Evolution is Just Junk Science

[Guest Mike]

Jason wrote:

> In article <fheuh7$i7o$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>> Laws don't just "slowly fade away."

>

> Are you stating that no laws (example: the number of horses that are

> allowed to be in front of a bar that closed down 57 years ago) have become

> obsolete?

 

Yes. If the law is still on the books, it can still be enforced if those

circumstances arise. Try opening a bar and tying horses to the rail and

then walk up to a cop and point out the law to him and ask "am I

breaking this law?" He'll say you are even if he does not enforce it.

[Guest Mike]

Jason wrote:

> In article <fheuh7$i7o$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>> No, they aren't. They were either RULED upon by a court as being

>> unconstitutional OR they were repealed by the lawmakers. Now show us

>> where the laws from the bible against eating shellfish or working on

>> Sundays were either repealed by someone having authority to do so or was

>> ruled as unconstitutional.

>

> Going to church on Sunday (Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor. 16:2) follows the practice

> of the early Christians. The reason was because Jesus rose from the dead

> on a Sunday (Luke 24:1; John 20:19,26). One denomination (Seventh Day

> Adventist) continues to worship on Saturday.

 

And that has what to do with "honor the sabbath and keep it holy"? It

doesn't matter if your sabbath is Saturday or Sunday, the bible still

said "don't work on that day."

> Peter received a message from God indicated that Christians could eat any

> foods they wanted to eat. Acts Chapter 11: 5-18)

 

No, he didn't. I've already pointed out to you that those verses had

NOTHING to do with repealing the dietary laws in general but instead

were making a point to Peter that "if god cleaned something, that

something is clean" and was meant to show him why he shouldn't be

prejudiced towards the gentiles and should spread the word to them as

well as the jews.

[Guest Mike]

Jason wrote:

> In article <fheum0$i7o$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>>> Some Catholics and Mormons would agree with you. I don't agree with you.

>> That much is obvious.

>>

>>> Most Christians are intelligent enough to understand that God was giving

>>> that message to people that lived thousands of years ago and that message

>>> was NOT intended for people living today.

>> No, they aren't. They're stupid enough to think that god only wanted his

>> commands to be obeyed when it's convenient.

>>

>> The reason is that the world is

>>> now over populated but when God gave that message--the world was under

>>> populated.

>> Where, again, did god say "only go forth and multiply until you reach a

>> particular population"?

>

> God did not need to make that statement. He gave mankind enough

> intelligent to figure out these sorts of issues.

 

So you're saying that god can't even give and order correctly but wants

to give it in some wishy-washy way that we're supposed to interpret and

decide when it is in effect and when it's not? When did it cease to be

law? Was it when we hit 6,347,923,687 people or was it when we hit

6,347,923,685? Does the law on murder cease to be a law when we decide,

with our vast intelligence, "this guy doesn't deserve/need to live" or

are there fairly clear-cut boundaries in the law as to what's murder and

what's not? If I decided that your money would be better off in my bank

account than yours because "I'm smarter and can manage it better" does

that make it right for me to steal it?

[Guest Mike]

Jason wrote:

> I have read the entire Old Testament. There are dozens or perhaps even

> hundreds of laws that made perfect sence thousands of years ago. However,

> those same laws make no sence today. For example, there were lots of laws

> related to "farm" animals since in those days--most people had farm

> animals. Those sorts of laws are obsolete related to all people that live

> in cities since they do not own any farm animals.

 

Do women not menstruate any more? Do shellfish and pigs not grow

anymore? Does mildew not grow on clothing anymore? Are there not deaf

and blind people anymore? Is there only one kind of seed in existence

that can be planted these days? Do people not have hair/beards anymore?

ALL of these things are covered in some way by laws from the bible and

yet aren't covered by laws today. So what changed?

[Guest Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

 

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:43:58 -0800, Jason wrote:

>> Oh, I'm sure I could be wrong on that, in which case you will, of course,

>> show us the passage that says "until conditions warrant stopping this

>> breeding like rabbits bit", right?

