Jump to content

Evolution is Just Junk Science


Recommended Posts

Guest H. Wm. Esque
Posted

"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message

news:Xns992BACB9A155Adoldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...

> "H. Wm. Esque" <HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote in

> news:16e%h.32274$qB4.23309@bignews3.bellsouth.net:

>

> > <Snip> >> > >

> >> > > [280 lines of stupidity and falsehood snipped]

> >> > >

> >> > > Why didn't you just post a single line saying "Aaron Kim is an

> >> > > in-your-face stupid, rude idiot"?

> >> > >

> >> > > It would have had exactly the same result.

> >> >

> >> >

> >> > Didn't you read the rest of the article? By the way, what would

> >> > happen

> > if

> >> > you just left your car out in the sun too long? The car's

> >> > condition

> > would

> >> > have greatly deteriorated according to the law of entropy.

> >> >

> >> > The Myth of the "Open System"

> >> >

> >> > Some proponents of evolution have recourse to an argument that the

> > second

> >> > law of thermodynamics holds true only for "closed systems", and

> >> > that

> > "open

> >> > systems" are beyond the scope of this law.

> >> >

> >> > An "open system" is a thermodynamic system in which energy and

> >> > matter

> > flow

> >> > in and out. Evolutionists hold that the world is an open system:

> >> > that it

> >> is

> >> > constantly exposed to an energy flow from the sun, that the law of

> > entropy

> >> > does not apply to the world as a whole, and that ordered, complex

> >> > living beings can be generated from disordered, simple, and

> >> > inanimate

> > structures.

> >> >

> >> > However, there is an obvious distortion here. The fact that a

> >> > system has

> >> an

> >> > energy inflow is not enough to make that system ordered. Specific

> >> mechanisms

> >> > are needed to make the energy functional. For instance, a car needs

> >> > an engine, a transmission system, and related control mechanisms to

> >> > convert

> >> the

> >> > energy in petrol to work. Without such an energy conversion system,

> >> > the

> >> car

> >> > will not be able to use the energy stored in petrol.

> >> >

> >> > The same thing applies in the case of life as well. It is true that

> >> > life derives its energy from the sun. However, solar energy can

> >> > only be

> >> converted

> >> > into chemical energy by the incredibly complex energy conversion

> >> > systems

> >> in

> >> > living things (such as photosynthesis in plants and the digestive

> > systems

> >> of

> >> > humans and animals). No living thing can live without such energy

> >> conversion

> >> > systems. Without an energy conversion system, the sun is nothing

> >> > but a source of destructive energy that burns, parches, or melts.

> >> >

> >> > As may be seen, a thermodynamic system without an energy conversion

> >> > mechanism of some sort is not advantageous for evolution, be it

> >> > open or closed. No one asserts that such complex and conscious

> >> > mechanisms could

> >> have

> >> > existed in nature under the conditions of the primeval earth.

> >> > Indeed,

> > the

> >> > real problem confronting evolutionists is the question of how

> >> > complex energy-converting mechanisms such as photosynthesis in

> >> > plants, which

> >> cannot

> >> > be duplicated even with modern technology, could have come into

> >> > being on their own.

> >> >

> >> > The influx of solar energy into the world would be unable to bring

> >> > about order on its own. Moreover, no matter how high the

> >> > temperature may

> > become,

> >> > amino acids resist forming bonds in ordered sequences. Energy by

> >> > itself

> > is

> >> > incapable of making amino acids form the much more complex

> >> > molecules of proteins, or of making proteins from the much complex

> >> > and deteriorated structures of cell organelles. The real and

> >> > essential source of this organisation at all levels is flawless

> >> > creation

> >> >

> >> > The Myth of the "Self Organization of Matter"

> >> >

> >> > Quite aware that the second law of thermodynamics renders evolution

> >> > impossible, some evolutionist scientists have made speculative

> >> > attempts

> > to

> >> > square the circle between the two, in order to be able to claim

> >> > that evolution is possible. As usual, even those endeavors show

> >> > that the

> > theory

> >> > of evolution faces an inescapable impasse.

> >> >

> >> > One person distinguished by his efforts to marry thermodynamics and

> >> > evolution is the Belgian scientist Ilya Prigogine. Starting out

> >> > from

> > chaos

> >> > theory, Prigogine proposed a number of hypotheses in which order

> > develops

> >> > from chaos (disorder). He argued that some open systems can portray

> >> > a decrease in entropy due to an influx of outer energy and the

> >> > outcoming "ordering" is a proof that "matter can organize itself."

> >> > Since then, the concept of the "self-organization of matter" has

> >> > been quite popular

> > among

> >> > evolutionists and materialists. They act like they have found a

> >> > materialistic origin for the complexity of life and a materialistic

> >> solution

> >> > for the problem of life's origin.

> >> >

> >> > But a closer look reveals that this argument is totally abstract

> >> > and in

> >> fact

> >> > just wishful thinking. Moreover, it includes a very naive

> >> > deception. The deception lies in the deliberate confusing of two

> >> > distinct concepts, "ordered" and "organized." 143

> >> >

> >> > We can make this clear with an example. Imagine a completely flat

> >> > beach

> > on

> >> > the seashore. When a strong wave hits the beach, mounds of sand,

> >> > large

> > and

> >> > small, form bumps on the surface of the sand.

> >> >

> >> > This is a process of "ordering": The seashore is an open system and

> >> > the energy flow (the wave) that enters it can form simple patterns

> >> > in the

> >> sand,

> >> > which look completely regular. From the thermodynamic point of

> >> > view, it

> >> can

> >> > set up order here where before there was none. But we must make it

> >> > clear that those same waves cannot build a castle on the beach. If

> >> > we see a

> >> castle

> >> > there, we are in no doubt that someone has constructed it, because

> >> > the castle is an "organized" system. In other words, it possesses a

> >> > clear

> >> design

> >> > and information. Every part of it has been made by a conscious

> >> > entity in

> > a

> >> > planned manner.

> >> >

> >> > The difference between the sand and the castle is that the former

> >> > is an organized complexity, whereas the latter possesses only

> >> > order, brought

> >> about

> >> > by simple repetitions. The order formed from repetitions is as if

> >> > an

> >> object

> >> > (in other words the flow of energy entering the system) had fallen

> >> > on

> > the

> >> > letter "a" on a typewriter keyboard, writing "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa"

> >> > hundreds

> >> of

> >> > times. But the string of "a"s in an order repeated in this manner

> > contains

> >> > no information, and no complexity. In order to write a complex

> >> > chain of letters actually containing information (in other words a

> >> > meaningful sequence, paragraph or book), the presence of

> >> > intelligence is essential.

> >> >

> >> > The same thing applies when wind blows into a dusty room. When the

> >> > wind blows in, the dust which had been lying in an even layer may

> >> > gather in

> > one

> >> > corner of the room. This is also a more ordered situation than that

> > which

> >> > existed before, in the thermodynamic sense, but the individual

> >> > specks of dust cannot form a portrait of someone on the floor in an

> >> > organized

> >> manner.

> >> >

> >> > This means that complex, organized systems can never come about as

> >> > the result of natural processes. Although simple examples of order

> >> > can

> > happen

> >> > from time to time, these cannot go beyond limits.

> >> >

> >> > But evolutionists point to this self-ordering which emerges through

> >> natural

> >> > processes as a most important proof of evolution, portray such

> >> > cases as examples of "self-organization". As a result of this

> >> > confusion of

> >> concepts,

> >> > they propose that living systems could develop their own accord

> >> > from occurrences in nature and chemical reactions. The methods and

> >> > studies employed by Prigogine and his followers, which we

> >> > considered above, are based on this deceptive logic.

