactus <cactus@nonespam.com> wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Jason wrote:

>>>>>>>> They will have to be responsible for their own souls. I read that

>>> doctors

>>>>>>>> commit mercy killings every day--mainly by over doses of

> certain drugs.

>>>>>>> Source?

>>>>>> He probably did a Google search on 'mercy killings', got over 2

>>>>>> million hits, and concluded that doctors do mercy killings every day.

>>>>> Close--I recall reading an article about it in a magazine.

>>>> Which you can't quote, or even give us a reference to. And we're

>>>> supposed to trust the memory of someone who claimed, for weeks, that

>>>> he has drug-induced memory problems?

>>> Are you stating that doctors do not conduct any mercy killings?

>> No, I'm stating that you've offered no evidence to back up your

>> assertion that doctors commit mercy killings every day.

>>

>>> In one state, it is now legal for doctors to conduct mercy killings.

>> ONLY if the patient requests it.

>>

>>> Ask any

>>> nurse if they know about any mercy killings. I know two local nurses.

>> I know dozens of nurses, That has nothing to do with your failure to

>> provide evidence to back up your claim.

>

> If you choose to believe that doctors do not conduct mercy killings on a

> regular basis--so be it.

>

>

 

This bozo has an inclination to turn around words...

 

Jason, you know nothing about this topic. You know nothing about the

day-to-day buisness of medicine. "mercy killing". I have yet to hear a

doctor use those words.

 

 

The question is not whether those "killings" are legal or not. The

question is whether your sky zombie sends you to hell for it.

 

The answer is "Yes". He does. but since he is just fiction, that doesn't

matter.

 

 

Tokay

 

--

 

This fellow Charles Lindbergh will never make it. He's doomed.

 

Harry Guggenheim, millionaire aviation enthusiast.

[Guest Tokay Pino Gris]

Jason wrote:

> In article <2td105-ou2.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

>

>> [snips]

>>

>> On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 18:41:53 -0800, Jason wrote:

>>

>>> Did you know that many of the people that campaign at abortion clinics

>>> have been sued? They now have to campaign far away from the entrance of

>>> abortion clinics.

>> Based on certain past incidents, one might argue anywhere within sniper

>> range is too close. Keep 'em back, oh, five miles.

>

> Those same rules should apply to people that campaign at the funerals of

> soldiers.

>

>

 

You know? Actually no argument there. I agree.

 

 

Tokay

 

--

 

This fellow Charles Lindbergh will never make it. He's doomed.

 

Harry Guggenheim, millionaire aviation enthusiast.

[Guest Tokay Pino Gris]

Jason wrote:

> In article <opasi3hqmhdu1rp948jeligvfhu20f21nb@4ax.com>, stoney

> <stoney@the.net> wrote:

>

>> On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:38:23 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>

>> wrote:

>>

>>> On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:50:11 +0100, Tokay Pino Gris

>>> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Jason wrote:

>>>>> In article <l79hi3tc5n5ncp4440nt82vhvijdm0pqgj@4ax.com>, Al Klein

>>>>> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:32:06 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> If you believe that the president of Iran is making nuclear materials to

>>>>>>> be used for peaceful purposes

>>>>>> The SCIENTISTS who have inspected the facilities KNOW he is.

>>>>> Nuclear materials can be used to make nuclear weapons.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>> weeeell. No, not that easy. Plutonium can. Uranium 295 can. Uranium 298

>>>> can't. Well, not fission bombs anyway.

>>>>

>>>> Plutonium has to be created. In a special reactor. Uranium 295 has to be

>>>> collected.... rather tedious process....

>>> None of which Iran is even working toward today.

>>>

>>> But, what the hell, let's nuke them anyway, just to make sure that

>>> they don't get any ideas. It's better that Christians kill everyone

>>> than that Moslems kill anyone.

>>>

>>> (And for his next act in the Rubber Room, Jason will ...)

>> embrace the lady with the strap-on dildo.....

>

> It will have to be a VERY large room since 55 percent of Americans agree

> with me related to this issue.