>

> If you want to have a dozen children--have a dozen children.

 

No thank you.

> I have read the entire Old Testament. There are dozens or perhaps even

> hundreds of laws that made perfect sence thousands of years ago.

 

Indeed - and damned few that make sense today.

> However, those same laws make no sence today.

 

We're in agreement, then.

> For example, there were

> lots of laws related to "farm" animals since in those days--most people

> had farm animals. Those sorts of laws are obsolete related to all people

> that live in cities since they do not own any farm animals.

 

Yes, good, we're all in agreement, lots of those laws are silly today.

Now, since God is supposedly smart enough to know this will happen, he

would have put a "stop clause" in: "Be fruitful and multiply, until this

point, then slow things down a bit." I note you failed to point out such

a clause, though.

 

In fact, you failed to point out any such clause - meaning it is,

apparently, still a sin to wear clothing of mixed fiber, or to eat

shellfish, etc, etc, etc.

 

I'm sure you'll point out exactly where God put in the stop clauses,

right? Because if you don't, then those laws are still in full effect

today - God said so, and you, a puny mortal, trying to tell us otherwise,

trying to go against God's own commands, strikes me as more than a little

arrogant on your part. What makes you think you're smarter than God, hmm?

 

 

--

Though you’re wrong, I must admit that I like your spirit! The

willingness to defend unsupportable posistions is something to be

admired! -- Fredric Rice (C&S forum)

[Guest Tokay Pino Gris]

Mike wrote:

> Jason wrote:

>> In article <fheu51$hc6$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>>

>>> Jason wrote:

>>>> In this case, the context was related to MURDER.

>>> No, it wasn't. There was NO context to tell in what sense the word

>>> was being used. In fact, murder basically is "the unlawful killing of

>>> another" so to say "thou shall not kill someone in an unlawful

>>> manner" without FURTHER defining what said "unlawful manner" is, then

>>> it's meaningless. The ONLY context that it could be read in in any

>>> meaningful manner is "thou shall not kill."

>>>

>>> The reason is that other

>>>> scriptures in the old testament clearly stated that is was legal to

>>>> stone

>>>> people to death. If all forms of killing were against the law--why

>>>> did God

>>>> allow the people to stone people to death?

>>> Because there's no consistency to the bible.

>>

>> Do you consider capital punishment to be murder?

>

> Don't try and side-step the issue.

>

> Define murder in such a way that we can look at some act and decide if

> it's murder or not and without using some meaningless definition as

> "murder is illegal killing and so if it's against the law, it's murder."

 

The problem is that this is what is IS.

 

But that also means that the usage of the word "murder" in this bible is

useless.

 

Tokay

 

--

 

Germans are flummoxed by humor, the Swiss have no concept of fun, the

Spanish think there is nothing at all ridiculous about eating dinner at

midnight, and the Italians should never, ever have been let in on the

invention of the motor car.

 

Bill Bryson

[Guest Jason]

In article <crbu05-dro.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

> [snips]

>

> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:43:58 -0800, Jason wrote:

>

> >> Oh, I'm sure I could be wrong on that, in which case you will, of course,

> >> show us the passage that says "until conditions warrant stopping this

> >> breeding like rabbits bit", right?

> >

> > If you want to have a dozen children--have a dozen children.

>

> No thank you.

>

> > I have read the entire Old Testament. There are dozens or perhaps even

> > hundreds of laws that made perfect sence thousands of years ago.

>

> Indeed - and damned few that make sense today.

>

> > However, those same laws make no sence today.

>

> We're in agreement, then.

>

> > For example, there were

> > lots of laws related to "farm" animals since in those days--most people

> > had farm animals. Those sorts of laws are obsolete related to all people

> > that live in cities since they do not own any farm animals.

>

> Yes, good, we're all in agreement, lots of those laws are silly today.

> Now, since God is supposedly smart enough to know this will happen, he

> would have put a "stop clause" in: "Be fruitful and multiply, until this

> point, then slow things down a bit." I note you failed to point out such

> a clause, though.