> >> >

> >> > The American scientists Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley and

> >> > Roger

> > L.

> >> > Olsen, in their book titled The Mystery of Life's Origin, explain

> >> > this

> >> fact

> >> > as follows:needed to take us across the

> >> gap

> >> > from mixtures of simple natural chemicals to the first effective

> >> replicator.

> >> > This principle has not yet been described in detail or

> >> > demonstrated, but

> >> it

> > > is anticipated, and given names such as chemical evolution and

> > > self-organization of matter. The existence of the principle is taken

> > > for granted in the philosophy of dialectical materialism, as applied

> > > to the origin of life by Alexander Oparin.146

> > >

> > > All this situation clearly demonstrates that evolution is a dogma

> > > that is against empirical science and the origin of living beings

> > > can only be explained by the intervention of a supernatural power.

> > > That supernatural power is the creation of God, who created the

> > > entire universe from

> > nothing.

> > > Science has proven that evolution is still impossible as far as

> > > thermodynamics is concerned and the existence of life has no

> > > explanation

> > but

> > > Creation.

> > >

> > I hope you didn't expect to get an honest and rational

> > discussion by stating arguments against the sacred cow

> > of evolution.

>

> So let's see. If we cannot describe the exact process that brought

> gravity into being we can just ignore its effect on things that fall or

> things that orbit one another?

>

non sequitur

>

> > You will notice that rationality, geniality and especially

> > civility fly out the window and is replaced by character

> > assignation, personal attacks and unfounded charges

> > against you personally. And usually by those who

> > didn't bother to read your post, but rather jumped to

> > conclusions.

>

> When you try to deceive me with stupid lies, expect a little ridicule.

> It's more or less what you deserve.

>

This is not about me.

>

> I mean when people try to pretend that evolution violates some law of

> thermodynamics, I simply ask them--challenge them--to present me with one

> single, necessary event in the evolution of man from microbe that

> represents a necessary violation of any law of thermo.

>

This was not my claim. As I recall this was the claim of Aaron Kim.

It isn't even my position.

>

> I have yet to see anyone do that. What I've gotten were wild handwave

> claims that the WHOLE THING does violate the 2nd law. But, you see,

> since the 2nd law is mathematically additive, for a whole series of

> events to have negative entropy, at least ONE of the events by

> mathematical necessity MUST HAVE negative entropy. So which one? Pick

> any one, just so it's a SINGLE EVENT and a NECESSARY one.

>

The single thing that got under my skin was the charge that

Kim claimed the earth is a closed system. But this was not

his argument. It was a strawman. Even so the SloT applies

equally to both closed and open system. I think Kim was

honest, but mistaken. One does not correct ones errors

by insulting the person or calling him a liar ignorant etc.

>

> > In fairness, I should add that this applies to certain

> > disbelivers who feel you invaded their space. ie

> > alt.atheism.

>

> > There are many others to whom this does not apply.

>

> Well, I'm posting from alt.religion and I'm just curious about what kind

> of religion supports so much lying in God's name? Why would I want to

> worship a god that suborns behaviour like that? Wouldn't exorcism be

> more appropriate?

>

I think anytime a person actually believes what he says, he is not lying,

he is wrong but he is not lying.

Quite frankly, I would like to see some one actually rebut his positions

rather than attacking him personally.

> --

> Dave Oldridge+

> ICQ 1800667

  • Replies 19.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Jason
Posted

In article <m5j443hakdnqbtafim5vuo096lc1e0oug9@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein

<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:07:38 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

> (Jason) in

> <Jason-0905071607390001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

>

> [snip]

>

> >I agree that pygmy child bones look like other human child bones. You

> >missed my point. My point was that Nanderthals MAY have been a race of

> >people.

>

> That is not what the experts who actually have seen the evidence say.

> Why should I give any credence to your empty speculation over their

> work?

>

> >That's the reason they were able to produce offspring when they

> >mated with Cro-Magnums.

>

> If they did, so what? Horses can produce offspring with donkeys, but

> horses are not donkeys. Evolution theory predicts this. Evolution

> says that there is stepwise change, not sudden magical differences.

> Species slowly separate and that means that there will be times when

> there is cross-breeding, at least potentially.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

When I wrote a 5 page report on Neanderthals in 1971, I checked about 20

separate reference books in search of the best 5 references to use. At

that time, the experts believed that there were so many genetic

differences between Neanderthals and Cro-Magnums that they could NOT have

produced offspring if they mated. I don't expect you to believe that

Cro-Magnums and Neanderthals are two separate races just because I believe

it.

jason

Guest Jason
Posted

In article <1178753931.653215.164380@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,

Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:

> On May 6, 2:17 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> [snipped previous for brevity]

> > You may want to visit the Institute for Creation Research website--It

> > might be icr.com or icr.org

>

> All evolutionists are quite familiar with the lies and deception

> perpetrated by ICR and its ilk, thank you very much.

>

> You might want to visit some peer-reviewed science papers, on the

> other hand, because that's where the real science makes its public

> appearance after hard work (oftentimes many years of hard work) by

> real scientists in the lab, or in the field, or in theory, or in a

> combination of those.

>

> Science is not done in cheesey, dishonest web sites, which actually

> don't even pretend to offer science. All these creationist web sites

> can offer is instead is sour-grapes and whining about evolution.

> You go look at ICR's site, of AiG's (Answers in Genesis) and see if

> you can find anything that remotely resembles real peer-reviewed

> science. You'll look in vain, I guarantee it.

>

> Everything on those sites is negative, not positive. It's attacking,

> it's not constructing. It's ironic that they call themselves

> creationists, they hypocritically create nothing. Instead, they seek

> only to destroy the hard work of others even if they ahve to lie and

> deceive to do it.

>

> Real science is not done on a web site. It's done by real scientists

> all over the world by people of all faiths and it's published in

> refereed journals all over the world, where everyone can see it and

> check the work for themselves if they wish.

>

> > It would take thousands of words and lots of time to tell you their point

> > of view about how life came to be on this planet. That's the reason you

> > should visit that site.

>

> They specifically do not tell you how life came to be on this

> planet. If you ask them how it came about all they can tell you is

> "godidit". You need a whole web site for that? They have no

> explanation for it other than that, which is no explanation at all.

> They have no science. They have zero. And they need a whole web site

> to tell you the cube root of squat? That's supposed to be

> impressive? It's nonsense.

>

> > About 30 years ago, a man named Eric Von Danikan (spelling??) wrote a best

> > selling book about his theory. I read that book. His theory is that

> > millions of years ago, astronauts from another planet came here in dozens

> > of huge space ships.

>

> Erich von D=E4niken was a liar. And how does his "explanation" (which

> has been overwhelmingly discredited, for example, here:

> http://www.debunker.com/texts/vondanik.html) explain anything?

>

> So let's humor you and pretend we were created by aliens. Who created

> the aliens? They had to come from somewhere. Did they evolve? If

> they evolved, then what's the basis for claim we could not have

> evolved? If we had to be created by them, then they, too, had to be

> created, otherwise your "chain of logic" breaks down.

>

> You get nowhere by positing either an alien or a divine creator. All

> you're doing is throwing your hands up in the air and saying, in

> effect, "I'm too stupid, ignorant or unimaginative to see how we could

> have arisen and evolved, therefore I'm going to assign it to a fairy

> tale and 'explain' it that way".