>

>

 

Will you forget which other idiots agree with you. That they agree with

you doesn't make them or you right. It just shows that the world is full

of idiots that should not be allowed to breed in the first place.

 

 

Tokay

 

--

 

This fellow Charles Lindbergh will never make it. He's doomed.

 

Harry Guggenheim, millionaire aviation enthusiast.

[Guest cactus]

Jason wrote:

> In article <hSsXi.2201$b%1.2036@trnddc01>, Richard Clayton

> <pockZIGetnZIGerd@verizon.net> wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>>> In article <1wsXi.16271$Rg1.8897@trnddc05>, Richard Clayton

>>> <pockZIGetnZIGerd@verizon.net> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Jason wrote:

>>>>> In article <fgkpmf$8le$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

>>>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> Jason wrote:

>>>>>>> In article <fgf89f$93i$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

>>>>>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Jason wrote:

>>>>>>>>> Iran is the problem since they have a religious nut case as a

> president.

>>>>>>>> Jason, you've already sat there and admitted that you'd rather see

>>>>>>>> 8,000,000 people definitely die in NYC rather than blow up a sub

> full of

>>>>>>>> "religious nut case" and some kids when those "religious nut

> case"

>>>>>>>> are definitely armed with multiple nukes and ready, willing and

> able to

>>>>>>>> use them in a matter of hours. Now you want to blow up the "religious

>>>>>>>> nut case" as well as possibly thousands of innocent people in order

>>>>>>>> to POSSIBLY save several million when you don't know if these

> "religious

>>>>>>>> nut case" even HAVE any nukes at all yet, much less the

> authority or

>>>>>>>> will to use them.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Can you get any MORE deranged?

>>>>>>> 55% of Americans agree with me related to this issue.

>>>>>> So? That doesn't make you any less deranged.

>>>>> If you was president of America and the director of the CIA showed you a

>>>>> satellite photo of people in Iran loading warheads on two long range

>>>>> missiles-- Would you order the military to destroy the nuclear facilites

>>>>> in Iran and also destroy the long range missiles?

>>>> The last time the President and cherry-picked CIA spokespeople

>>> insisted

>>>> a country had weapons of mass destruction, it turned out to be a lie.

>>>> Why should anybody trust them a second time?

>>> You failed to answer a simple question.

>> The answer was implicit, but since you seem to have missed it, here's

>> the simple version: No. The President lacks credibility.

>

> I did not ask you what President Bush would do. I asked you what YOU would

> do if YOU were president. So let's try again. Here is the question:

>

> If you was president of America and the director of the CIA showed you a

> satellite photo of people in Iran loading warheads on two long range

> missiles-- Would you order the military to destroy the nuclear facilites

> in Iran and also destroy the long range missiles?

>

>

That would not be my call. It would be up to the President. But given

the track record thus far on the CIA's ability to track, let alone find,

WMDs, I would have my doubts.

[Guest stoney]

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 21:04:13 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>

wrote:

>On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:49:55 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

>>One other option would be for the CIA to fund opposition groups within

>>Iran such as the National Council for Resistance in Iran [NCRI].

>

>One other option would be for us to keep our noses out of the internal

>affairs of other nations, like we want them to keep their noses out of

>ours.

>

>Do you think that just because you're you, you have (or your country

>has) the right to tell other countries how to run themselves?

 

Umm, excuse me, Al; but you said the word 'think' in regard to Gasbag.

[Guest stoney]

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 21:21:47 -0400, Christopher A.Lee

<calee@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 21:04:13 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>

>wrote:

>

>>On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:49:55 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>

>>>One other option would be for the CIA to fund opposition groups within

>>>Iran such as the National Council for Resistance in Iran [NCRI].

>>

>>One other option would be for us to keep our noses out of the internal

>>affairs of other nations, like we want them to keep their noses out of

>>ours.

>>

>>Do you think that just because you're you, you have (or your country

>>has) the right to tell other countries how to run themselves?

>

>He doesn't understand why we are disliked so much.