>

> In fact, you failed to point out any such clause - meaning it is,

> apparently, still a sin to wear clothing of mixed fiber, or to eat

> shellfish, etc, etc, etc.

>

> I'm sure you'll point out exactly where God put in the stop clauses,

> right? Because if you don't, then those laws are still in full effect

> today - God said so, and you, a puny mortal, trying to tell us otherwise,

> trying to go against God's own commands, strikes me as more than a little

> arrogant on your part. What makes you think you're smarter than God, hmm?

 

You are correct. There are no STOP clauses such as:

 

After the world has a population of 5 billion people, you can STOP being

fruitful and multiplying.

 

If you don't have any farm animals, you can STOP being concerned with the

laws in the Old Testament related to farm animals.

 

I could go on an on and on.

 

The question is why there are no STOP clauses in the Bible:

 

The reason is that God gave mankind enough intelligent to figure out when

STOP clauses were necessary.

 

In relation to being fruitful and multiplying--that stop clause happened

about a 100 years ago. The world is now over populated.

 

Jason

[Guest Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

 

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:21:00 -0800, Jason wrote:

> The question is why there are no STOP clauses in the Bible:

 

Because it was written by ignorant goatherds, for ignorant goatherds,

and the fact a group of modern-day chowderheads don't seem to get this

doesn't really factor in.

> The reason is that God gave mankind enough intelligent to figure out

> when STOP clauses were necessary.

 

Smarter than God, who was such a complete fucking retard he couldn't

figure out that such clauses might be useful. Yeah, goo job, Jason,

explaining to us how you worship a complete drivelling idiot. All hail

the great moron in the sky!

> In relation to being fruitful and multiplying--that stop clause happened

> about a 100 years ago.

 

I'm sure you'll demonstrate the stop clause. Oh, wait, you admitted you

can't, there is none - nor is there anything saying "Oh, and when you

realize it's a bad idea to keep doing as I command, stop". Nope, God said

it, it is law, you are required to do it. Period. Nothing buys you an

out, unless you speak with more authority than God Himself.

 

Hmm, that's exactly what you're trying to do - to tell us that while God

said "do this", Jason says otherwise, and that is what matters. I

think there's a term for this sort of thing. "Hubris" comes to mind.

[Guest Tokay Pino Gris]

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

> [snips]

>

> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:21:00 -0800, Jason wrote:

[snip]

>> In relation to being fruitful and multiplying--that stop clause happened

>> about a 100 years ago.

>

> I'm sure you'll demonstrate the stop clause. Oh, wait, you admitted you

> can't, there is none - nor is there anything saying "Oh, and when you

> realize it's a bad idea to keep doing as I command, stop". Nope, God said

> it, it is law, you are required to do it. Period. Nothing buys you an

> out, unless you speak with more authority than God Himself.

>

> Hmm, that's exactly what you're trying to do - to tell us that while God

> said "do this", Jason says otherwise, and that is what matters. I

> think there's a term for this sort of thing. "Hubris" comes to mind.

 

While of course it is no longer sane to follow the laws in the bible,

Jason doesn't realize that he can't cherry pick.

 

Oh, he thinks he can, but they all do that.

 

They apply "common sense" to it, which is a good idea, but they stop

half way.

 

Tokay

 

 

 

--

 

Germans are flummoxed by humor, the Swiss have no concept of fun, the

Spanish think there is nothing at all ridiculous about eating dinner at

midnight, and the Italians should never, ever have been let in on the

invention of the motor car.

 

Bill Bryson

[Guest Jason]

In article <t29v05-lk8.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

> [snips]

>

> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:21:00 -0800, Jason wrote:

>

> > The question is why there are no STOP clauses in the Bible:

>

> Because it was written by ignorant goatherds, for ignorant goatherds,

> and the fact a group of modern-day chowderheads don't seem to get this

> doesn't really factor in.