>

> It explains nothing. And it's pretty hypocritical for you to be using

> the fruits of the hard work of scientists that allow you to get onto a

> computer and use the Internet to deride science..

>

> [rest of von D=E4niken lie flushed where it belongs]

>

> > Both of the theories mentioned above make more sense than a belief that

> > life came to be from a primordial soup or a primordial pond.

>

> How? First of all, do not confuse abiogenesis (how life first arose)

> with evolution (the diversity and distribution of life once it

> arose). The two are different. Abiogenesis is just a fledgling

> science, but is making important strides. Evolution has 150 years or

> so of solid scientific discovery and explanation.

>

> The Theory of Evolution is the only science-supported theory of the

> distribution and diversity of life. Nothing else can match it. The

> Theory of Evolution would still stand even if it were somehow proved

> that a god or an alien kick-started life.

>

> But there is no need for such an explanation when scientists have

> already been able to map out the means by which organic chemicals

> (which are found throughout space and come to Earth on meteors, and

> which can form on Earth under pre-biotic conditions) can develop into

> living organisms without any need for aliens or supernatural

> explanations.

>

> > You can

> > google those terms.

>

> Why is it that you think I know less about this than you? That's your

> first mistake, the arrogance of ignorance.

>

> > I once asked an evolutionist how the primordial pond

> > came to be and he did not know.

>

> It has nothing to do with evolution, so your question was

> misdirected. Plus you do not offer any description of this person's

> qualifications to answer your question. "An evolutionist" could be an

> expert on the Theory of Evolution, or it could be some person who has

> seen a TV documentary on the subject and accepted it as the

> explanation - or anyone in between.

>

> What is it that makes you think that if you randomly ask "an

> evolutionist" for an answer and they're not able to immediately trot

> out the salient facts, this automatically disproves the entire Theory

> of Evolution? I'll tell you what - the arrogance of ignorance. If I

> asked you "What was God thinking two minutes ago" and you couldn't

> answer, would this disprove God? If the ancients believed that

> thunder and lightning was caused by some god's anger, but now we know

> for a fact that it's caused by electrical potential deltas between the

> sky and the Earth, does this disprove all gods?

>

> > I asked him how the first living cell came

> > to be and he did not know.

>

> That has nothing to do with evolution. Your questions are assinine

> and prove nothing but that you are ignorant about the topic and

> incompetent in dealing with your ignorance. The Theory of Evolution

> is not embodied in the first person you ask. It's embodied in

> literally thousands of peer-reviewed papers in refereed science

> journals the world over.

>

> If you want your questions answered, go read those, or find a good

> site on the web which will answer your questions, like this one:

> http://www.talkorigins.org

> which features a page that rebuts all of your ill-conceived

> creationist assertions:

> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

>

> > If you think life came to be from nothing, I

> > challenge you to prove it.

>

> If you think that a god or an alien created us, I challenge you to

> prove it. You cannot, can you? Does this mean you're lying?

>

> The fact is that whilst creationists are doing quite literally the

> cube root of squat to scientifically support their claims, scientists

> are working hard every day to investigate their own theories. That's

> the difference between real science and creationist bullshit.

>

> > Some scientists have tried to create life from

> > nothing and all of their experiments failed or were later proved to be

> > failures.

>

> It used to be that "airplanes" couldn't fly. Does this prove that

> heavier-than-air transport is impossible?

>

> Anyone can make claims like you make. It's easy to make random claims

> when you don't have to support them. But the fact is that science is

> deep into investigation of how cells function, what the minimum genome

> is to sustain life, and how life arose from organic chemicals. Just

> because they do not have all the answers today means nothing. They

> will have answers tomorrow, and more next year and even more in the

> next decade, and more after that.

>

> Meanwhile, what answers do the creationists have? Well, 200 years ago

> this was their answer: "godidit"

>

> Could they support their answer with any science at all? No!

>

> The year after Charles Darwin published "On the Origin..." this was

> their answer: "godidit"

>

> Could they support their answer with any science at all? No!

>

> At the turn of last century, this was their answer: "godidit"

>

> Could they support their answer with any science at all? No!

>

> When Einstein developed his General Theory of Relativity, this was

> their answer: "godidit"

>

> Could they support their answer with any science at all? No!

>

> At the turn of this century, this was their answer: "godidit".

>

> Could they support their answer with any science at all? No!

>

> Today, this is their answer: "godidit"

>

> Can they support their answer with any science at all? No!

>

> Do you see a pattern here?

>

> > One scientist believe that house flys evolved from dead meat.

> > His proof was house flys coming out of dead meat and flying away--he even

> > had pictures that were published in books. His theory was published in

> > several high school biology books. Several years later, another scientist

> > proved that those flys did not evolve from meat but instead that adult

> > female house flys had laid their eggs in the dead meat.

>

> That's the way science works. Notice it was a scientist using the

> scientific method who disproved this. Creationists had nothing

> whatsoever to do with it, because they cannot do science. Let that be

> a lesson to you.

>

> BTW, until and unless you can produce references for your comments

> prior to that last sentence (beginning "Several years later...", they

> have to be labeled a lie. Which college textbooks was that claim

> published in?

>

> > I believe his

> > theory was called "spontaneous generation [of life]". Life cannot evolve

> > from nothing.

>

> Abiogenesis makes no such claim.

>

> > Believe it or not, many modern day evolutionists have

> > serious problems with many of the various aspects of evolution theory.

>

> I don't beleive it. Go ahead and name them. Right here in these

> world-wide public fora. List these problems, number them, and let's

> discuss them.

>

> > was told by several evolutionists that evolutionists no longer concern

> > themselves with how life came to be.

>

> They never did, because it's not evolution, it's abiogenesis. Got it

> now?

>

> > Of course, we both know why that is

> > true. The reason is that evolutionists don't know how life came to be and

> > that's the reason they don't concern themselves with trying to figure it

> > out. If they don't know how life came to be--that means many of the

> > aspects of the theory are false. Of course, some of the aspects of

> > evolution theory are correct and can be proved in the laboratory. The

> > advocates of creation science accept those aspects of evolution theory

> > that can be proved in a laboratory. So do I.

>

> Evolution is a fact. It has been demonstrated in the laboratory and

> observed in nature. The only scientific explanation for this fact

> is the Theory of Evolution. That's why it's taught in schools. It

> has 150 years of solid science behind it, and it has never been proven

> wrong, nor has there ever been any other scientific explanation to

> match it.

>

> It's that simple.

>

> Budikka

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Budikka,

You made some interesting points. I attended a evolution seminar about 8

years ago. That professor would have agreed with everything that you

wrote.

jason

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Guest Free Lunch
Posted

On Wed, 09 May 2007 19:09:23 -0700, in alt.atheism

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

<Jason-0905071909230001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>In article <a4p4435faotd68qdr94mkqg2bml1dlt9tk@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein

><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>

>> On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:43:39 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

>> (Jason) in

>> <Jason-0905071643390001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

>>

>> [snip]

>>

>> >Don,

>> >Good for you. I live in California. I read an article in the newspaper

>> >yesterday indicating that all of the prisons in California--there are

>> >about a dozen of them--are overcrowded. The governor wants to spend a

>> >billion dollars on building even more prisons in California. Let me ask

>> >you an honest question. If everyone in Calfornia was a Christian that

>> >obeyed the 10 commandments--do you think that the Governor would need to

>> >spend a billion dollars constructing new prisons?