 

It's because the former USA is a Christian Nation

[Guest stoney]

On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 11:05:50 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>

wrote:

>On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 21:21:47 -0400, Christopher A.Lee

><calee@optonline.net> wrote:

>

>>On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 21:04:13 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>

>>wrote:

>>

>>>On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:49:55 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>>

>>>>One other option would be for the CIA to fund opposition groups within

>>>>Iran such as the National Council for Resistance in Iran [NCRI].

>>>

>>>One other option would be for us to keep our noses out of the internal

>>>affairs of other nations, like we want them to keep their noses out of

>>>ours.

>>>

>>>Do you think that just because you're you, you have (or your country

>>>has) the right to tell other countries how to run themselves?

>>

>>He doesn't understand why we are disliked so much.

>

>I don't think he accepts that we ARE disliked so much.

 

That would require at least one functioning neuron.

[Guest stoney]

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 21:02:32 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>

wrote:

>On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 23:40:22 +0100, Tokay Pino Gris

><tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote:

>

>

>>You started out your silly argument by saying that iran builds nuclear

>>facilities. NOW you accuse them that they can BUY the stuff.

>

>>Who is next? Saudi Arabia? Turkey? Italy? Germany? Denmark?

>

>Any non-Christian countries would be okay to Jason. If we destroy the

>world doing it, it's that much sooner that he'll be in heaven.

 

He wouldn't be other than vapourized.

[Guest stoney]

On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:58:12 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>

wrote:

>On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 11:23:05 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

>>55% of Americans agree with me related to this issue.

>

>Then you and 55% of Americans are too dangerous to be left alive.

 

Jesus refuses to call the rabid ones home.

[Guest stoney]

On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 11:23:50 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>

wrote:

>On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:27:05 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

>>In article <pntki3lerepl5c21ecr6c8c533k77ee9ml@4ax.com>, Al Klein

>><rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

>>

>>> On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 23:40:22 +0100, Tokay Pino Gris

>>> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote:

>>>

>>>

>>> >You started out your silly argument by saying that iran builds nuclear

>>> >facilities. NOW you accuse them that they can BUY the stuff.

>>>

>>> >Who is next? Saudi Arabia? Turkey? Italy? Germany? Denmark?

>>>

>>> Any non-Christian countries would be okay to Jason. If we destroy the

>>> world doing it, it's that much sooner that he'll be in heaven.

>>

>>Iran is the problem since they have a religious nut case as a president.

>

>So does the US, so we're "the problem" too. And we already HAVE

>nuclear weapons, AND the means to deliver them ANYWHERE in the world.

 

And are the only nation which has used them in military action.

>And our religious nut leader HAS threatened to use them. Iran's

>president HASN'T threatened to use nukes, since Iran has none.

>

>Sane people would consider US to be the FAR MORE DANGEROUS threat.

>Oh - most of the world DOES consider us to be far more dangerous to

>world peace than Iran is. I guess most of the world is more

>intelligent than you are, Jason.

 

A dead skunk on the road's more intelligent than Jason. And smells

better!

>>If you don't believe me, read this:

>>

>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml

>>

>>Divine mission' driving Iran's new leader

>>

>>By Anton La Guardia

>>Last Updated: 12:33am GMT 15/01/2006

>

>Almost 2 years old. Since then we have PROOF that they have NO

>nuclear weapons program. What are they doing NOW?

 

Daily living stuff, so they must die from christian love, compassion,

and humanity.

[Guest stoney]

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:26:47 -0700, Charles & Mambo Duckman

<duckman@gfy.slf> wrote:

>Jason wrote:

>

>>>>>>I also seem to recall that they attacked one of our war ships.

>>>>>

>>>>>So has Israel.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>That is true but I don't remember the details.

>>>

>>>So, I am confused. Are we supposed to attack Israel, too?

>>

>>

>> No--they have no desire to take over the world or ever attack America.

>

>But Iran does? And Iraq did, too?

>

>Fascinating.

 

Abject insanity, I understand, very often is. :\

[Guest Al Klein]

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 17:34:42 -0500, Christopher A.Lee

<calee@optonline.net> wrote:

>It's because they can't think for themselves. When somebody they trust

>says something that makes it so - whether it is C4 made in Iran,

>WMDs(WsMD?) in Iraq, Noah's flood or the Garden of Eden. They're all

>true because somebody said so.