>

> > The reason is that God gave mankind enough intelligent to figure out

> > when STOP clauses were necessary.

>

> Smarter than God, who was such a complete fucking retard he couldn't

> figure out that such clauses might be useful. Yeah, goo job, Jason,

> explaining to us how you worship a complete drivelling idiot. All hail

> the great moron in the sky!

>

> > In relation to being fruitful and multiplying--that stop clause happened

> > about a 100 years ago.

>

> I'm sure you'll demonstrate the stop clause. Oh, wait, you admitted you

> can't, there is none - nor is there anything saying "Oh, and when you

> realize it's a bad idea to keep doing as I command, stop". Nope, God said

> it, it is law, you are required to do it. Period. Nothing buys you an

> out, unless you speak with more authority than God Himself.

>

> Hmm, that's exactly what you're trying to do - to tell us that while God

> said "do this", Jason says otherwise, and that is what matters. I

> think there's a term for this sort of thing. "Hubris" comes to mind.

 

I did not mean to imply that I was the person that decided "stop orders".

It's up to all Christians to figure out the stop orders.

[Guest cactus]

Jason wrote:

> In article <06il05-a9a.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

>

>> [snips]

>>

>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:04:43 -0800, Jason wrote:

>>

>>>> And it could happen in 20 years as population pressures due to "be

>>>> fruitful and multiply" continue, so by your logic we should abolish

>>>> that odd little belief system which contains such a decree.

>>> God told the people that were alive thousands of years ago to be fruitful

>>> and multiply.

>> Last I checked, you'd failed completely in demonstrating God exists at

>> all, let alone that he said anything - or that the things he said (if any)

>> were quoted correctly.

>>

>> Secondly, while the command to be fruitful does appear in a certain book,

>> there doesn't seem to be a stop clause, meaning the rule is presumably

>> still in effect. Which means despite there being 6+ billion people

>> around, you're still required to breed like rabbits - without end. Drop

>> litters until you can't.

>>

>> Which, in turn, means that 6 billion will be 16 billion in jig time. Hmm.

>> Pretty much exactly what I said above - it could happen in 20 years (give

>> or take) thanks to your breeding requirements, thus - by your logic -

>> the belief system which contains the command should be abolished according

>> to the dictates of the slippery slope you adhere to.

>>

>> So, are you going to be first to line up and cease believing - with or

>> without the aid of a bullet? Somehow I don't think so.

>

> No, I have stated in former posts that most all of the laws mentioned in

> the Old Testament were for the people that were alive during that time

> period. When God told the people that were alive thousands of years ago to

> be fruitful and multiply--that advice made sense during that time period

> but does not make sense today. Most Christians understand these issues.

> The Mormons and Catholics continue to believe that they should have as

> many kids as possible. The reason for this is probably so they can

> increase the numbers of Mormons and Catholics that are in the world.

>

>

Your ignorance is as broad as it is deep.

[Guest Mike]

Tokay Pino Gris wrote:

> Mike wrote:

>> Jason wrote:

>>> In article <fheu51$hc6$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

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

>>>

>>>> Jason wrote:

>>>>> In this case, the context was related to MURDER.

>>>> No, it wasn't. There was NO context to tell in what sense the word

>>>> was being used. In fact, murder basically is "the unlawful killing

>>>> of another" so to say "thou shall not kill someone in an unlawful

>>>> manner" without FURTHER defining what said "unlawful manner" is,

>>>> then it's meaningless. The ONLY context that it could be read in in

>>>> any meaningful manner is "thou shall not kill."

>>>>

>>>> The reason is that other

>>>>> scriptures in the old testament clearly stated that is was legal to

>>>>> stone

>>>>> people to death. If all forms of killing were against the law--why

>>>>> did God

>>>>> allow the people to stone people to death?

>>>> Because there's no consistency to the bible.

>>>

>>> Do you consider capital punishment to be murder?

>>

>> Don't try and side-step the issue.