>>

>> The vast majority of the population of CA is Christian. There are

>> fewer atheists in prison than one would expect given their % of the

>> population.

>>

>> And that "obey" part is cheating. First, most of the 10C are not laws.

>> Second, if you want laws the Torah has hundreds. Third, if people

>> obeyed whatever rules then we would not need prisons.

>

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

>

>I disagree. It's my opinion that If everyone in Calfornia was a Christian that

>obeyed the 10 commandments that we would not need any more prisons in

>California. I believe that most reasonable people would agree with me.

>

The Ten Commandments have only a very peripheral relationship to

Christianity. The worship of the Ten Commandments is a modern-day

heterodoxy.

 

I am curious. Would you just let all sex offenders, including rapists

and pedophiles, go free because that is not forbidden in the Ten

Commandments?

Guest Free Lunch
Posted

On Wed, 09 May 2007 19:16:19 -0700, in alt.atheism

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

<Jason-0905071916200001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>In article <k7p443pmrr0bke57dd9pl15jje6qbqnaki@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein

><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>

>> On Wed, 09 May 2007 17:50:14 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

>> (Jason) in

>> <Jason-0905071750140001@66-52-22-100.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

....

>> >

>> >When I wrote a 5 page report on Neanderthals in 1971, I checked about 20

>> >separate reference books in search of the best 5 references to use. At

>> >that time, the experts believed that there were so many genetic

>> >differences between Neanderthals and Cro-Magnums that they could NOT have

>> >produced offspring if they mated. I don't expect you to believe that

>> >Cro-Magnums and Neanderthals are two separate races just because I believe

>> >it.

>>

>> And it is controversial now if they interbred. And it is, as I said,

>> not a problem for evolution theory. Neanderthal are a separate species

>> even if they might have interbred at some point. Tigers and lions

>> can interbreed in zoos, but don't do it in the wild: they are separate

>> species. Life is more complex than you will admit.

>

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

>

>It's never been a problem for creation scince theory since we have always

>believed that Neanderthals were very similar to modern man. I even heard a

>professor that was an evolutionist state that if you dressed up a

>Neanderthal in a suit and gave him a haircut and shave--that he could walk

>down a city street and that very few people would even notice him.

>

There has never been a creation science theory, so no claim could be a

problem for it.

Guest Jason
Posted

In article <ivo4435lar3al7c5drn6aau039bfoep6ig@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein

<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 09 May 2007 17:33:45 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

> (Jason) in

> <Jason-0905071733450001@66-52-22-100.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

>

> >In article <eti44313uad1bjba60o43ueu0cj8t12sv0@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein

> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> >

> >> On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:15:22 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

> >> (Jason) in

> >> <Jason-0905071615230001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

> >>

> >> >In article <5aem1dF2mm3ncU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"

> >> ><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:

> >> >

> >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

> >> >>

> >> >> snip

> >> >> >

> >> >> > Prove that life can evolve from non-life and I will become an

advocate of

> >> >> > evolution.

> >> >>

> >> >> That doesn't have anything to do with evolution.

> >> >>

> >> >> And evolution doesn't need you to advocate it.

> >> >

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

> >> >

> >> >Darwin discussed how life came to be in his book.

> >>

> >> To be precise he has a paragraph of speculation on the subject.

> >>

> >> >Believe it or not, when

> >> >I took a college biology glass in 1971, the professor taught us about the

> >> >primordial soup theory. He claimed that was how life began on this earth.

> >> >I wish that I had asked that professor--How did that primordial soup come

> >> >to be?

> >>

> >> That is not a biology question. The Big Bang theory is the best

> >> current explanation. That takes us about to a tiny bit of second after

> >> the start of the Universe. And if you ask where that came from then I

> >> will ask you where g(G)od(s) came from. And you will then use special

> >> pleading and say that g(G)od(s) have existed forever. We have been

> >> here before. Science offers a detailed narrative of the history of the

> >> universe, based on observation and using tested predictive models. You

> >> have "God did it" as an answer for each question.

> >

> >How is sting theory related to the Big Bang theory?

>

> String theory has to incorporate Big Bang theory. It is an attempt to

> get a deeper understanding of physics.

>

> > Is it true that some

> >stars are older than other stars?

>

> OMFG! Do you really not know that? Here is a hint: all material

> heavier than, IIANM helium, was created in a star. A star that then

> exploded and the debris formed a new star and the planets. We really

> do know lots and lots about this stuff. You might want to give up this

> demand that science provide complete full answers and read up on the

> wonderful things we do know.

 

Believe it or not, some stars are older than other stars.

Guest Ralph
Posted

"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:Jason-0905071822010001@66-52-22-64.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> In article <ivo4435lar3al7c5drn6aau039bfoep6ig@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein

> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>

>> On Wed, 09 May 2007 17:33:45 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

>> (Jason) in

>> <Jason-0905071733450001@66-52-22-100.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

>>

>> >In article <eti44313uad1bjba60o43ueu0cj8t12sv0@4ax.com>, Matt

>> >Silberstein

>> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>> >

>> >> On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:15:22 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

>> >> (Jason) in

>> >> <Jason-0905071615230001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

>> >>

>> >> >In article <5aem1dF2mm3ncU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"

>> >> ><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:

>> >> >

>> >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

>> >> >>

>> >> >> snip

>> >> >> >

>> >> >> > Prove that life can evolve from non-life and I will become an

> advocate of

>> >> >> > evolution.

>> >> >>

>> >> >> That doesn't have anything to do with evolution.

>> >> >>

>> >> >> And evolution doesn't need you to advocate it.

>> >> >

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

>> >> >

>> >> >Darwin discussed how life came to be in his book.

>> >>

>> >> To be precise he has a paragraph of speculation on the subject.

>> >>

>> >> >Believe it or not, when

>> >> >I took a college biology glass in 1971, the professor taught us about

>> >> >the

>> >> >primordial soup theory. He claimed that was how life began on this

>> >> >earth.

>> >> >I wish that I had asked that professor--How did that primordial soup

>> >> >come

>> >> >to be?

>> >>

>> >> That is not a biology question. The Big Bang theory is the best

>> >> current explanation. That takes us about to a tiny bit of second after

>> >> the start of the Universe. And if you ask where that came from then I

>> >> will ask you where g(G)od(s) came from. And you will then use special

>> >> pleading and say that g(G)od(s) have existed forever. We have been

>> >> here before. Science offers a detailed narrative of the history of the

>> >> universe, based on observation and using tested predictive models. You

>> >> have "God did it" as an answer for each question.

>> >

>> >How is sting theory related to the Big Bang theory?

>>

>> String theory has to incorporate Big Bang theory. It is an attempt to

>> get a deeper understanding of physics.

>>

>> > Is it true that some

>> >stars are older than other stars?

>>

>> OMFG! Do you really not know that? Here is a hint: all material

>> heavier than, IIANM helium, was created in a star. A star that then

>> exploded and the debris formed a new star and the planets. We really

>> do know lots and lots about this stuff. You might want to give up this

>> demand that science provide complete full answers and read up on the

>> wonderful things we do know.

>

> Believe it or not, some stars are older than other stars.

 

Of course they are! Otherwise how can you explain the Hertzberg-Russell

diagram?