 

Would a man who claims to speak for God lie?

 

Oops.

--

Al at Webdingers dot com

"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done

to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."

-George H. W. Bush, spoken in an interview with Sarah McClendon, June 1992

[Guest Al Klein]

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 15:25:12 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>It will have to be a VERY large room since 55 percent of Americans agree

>with me related to this issue.

 

Actually less than 30% do, but that's just proof that a little under

30% of the American public is composed of idiots.

--

Al at Webdingers dot com

"Speculating on the possible reaction to evidence is no excuse for

failing to produce the evidence."

- Wayne M. Delia

[Guest Al Klein]

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 01:35:47 +0100, Tokay Pino Gris

<tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote:

>Will you forget which other idiots agree with you. That they agree with

>you doesn't make them or you right. It just shows that the world is full

>of idiots that should not be allowed to breed in the first place.

 

Or, if they breed, their children should be removed to homes run by

SANE people at birth.

--

Al at Webdingers dot com

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by

the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable

to the American public."

- Theodore Roosevelt

[Guest stoney]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:24:56 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>

wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:03:53 -0400, in alt.atheism

>Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in

><svcii3t9malr8f08g06kuemtr8rh8741hr@4ax.com>:

>>On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:06:34 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>

>>>In article <097ii35na1tem8b4ormhj2tsromi88daqp@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

>>><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>>>

>>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:08:55 -0800, in alt.atheism

>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>>>> <Jason-3110071608550001@67-150-124-24.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>:

>>>> >In article <3p4ii3pu7vf0m7788kbvnjptfdbccnfmvh@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

>>>> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>>>> >

>>>> >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:13:37 -0400, in alt.atheism

>>>> >> Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in

>>>> >> <29ahi3houucl8cvb6s8a4no2mlaji3tn1l@4ax.com>:

>>>> >> >On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:08:54 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>>> >> >

>>>> >> >>How many times has Iran attacked America?

>>>> >> >

>>>> >> >None.

>>>> >>

>>>> >> Niggling little criticism. Attacking an embassy or consulate does count

>>>> >> as attacking a country (see flap about US bombing of Chinese Embassy).

>>>> >> Of course Jason is still way off base.

>>>> >>

>>>> >> >Hint: Defending isn't attacking.

>>>> >> >

>>>> >> >How many times has the US made UNPROVOKED attacks on the Middle East.

>>>> >> >

>>>> >> >Hint: Many, many times, both directly and through clients - during one

>>>> >> >such attack we were counter-attacked.

>>>> >

>>>> >I also seem to recall that they attacked one of our war ships.

>>>>

>>>> Which one? Before or after we shot one of their civiliam planes out of

>>>> the sky?

>>>

>>>I believe it was the USS Cole (spelling ??)

>>>

>>AFTER WE attacked THEM.

 

If the Cole had been an Adams class DDG the 1,200 psi boilers [2

boiler rooms with 2 boilers each] would have blown. The only question

would have been did 2 go or all 4? More than likely it would have

sunk killing many more than 17.

>No, Iran had nothing to do with it. Wikipedia tells us (with footnote)

>

>"On March 14, 2007, a federal judge in the United States, Robert Doumar

>ruled that the Sudanese government was liable for the bombing.[3]"

>

>[3]^ NBC News. Federal judge rules Sudan responsible for USS Cole

>bombing in 2000. NBC News. Retrieved on March 14, 2007.

>

>That was news to me.

 

I wasn't aware of that, either.

[Guest Al Klein]

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 15:27:06 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>The nuclear warheads

 

They have no nuclear warheads.

 

They have no means of producing nuclear warheads.

 

They have no means to produce the facilities needed to produce nuclear

warheads.

 

They have no plans to produce the facilities needed to produce nuclear

warheads.

 

The United States already has nuclear tipped missiles with range to

reach anywhere on the planet, and it has a religious nut for a leader

who can't wait for Armageddon.