>>

>> Define murder in such a way that we can look at some act and decide if

>> it's murder or not and without using some meaningless definition as

>> "murder is illegal killing and so if it's against the law, it's murder."

>

> The problem is that this is what is IS.

 

Ah, but the law doesn't say "murder is what this law says is murder"

but, instead, says things like ""Murder" is the killing of any person

with malice aforethought, either express or implied." (quoted from the

SC statute on murder.) But Jason's problem here is that the SC law (or

any other modern law, for that matter) doesn't apply to the bible and

the bible never states what "murder" is. So he's kinda screwed in this

argument. He couldn't even define murder himself without resorting to an

argument of the type of "murder is what the law says is murder."

> But that also means that the usage of the word "murder" in this bible is

> useless.

 

Agreed.

[Guest stoney]

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 17:58:19 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>

wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 21:29:23 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

>>In article <PnRYi.5629$b%1.2150@trnddc01>, Richard Clayton

>><pockZIGetnZIGerd@verizon.net> wrote:

>>

>>> Jason wrote:

>>> > In article <zINYi.13084$h17.8834@trnddc04>, Richard Clayton

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

>

>>> >>Does a person own his own life? Does he have the right to choose not to

>>> >> live any longer, even if in perfect physical health?

>

>>> > Yes--a person does own his own life. Yes--a person does have the right to

>>> > choose not to live any longer, even if in perfect physical health.

>

>>> > Summary: A person does have free will.

>

>>>Okay, so you stipulate that a man's life is his own. If he wants to

>>> throw it away, then, as is his right, why do you feel others should not

>>> be expected to respect his wishes?

>>

>>Now you know the reason that millions of people are not in favor of mercy

>>killing. It's called the "slippery slope".

>>

>>When "mercy killings" becomes a law--only people on their death beds that

>>have signed the proper forms will be mercy killed.

>>

>>After several more years, people like you file law suits and demand that

>>the law should also apply to anyone that wants to die.

>

>But you just said that anyone who wants to die DOES have that right.

>"Yes--a person does have the right to choose not to live any longer,

>even if in perfect physical health."

>

>>After several more years, a 20 year person that is depressed because they

>>failed a college exam can legally be mercy killed.

>

>If that's what they want, what business is it of yours?

>

>>After several more years, the relatives of a sick old rich man will demand

>>that that the old rich man should be mercy killed

>

>"Mercy killing" is a misnomer (yours, btw) for assisted suicide, and

>no one can "demand that someone else be suicided". We call committing

>suicide for someone else "murder".

>

>You seem to think that laws that allow assisted suicide (there are no

>"mercy killing" laws) allow the assistant to decide who dies and when.

>

>>We are now at the bottom of the slippery slope:

>>

>>A new law is past which states that all people will me mercy killed when

>>they become 70 years old.

>

>The law should allow for assisted suicide for ANY competent adult.

>Didn't YOU say, "A person does have free will"?

>

>>Is it any wonder why mercy killing is only legal in one state?

>

>Yes, it should be legal all over the world. ANY competent adult

>should be able to commit suicide, with or without assistance, whenever

>he or she wants.

 

Such is self ownership vs. property of the state.

[Guest Al Klein]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:04:12 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 17:58:19 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>

>wrote:

>>Yes, it should be legal all over the world. ANY competent adult

>>should be able to commit suicide, with or without assistance, whenever

>>he or she wants.

>Such is self ownership vs. property of the state.

 

Or property of the religion.

--

Al at Webdingers dot com

"Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day.

Teach him how to fish and he'll eat forever.

Give him a religion, and he'll starve to death while

praying for a fish."

- Josef Balluch

[Guest stoney]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:02:27 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>

wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:04:12 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:

>

>>On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 17:58:19 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>

>>wrote:

>

>>>Yes, it should be legal all over the world. ANY competent adult

>>>should be able to commit suicide, with or without assistance, whenever

>>>he or she wants.

>

>>Such is self ownership vs. property of the state.

>

>Or property of the religion.

 

Almost the same thing. :\