Guest Free Lunch
Posted

On Wed, 09 May 2007 19:27:54 -0700, in alt.atheism

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

<Jason-0905071927540001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>In article <99s44393vdd6b88aiapie53imd8m8augch@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>

>> On Wed, 09 May 2007 19:09:23 -0700, in alt.atheism

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

>> <Jason-0905071909230001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>> >In article <a4p4435faotd68qdr94mkqg2bml1dlt9tk@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein

>> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>> >

>> >> On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:43:39 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

>> >> (Jason) in

>> >> <Jason-0905071643390001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

>> >>

>> >> [snip]

>> >>

>> >> >Don,

>> >> >Good for you. I live in California. I read an article in the newspaper

>> >> >yesterday indicating that all of the prisons in California--there are

>> >> >about a dozen of them--are overcrowded. The governor wants to spend a

>> >> >billion dollars on building even more prisons in California. Let me ask

>> >> >you an honest question. If everyone in Calfornia was a Christian that

>> >> >obeyed the 10 commandments--do you think that the Governor would need to

>> >> >spend a billion dollars constructing new prisons?

>> >>

>> >> The vast majority of the population of CA is Christian. There are

>> >> fewer atheists in prison than one would expect given their % of the

>> >> population.

>> >>

>> >> And that "obey" part is cheating. First, most of the 10C are not laws.

>> >> Second, if you want laws the Torah has hundreds. Third, if people

>> >> obeyed whatever rules then we would not need prisons.

>> >

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

>> >

>> >I disagree. It's my opinion that If everyone in Calfornia was a

>Christian that

>> >obeyed the 10 commandments that we would not need any more prisons in

>> >California. I believe that most reasonable people would agree with me.

>> >

>> The Ten Commandments have only a very peripheral relationship to

>> Christianity. The worship of the Ten Commandments is a modern-day

>> heterodoxy.

>>

>> I am curious. Would you just let all sex offenders, including rapists

>> and pedophiles, go free because that is not forbidden in the Ten

>> Commandments?

>

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

>

>Good point. One of the commandents states: Thou shall not commit adultery.

>The implication is clear--God wants people to get married and not cheat on

>their mates. Other parts of the Bible make it clear that God wants men to

>marry women. In fact, the main reason God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah is

>because of their sins--such as the sin of sodomy.

 

So you aren't relying on the Ten Commandments, are you.

 

After all, beating someone to a bloody pulp isn't forbidden, either.

Guest Budikka666
Posted

On May 9, 7:55 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1178753931.653215.164...@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,

>

> Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:

> > On May 6, 2:17 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > [snipped previous for brevity]

> > > You may want to visit the Institute for Creation Research website--It

> > > might be icr.com or icr.org

>

> > All evolutionists are quite familiar with the lies and deception

> > perpetrated by ICR and its ilk, thank you very much.

>

> > You might want to visit some peer-reviewed science papers, on the

> > other hand, because that's where the real science makes its public

> > appearance after hard work (oftentimes many years of hard work) by

> > real scientists in the lab, or in the field, or in theory, or in a

> > combination of those.

>

> > Science is not done in cheesey, dishonest web sites, which actually

> > don't even pretend to offer science. All these creationist web sites

> > can offer is instead is sour-grapes and whining about evolution.

> > You go look at ICR's site, of AiG's (Answers in Genesis) and see if

> > you can find anything that remotely resembles real peer-reviewed

> > science. You'll look in vain, I guarantee it.

>

> > Everything on those sites is negative, not positive. It's attacking,

> > it's not constructing. It's ironic that they call themselves

> > creationists, they hypocritically create nothing. Instead, they seek

> > only to destroy the hard work of others even if they ahve to lie and

> > deceive to do it.

>

> > Real science is not done on a web site. It's done by real scientists

> > all over the world by people of all faiths and it's published in

> > refereed journals all over the world, where everyone can see it and

> > check the work for themselves if they wish.

>

> > > It would take thousands of words and lots of time to tell you their point

> > > of view about how life came to be on this planet. That's the reason you

> > > should visit that site.

>

> > They specifically do not tell you how life came to be on this

> > planet. If you ask them how it came about all they can tell you is

> > "godidit". You need a whole web site for that? They have no

> > explanation for it other than that, which is no explanation at all.

> > They have no science. They have zero. And they need a whole web site

> > to tell you the cube root of squat? That's supposed to be

> > impressive? It's nonsense.

>

> > > About 30 years ago, a man named Eric Von Danikan (spelling??) wrote a best

> > > selling book about his theory. I read that book. His theory is that

> > > millions of years ago, astronauts from another planet came here in dozens

> > > of huge space ships.

>

> > Erich von D=E4niken was a liar. And how does his "explanation" (which

> > has been overwhelmingly discredited, for example, here:

> >http://www.debunker.com/texts/vondanik.html) explain anything?

>

> > So let's humor you and pretend we were created by aliens. Who created

> > the aliens? They had to come from somewhere. Did they evolve? If

> > they evolved, then what's the basis for claim we could not have

> > evolved? If we had to be created by them, then they, too, had to be

> > created, otherwise your "chain of logic" breaks down.

>

> > You get nowhere by positing either an alien or a divine creator. All

> > you're doing is throwing your hands up in the air and saying, in

> > effect, "I'm too stupid, ignorant or unimaginative to see how we could

> > have arisen and evolved, therefore I'm going to assign it to a fairy

> > tale and 'explain' it that way".

>

> > It explains nothing. And it's pretty hypocritical for you to be using

> > the fruits of the hard work of scientists that allow you to get onto a

> > computer and use the Internet to deride science..

>

> > [rest of von D=E4niken lie flushed where it belongs]

>

> > > Both of the theories mentioned above make more sense than a belief that

> > > life came to be from a primordial soup or a primordial pond.

>

> > How? First of all, do not confuse abiogenesis (how life first arose)

> > with evolution (the diversity and distribution of life once it

> > arose). The two are different. Abiogenesis is just a fledgling

> > science, but is making important strides. Evolution has 150 years or

> > so of solid scientific discovery and explanation.

>

> > The Theory of Evolution is the only science-supported theory of the

> > distribution and diversity of life. Nothing else can match it. The

> > Theory of Evolution would still stand even if it were somehow proved

> > that a god or an alien kick-started life.

>

> > But there is no need for such an explanation when scientists have

> > already been able to map out the means by which organic chemicals

> > (which are found throughout space and come to Earth on meteors, and

> > which can form on Earth under pre-biotic conditions) can develop into

> > living organisms without any need for aliens or supernatural

> > explanations.

>

> > > You can

> > > google those terms.

>

> > Why is it that you think I know less about this than you? That's your

> > first mistake, the arrogance of ignorance.

>

> > > I once asked an evolutionist how the primordial pond

> > > came to be and he did not know.

>

> > It has nothing to do with evolution, so your question was

> > misdirected. Plus you do not offer any description of this person's

> > qualifications to answer your question. "An evolutionist" could be an

> > expert on the Theory of Evolution, or it could be some person who has

> > seen a TV documentary on the subject and accepted it as the

> > explanation - or anyone in between.

>

> > What is it that makes you think that if you randomly ask "an

> > evolutionist" for an answer and they're not able to immediately trot

> > out the salient facts, this automatically disproves the entire Theory

> > of Evolution? I'll tell you what - the arrogance of ignorance. If I

> > asked you "What was God thinking two minutes ago" and you couldn't

> > answer, would this disprove God? If the ancients believed that

> > thunder and lightning was caused by some god's anger, but now we know

> > for a fact that it's caused by electrical potential deltas between the

> > sky and the Earth, does this disprove all gods?