 

WHERE'S the problem?

--

Al at Webdingers dot com

"I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world

insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it."

- Letter to S. Flesch, April 16, 1954; Einstein Archive 30-1154

[Guest Al Klein]

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 15:29:22 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>In article <fgkptb$8le$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>> > In article <jdtpi31jp62epc1ccrturfpdgtjiqng65v@4ax.com>, Al Klein

>> > <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

>> >> Many people (the majority of human beings, in fact) believe that Jesus

>> >> WAS NOT the son of any god. I guess that means that you'll be giving

>> >> up Christianity, right?

>> >

>> > You might let those people know that they were not alive when Jesus was on

>> > this earth so how would they know.

>>

>> Neither were you. So how deep is that hole that you're digging, anyways?

>

>I trust the testimony of the witnesses that were alive during that time period.

>

There is no testimony from anyone alive before 115 AD. There's no

testimony mentioning Jesus as a person until the end of the second

century.

 

So which testimony is it that you believe, again?

--

Al at Webdingers dot com

"At least two thirds of our miseries spring from human stupidity,

human malice and those great motivators and justifiers of malice and

stupidity, idealism, dogmatism and proselytizing zeal on behalf of

religious or political idols."

- Aldous Huxley

[Guest Al Klein]

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 15:30:58 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>In article <4cgsi3h77bddt6dfee98r7src8pcpf3l4k@4ax.com>, Al Klein

><rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

>

>> On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 18:33:22 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>

>> >In article <jdtpi31jp62epc1ccrturfpdgtjiqng65v@4ax.com>, Al Klein

>> ><rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

>> >

>> >> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 23:28:14 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>> >>

>> >> >In article <oj8ni35kmascj57bq46b1h1fehcq1s5hd7@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

>> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>> >> >

>> >> >> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:27:40 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism

>> >> >> Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in

>> >> >> <u02ni3pguo2b7p0oig1u04vidms269sr16@4ax.com>:

>> >> >> >On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 11:31:31 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>> >> >> >

>> >> >> >>google "USS Cole Iran"

>> >> >> >

>> >> >> >Why don't you just post the link to the article with the ACTUAL

>> >> >> >EVIDENCE that Iran was involved?

>> >> >>

>> >> >> Cause he doesn't have any, of course.

>> >> >

>> >> >The only evidence that I could find was that many people believe that Iran

>> >> >may have been the country that made the C4.

>> >>

>> >> Many people (the majority of human beings, in fact) believe that Jesus

>> >> WAS NOT the son of any god. I guess that means that you'll be giving

>> >> up Christianity, right?

>> >

>> >You might let those people know that they were not alive when Jesus was on

>> >this earth so how would they know.

>> >

>> Neither were you, so how would you know? (Reading it in a book isn't

>> knowledge that it happened.)

>

>Have you ever taken a history course?

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. History books

don't make extraordinary claims.

> Most of the info. in history book is

>based on the testimony of people that were alive hundreds or thousands of

>years ago.

 

Most of it is based on the writings of people who were witnesses

(there's NO eyewitness testimony of Jesus), and most of that is

backed up by OBJECTIVE evidence (there's objective evidence that the

Biblical Jesus - as defined in the Bible - never existed.)

--

Al at Webdingers dot com

"The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due

to the absence, from Jerusalem, of a lunatic asylum."

- Havelock Ellis

[Guest Al Klein]

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 15:33:38 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>In article <v7gsi3ddancgq75k6p64qkmqrg4uo35ua5@4ax.com>, Al Klein

><rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

>> On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 18:31:59 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>> > Ask any

>> >nurse if they know about any mercy killings. I know two local nurses.

>> I know dozens of nurses, That has nothing to do with your failure to

>> provide evidence to back up your claim.

>If you choose to believe

 

Don't you understand the difference between "choose to believe" (what

YOU do) and "there's no evidence" (my stand)?

> that doctors do not conduct mercy killings on a regular basis

 

You said "EVERY DAY", not "on a regular basis" (the US holds

presidential elections on a regular basis). So far there have been

fewer than 100 of them. If there have been fewer than 100 assisted

suicides in the history of the United States, there's nothing to

discuss.