>

> > > I asked him how the first living cell came

> > > to be and he did not know.

>

> > That has nothing to do with evolution. Your questions are assinine

> > and prove nothing but that you are ignorant about the topic and

> > incompetent in dealing with your ignorance. The Theory of Evolution

> > is not embodied in the first person you ask. It's embodied in

> > literally thousands of peer-reviewed papers in refereed science

> > journals the world over.

>

> > If you want your questions answered, go read those, or find a good

> > site on the web which will answer your questions, like this one:

> >http://www.talkorigins.org

> > which features a page that rebuts all of your ill-conceived

> > creationist assertions:

> >http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

>

> > > If you think life came to be from nothing, I

> > > challenge you to prove it.

>

> > If you think that a god or an alien created us, I challenge you to

> > prove it. You cannot, can you? Does this mean you're lying?

>

> > The fact is that whilst creationists are doing quite literally the

> > cube root of squat to scientifically support their claims, scientists

> > are working hard every day to investigate their own theories. That's

> > the difference between real science and creationist bullshit.

>

> > > Some scientists have tried to create life from

> > > nothing and all of their experiments failed or were later proved to be

> > > failures.

>

> > It used to be that "airplanes" couldn't fly. Does this prove that

> > heavier-than-air transport is impossible?

>

> > Anyone can make claims like you make. It's easy to make random claims

> > when you don't have to support them. But the fact is that science is

> > deep into investigation of how cells function, what the minimum genome

> > is to sustain life, and how life arose from organic chemicals. Just

> > because they do not have all the answers today means nothing. They

> > will have answers tomorrow, and more next year and even more in the

> > next decade, and more after that.

>

> > Meanwhile, what answers do the creationists have? Well, 200 years ago

> > this was their answer: "godidit"

>

> > Could they support their answer with any science at all? No!

>

> > The year after Charles Darwin published "On the Origin..." this was

> > their answer: "godidit"

>

> > Could they support their answer with any science at all? No!

>

> > At the turn of last century, this was their answer: "godidit"

>

> > Could they support their answer with any science at all? No!

>

> > When Einstein developed his General Theory of Relativity, this was

> > their answer: "godidit"

>

> > Could they support their answer with any science at all? No!

>

> > At the turn of this century, this was their answer: "godidit".

>

> > Could they support their answer with any science at all? No!

>

> > Today, this is their answer: "godidit"

>

> > Can they support their answer with any science at all? No!

>

> > Do you see a pattern here?

>

> > > One scientist believe that house flys evolved from dead meat.

> > > His proof was house flys coming out of dead meat and flying away--he even

> > > had pictures that were published in books. His theory was published in

> > > several high school biology books. Several years later, another scientist

> > > proved that those flys did not evolve from meat but instead that adult

> > > female house flys had laid their eggs in the dead meat.

>

> > That's the way science works. Notice it was a scientist using the

> > scientific method who disproved this. Creationists had nothing

> > whatsoever to do with it, because they cannot do science. Let that be

> > a lesson to you.

>

> > BTW, until and unless you can produce references for your comments

> > prior to that last sentence (beginning "Several years later...", they

> > have to be labeled a lie. Which college textbooks was that claim

> > published in?

>

> > > I believe his

> > > theory was called "spontaneous generation [of life]". Life cannot evolve

> > > from nothing.

>

> > Abiogenesis makes no such claim.

>

> > > Believe it or not, many modern day evolutionists have

> > > serious problems with many of the various aspects of evolution theory.

>

> > I don't beleive it. Go ahead and name them. Right here in these

> > world-wide public fora. List these problems, number them, and let's

> > discuss them.

>

> > > was told by several evolutionists that evolutionists no longer concern

> > > themselves with how life came to be.

>

> > They never did, because it's not evolution, it's abiogenesis. Got it

> > now?

>

> > > Of course, we both know why that is

> > > true. The reason is that evolutionists don't know how life came to be and

> > > that's the reason they don't concern themselves with trying to figure it

> > > out. If they don't know how life came to be--that means many of the

> > > aspects of the theory are false. Of course, some of the aspects of

> > > evolution theory are correct and can be proved in the laboratory. The

> > > advocates of creation science accept those aspects of evolution theory

> > > that can be proved in a laboratory. So do I.

>

> > Evolution is a fact. It has been demonstrated in the laboratory and

> > observed in nature. The only scientific explanation for this fact

> > is the Theory of Evolution. That's why it's taught in schools. It

> > has 150 years of solid science behind it, and it has never been proven

> > wrong, nor has there ever been any other scientific explanation to

> > match it.

>

> > It's that simple.

>

> > Budikka

>

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

>

> Budikka,

> You made some interesting points. I attended a evolution seminar about 8

> years ago. That professor would have agreed with everything that you

> wrote.

> jason

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

 

Thanks for the public admission in these world-wide fora that you

cannot even handle, let alone rebut the facts of evolution.

 

Budikka

Guest Jason
Posted

In article <a4p4435faotd68qdr94mkqg2bml1dlt9tk@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein

<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:43:39 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

> (Jason) in

> <Jason-0905071643390001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

>

> [snip]

>

> >Don,

> >Good for you. I live in California. I read an article in the newspaper

> >yesterday indicating that all of the prisons in California--there are

> >about a dozen of them--are overcrowded. The governor wants to spend a

> >billion dollars on building even more prisons in California. Let me ask

> >you an honest question. If everyone in Calfornia was a Christian that

> >obeyed the 10 commandments--do you think that the Governor would need to

> >spend a billion dollars constructing new prisons?

>

> The vast majority of the population of CA is Christian. There are

> fewer atheists in prison than one would expect given their % of the

> population.

>

> And that "obey" part is cheating. First, most of the 10C are not laws.

> Second, if you want laws the Torah has hundreds. Third, if people

> obeyed whatever rules then we would not need prisons.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

I disagree. It's my opinion that If everyone in Calfornia was a Christian that

obeyed the 10 commandments that we would not need any more prisons in

California. I believe that most reasonable people would agree with me.

Guest Jason
Posted

In article <k7p443pmrr0bke57dd9pl15jje6qbqnaki@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein

<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 09 May 2007 17:50:14 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

> (Jason) in

> <Jason-0905071750140001@66-52-22-100.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

>

> >In article <m5j443hakdnqbtafim5vuo096lc1e0oug9@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein

> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> >

> >> On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:07:38 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

> >> (Jason) in

> >> <Jason-0905071607390001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

> >>

> >> [snip]

> >>

> >> >I agree that pygmy child bones look like other human child bones. You

> >> >missed my point. My point was that Nanderthals MAY have been a race of

> >> >people.

> >>

> >> That is not what the experts who actually have seen the evidence say.

> >> Why should I give any credence to your empty speculation over their

> >> work?

> >>

> >> >That's the reason they were able to produce offspring when they

> >> >mated with Cro-Magnums.

> >>

> >> If they did, so what? Horses can produce offspring with donkeys, but

> >> horses are not donkeys. Evolution theory predicts this. Evolution

> >> says that there is stepwise change, not sudden magical differences.

> >> Species slowly separate and that means that there will be times when

> >> there is cross-breeding, at least potentially.

> >

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

> >

> >When I wrote a 5 page report on Neanderthals in 1971, I checked about 20

> >separate reference books in search of the best 5 references to use. At

> >that time, the experts believed that there were so many genetic

> >differences between Neanderthals and Cro-Magnums that they could NOT have

> >produced offspring if they mated. I don't expect you to believe that

> >Cro-Magnums and Neanderthals are two separate races just because I believe

> >it.

>

> And it is controversial now if they interbred. And it is, as I said,

> not a problem for evolution theory. Neanderthal are a separate species

> even if they might have interbred at some point. Tigers and lions

> can interbreed in zoos, but don't do it in the wild: they are separate

> species. Life is more complex than you will admit.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

It's never been a problem for creation scince theory since we have always

believed that Neanderthals were very similar to modern man. I even heard a

professor that was an evolutionist state that if you dressed up a

Neanderthal in a suit and gave him a haircut and shave--that he could walk

down a city street and that very few people would even notice him.

Guest Jason
Posted

In article <99s44393vdd6b88aiapie53imd8m8augch@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> On Wed, 09 May 2007 19:09:23 -0700, in alt.atheism

> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> <Jason-0905071909230001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> >In article <a4p4435faotd68qdr94mkqg2bml1dlt9tk@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein

> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> >

> >> On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:43:39 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

> >> (Jason) in

> >> <Jason-0905071643390001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

> >>

> >> [snip]

> >>

> >> >Don,

> >> >Good for you. I live in California. I read an article in the newspaper

> >> >yesterday indicating that all of the prisons in California--there are

> >> >about a dozen of them--are overcrowded. The governor wants to spend a

> >> >billion dollars on building even more prisons in California. Let me ask

> >> >you an honest question. If everyone in Calfornia was a Christian that

> >> >obeyed the 10 commandments--do you think that the Governor would need to

> >> >spend a billion dollars constructing new prisons?

> >>

> >> The vast majority of the population of CA is Christian. There are

> >> fewer atheists in prison than one would expect given their % of the

> >> population.

> >>

> >> And that "obey" part is cheating. First, most of the 10C are not laws.

> >> Second, if you want laws the Torah has hundreds. Third, if people

> >> obeyed whatever rules then we would not need prisons.

> >

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

> >

> >I disagree. It's my opinion that If everyone in Calfornia was a

Christian that

> >obeyed the 10 commandments that we would not need any more prisons in

> >California. I believe that most reasonable people would agree with me.

> >

> The Ten Commandments have only a very peripheral relationship to

> Christianity. The worship of the Ten Commandments is a modern-day

> heterodoxy.

>

> I am curious. Would you just let all sex offenders, including rapists

> and pedophiles, go free because that is not forbidden in the Ten

> Commandments?

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Good point. One of the commandents states: Thou shall not commit adultery.

The implication is clear--God wants people to get married and not cheat on

their mates. Other parts of the Bible make it clear that God wants men to

marry women. In fact, the main reason God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah is

because of their sins--such as the sin of sodomy.

Guest Matt Silberstein
Posted

On Wed, 09 May 2007 18:22:01 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

(Jason) in

<Jason-0905071822010001@66-52-22-64.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

>In article <ivo4435lar3al7c5drn6aau039bfoep6ig@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein

><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>

>> On Wed, 09 May 2007 17:33:45 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

>> (Jason) in

>> <Jason-0905071733450001@66-52-22-100.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

>>

>> >In article <eti44313uad1bjba60o43ueu0cj8t12sv0@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein

>> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>> >

>> >> On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:15:22 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

>> >> (Jason) in

>> >> <Jason-0905071615230001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

>> >>

>> >> >In article <5aem1dF2mm3ncU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"

>> >> ><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:

>> >> >

>> >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

>> >> >>

>> >> >> snip

>> >> >> >

>> >> >> > Prove that life can evolve from non-life and I will become an

>advocate of

>> >> >> > evolution.

>> >> >>

>> >> >> That doesn't have anything to do with evolution.

>> >> >>

>> >> >> And evolution doesn't need you to advocate it.

>> >> >

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

>> >> >

>> >> >Darwin discussed how life came to be in his book.

>> >>

>> >> To be precise he has a paragraph of speculation on the subject.

>> >>

>> >> >Believe it or not, when

>> >> >I took a college biology glass in 1971, the professor taught us about the

>> >> >primordial soup theory. He claimed that was how life began on this earth.

>> >> >I wish that I had asked that professor--How did that primordial soup come

>> >> >to be?

>> >>

>> >> That is not a biology question. The Big Bang theory is the best

>> >> current explanation. That takes us about to a tiny bit of second after

>> >> the start of the Universe. And if you ask where that came from then I

>> >> will ask you where g(G)od(s) came from. And you will then use special

>> >> pleading and say that g(G)od(s) have existed forever. We have been

>> >> here before. Science offers a detailed narrative of the history of the

>> >> universe, based on observation and using tested predictive models. You

>> >> have "God did it" as an answer for each question.

>> >

>> >How is sting theory related to the Big Bang theory?

>>

>> String theory has to incorporate Big Bang theory. It is an attempt to

>> get a deeper understanding of physics.

>>

>> > Is it true that some

>> >stars are older than other stars?

>>

>> OMFG! Do you really not know that? Here is a hint: all material

>> heavier than, IIANM helium, was created in a star. A star that then

>> exploded and the debris formed a new star and the planets. We really

>> do know lots and lots about this stuff. You might want to give up this

>> demand that science provide complete full answers and read up on the

>> wonderful things we do know.

>

>Believe it or not, some stars are older than other stars.

>

If you are trolling you are doing a very good job. Otherwise I wish to

point out to you that I just said that some stars are older than other

stars.

 

 

--

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"

Guest Matt Silberstein
Posted

On Wed, 09 May 2007 19:09:23 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

(Jason) in

<Jason-0905071909230001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

>In article <a4p4435faotd68qdr94mkqg2bml1dlt9tk@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein

><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>

>> On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:43:39 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

>> (Jason) in

>> <Jason-0905071643390001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

>>

>> [snip]

>>

>> >Don,

>> >Good for you. I live in California. I read an article in the newspaper

>> >yesterday indicating that all of the prisons in California--there are

>> >about a dozen of them--are overcrowded. The governor wants to spend a

>> >billion dollars on building even more prisons in California. Let me ask

>> >you an honest question. If everyone in Calfornia was a Christian that

>> >obeyed the 10 commandments--do you think that the Governor would need to

>> >spend a billion dollars constructing new prisons?

>>

>> The vast majority of the population of CA is Christian. There are

>> fewer atheists in prison than one would expect given their % of the

>> population.

>>

>> And that "obey" part is cheating. First, most of the 10C are not laws.

>> Second, if you want laws the Torah has hundreds. Third, if people

>> obeyed whatever rules then we would not need prisons.

>

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

>

>I disagree. It's my opinion that If everyone in Calfornia was a Christian that

>obeyed the 10 commandments that we would not need any more prisons in

>California. I believe that most reasonable people would agree with me.

>

Well, yes, if everyone obeyed the 10C and there were no other laws

then there would be no one in prison. In fact, if everyone obeyed

whatever laws we had then no one would need to be in prison. BFD.