--

Al at Webdingers dot com

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your

Christ."

- Mohandas Gandhi

[Guest Al Klein]

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 00:07:59 GMT, 655321

<DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:

>In article

><Jason-0211072258140001@67-150-126-149.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>> The story may be over two years old but the missles could still be used

>> once they finish work on the nuclear warheads.

>

>Could be? You want to go to war over a "could be"?

 

If he thinks his god wants him to, of course.

>

>> My Honda Accord is now 9 years old and still runs great. 2 or 3 old

>> missiles still work great.

>

>The passage of time has not, on the other hand, been kind to your brain.

 

Which not only doesn't "work great", it fails to function at all.

--

Al at Webdingers dot com

"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their

numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion,

only His nonexistence could excuse Him."

- A. Einstein (Letter to Edgar Meyer, Jan. 2, 1915)

[Guest Free Lunch]

>A sexual assault under Subsection (a)(1) is without the consent of the other person if:On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 15:30:58 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

<Jason-0411071530580001@67-150-124-217.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>:

>In article <4cgsi3h77bddt6dfee98r7src8pcpf3l4k@4ax.com>, Al Klein

><rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

>

>> On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 18:33:22 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>

>> >In article <jdtpi31jp62epc1ccrturfpdgtjiqng65v@4ax.com>, Al Klein

>> ><rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

>> >

>> >> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 23:28:14 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>> >>

>> >> >In article <oj8ni35kmascj57bq46b1h1fehcq1s5hd7@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

>> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>> >> >

>> >> >> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:27:40 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism

>> >> >> Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in

>> >> >> <u02ni3pguo2b7p0oig1u04vidms269sr16@4ax.com>:

>> >> >> >On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 11:31:31 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>> >> >> >

>> >> >> >>google "USS Cole Iran"

>> >> >> >

>> >> >> >Why don't you just post the link to the article with the ACTUAL

>> >> >> >EVIDENCE that Iran was involved?

>> >> >>

>> >> >> Cause he doesn't have any, of course.

>> >> >

>> >> >The only evidence that I could find was that many people believe that Iran

>> >> >may have been the country that made the C4.

>> >>

>> >> Many people (the majority of human beings, in fact) believe that Jesus

>> >> WAS NOT the son of any god. I guess that means that you'll be giving

>> >> up Christianity, right?

>> >

>> >You might let those people know that they were not alive when Jesus was on

>> >this earth so how would they know.

>> >

>> Neither were you, so how would you know? (Reading it in a book isn't

>> knowledge that it happened.)

>

>Have you ever taken a history course? Most of the info. in history book is

>based on the testimony of people that were alive hundreds or thousands of

>years ago.

 

Clearly, you haven't. It's not about testimony and historians are not

fool enough to take the word of one person or a committee that had clear

ulterior motives to rewrite or delete inconvenient passages.

[Guest Al Klein]

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 15:21:50 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>If you was president of America

 

I would have to be a moron, because I'd be functionally illiterate,

just like your question.

 

But let's look at hypotheticals, since you seem to like them:

 

If you could go back in time, and save Jesus from the cross, meaning

that you would lose your chance to be saved, would you save his life?

Or would you selfishly let him die so that you could be saved?

--

Al at Webdingers dot com

"Creationists make it sound like a "theory" is something

you dreamt up after being drunk all night."

- Isaac Asimov

[Guest stoney]

On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 19:42:33 -0700, Charles & Mambo Duckman

<duckman@gfy.slf> wrote:

>Jason wrote:

>

>

>>>Many people (the majority of human beings, in fact) believe that Jesus

>>>WAS NOT the son of any god. I guess that means that you'll be giving

>>>up Christianity, right?

>>

>>

>> You might let those people know that they were not alive when Jesus was on

>> this earth so how would they know.

>

>Good thing all Christians are over 2000 years old and were able to

>eyewitness the God-rape of Mary, eh?

 

The God of Perversion-the Christian Daemon Deity-is into beastiality.