 

--

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"

Guest Matt Silberstein
Posted

On Wed, 09 May 2007 22:21:15 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

(Jason) in <Jason-0905072221150001@66-52-22-2.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>

wrote:

>In article <c565439efgqhj1drnniho22me8fbtqfpus@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein

><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>

>> On Wed, 09 May 2007 19:09:23 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

>> (Jason) in

>> <Jason-0905071909230001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

>>

>> >In article <a4p4435faotd68qdr94mkqg2bml1dlt9tk@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein

>> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>> >

>> >> On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:43:39 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

>> >> (Jason) in

>> >> <Jason-0905071643390001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

>> >>

>> >> [snip]

>> >>

>> >> >Don,

>> >> >Good for you. I live in California. I read an article in the newspaper

>> >> >yesterday indicating that all of the prisons in California--there are

>> >> >about a dozen of them--are overcrowded. The governor wants to spend a

>> >> >billion dollars on building even more prisons in California. Let me ask

>> >> >you an honest question. If everyone in Calfornia was a Christian that

>> >> >obeyed the 10 commandments--do you think that the Governor would need to

>> >> >spend a billion dollars constructing new prisons?

>> >>

>> >> The vast majority of the population of CA is Christian. There are

>> >> fewer atheists in prison than one would expect given their % of the

>> >> population.

>> >>

>> >> And that "obey" part is cheating. First, most of the 10C are not laws.

>> >> Second, if you want laws the Torah has hundreds. Third, if people

>> >> obeyed whatever rules then we would not need prisons.

>> >

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

>> >

>> >I disagree. It's my opinion that If everyone in Calfornia was a

>Christian that

>> >obeyed the 10 commandments that we would not need any more prisons in

>> >California. I believe that most reasonable people would agree with me.

>> >

>> Well, yes, if everyone obeyed the 10C and there were no other laws

>> then there would be no one in prison. In fact, if everyone obeyed

>> whatever laws we had then no one would need to be in prison. BFD.

>

>I can't believe it--we finally agree on at least one point.

>

Do you see that it is a trivial point? If everyone obeyed X then there

would be no need to punish anyone for not obeying X, for all values of

X.

 

 

 

--

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"

Guest Jason
Posted

In article <1178760912.367560.323970@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,

Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:

> On May 9, 7:55 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <1178753931.653215.164...@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,

> >

> > Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:

> > > On May 6, 2:17 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > [snipped previous for brevity]

> > > > You may want to visit the Institute for Creation Research website--It

> > > > might be icr.com or icr.org

> >

> > > All evolutionists are quite familiar with the lies and deception

> > > perpetrated by ICR and its ilk, thank you very much.

> >

> > > You might want to visit some peer-reviewed science papers, on the

> > > other hand, because that's where the real science makes its public

> > > appearance after hard work (oftentimes many years of hard work) by

> > > real scientists in the lab, or in the field, or in theory, or in a

> > > combination of those.

> >

> > > Science is not done in cheesey, dishonest web sites, which actually

> > > don't even pretend to offer science. All these creationist web sites

> > > can offer is instead is sour-grapes and whining about evolution.

> > > You go look at ICR's site, of AiG's (Answers in Genesis) and see if

> > > you can find anything that remotely resembles real peer-reviewed

> > > science. You'll look in vain, I guarantee it.

> >

> > > Everything on those sites is negative, not positive. It's attacking,

> > > it's not constructing. It's ironic that they call themselves

> > > creationists, they hypocritically create nothing. Instead, they seek

> > > only to destroy the hard work of others even if they ahve to lie and

> > > deceive to do it.

> >

> > > Real science is not done on a web site. It's done by real scientists

> > > all over the world by people of all faiths and it's published in

> > > refereed journals all over the world, where everyone can see it and

> > > check the work for themselves if they wish.

> >

> > > > It would take thousands of words and lots of time to tell you

their point

> > > > of view about how life came to be on this planet. That's the reason you

> > > > should visit that site.

> >

> > > They specifically do not tell you how life came to be on this

> > > planet. If you ask them how it came about all they can tell you is

> > > "godidit". You need a whole web site for that? They have no

> > > explanation for it other than that, which is no explanation at all.

> > > They have no science. They have zero. And they need a whole web site

> > > to tell you the cube root of squat? That's supposed to be

> > > impressive? It's nonsense.

> >

> > > > About 30 years ago, a man named Eric Von Danikan (spelling??)

wrote a best

> > > > selling book about his theory. I read that book. His theory is that

> > > > millions of years ago, astronauts from another planet came here in

dozens

> > > > of huge space ships.

> >

> > > Erich von D=E4niken was a liar. And how does his "explanation" (which

> > > has been overwhelmingly discredited, for example, here:

> > >http://www.debunker.com/texts/vondanik.html) explain anything?

> >

> > > So let's humor you and pretend we were created by aliens. Who created

> > > the aliens? They had to come from somewhere. Did they evolve? If

> > > they evolved, then what's the basis for claim we could not have

> > > evolved? If we had to be created by them, then they, too, had to be

> > > created, otherwise your "chain of logic" breaks down.

> >

> > > You get nowhere by positing either an alien or a divine creator. All

> > > you're doing is throwing your hands up in the air and saying, in

> > > effect, "I'm too stupid, ignorant or unimaginative to see how we could

> > > have arisen and evolved, therefore I'm going to assign it to a fairy

> > > tale and 'explain' it that way".

> >

> > > It explains nothing. And it's pretty hypocritical for you to be using

> > > the fruits of the hard work of scientists that allow you to get onto a

> > > computer and use the Internet to deride science..

> >

> > > [rest of von D=E4niken lie flushed where it belongs]

> >

> > > > Both of the theories mentioned above make more sense than a belief that

> > > > life came to be from a primordial soup or a primordial pond.

> >

> > > How? First of all, do not confuse abiogenesis (how life first arose)

> > > with evolution (the diversity and distribution of life once it

> > > arose). The two are different. Abiogenesis is just a fledgling

> > > science, but is making important strides. Evolution has 150 years or

> > > so of solid scientific discovery and explanation.

> >

> > > The Theory of Evolution is the only science-supported theory of the

> > > distribution and diversity of life. Nothing else can match it. The

> > > Theory of Evolution would still stand even if it were somehow proved

> > > that a god or an alien kick-started life.

> >

> > > But there is no need for such an explanation when scientists have

> > > already been able to map out the means by which organic chemicals

> > > (which are found throughout space and come to Earth on meteors, and

> > > which can form on Earth under pre-biotic conditions) can develop into

> > > living organisms without any need for aliens or supernatural

> > > explanations.

> >

> > > > You can

> > > > google those terms.

> >

> > > Why is it that you think I know less about this than you? That's your

> > > first mistake, the arrogance of ignorance.

> >

> > > > I once asked an evolutionist how the primordial pond

> > > > came to be and he did not know.

> >

> > > It has nothing to do with evolution, so your question was

> > > misdirected. Plus you do not offer any description of this person's

> > > qualifications to answer your question. "An evolutionist" could be an

> > > expert on the Theory of Evolution, or it could be some person who has

> > > seen a TV documentary on the subject and accepted it as the

> > > explanation - or anyone in between.

> >

> > > What is it that makes you think that if you randomly ask "an

> > > evolutionist" for an answer and they're not able to immediately trot

> > > out the salient facts, this automatically disproves the entire Theory

> > > of Evolution? I'll tell you what - the arrogance of ignorance. If I

> > > asked you "What was God thinking two minutes ago" and you couldn't

> > > answer, would this disprove God? If the ancients believed that

> > > thunder and lightning was caused by some god's anger, but now we know

> > > for a fact that it's caused by electrical potential deltas between the

> > > sky and the Earth, does this disprove all gods?

> >

> > > > I asked him how the first living cell came

> > > > to be and he did not know.

> >

> > > That has nothing to do with evolution. Your questions are assinine

> > > and prove nothing but that you are ignorant about the topic and

> > > incompetent in dealing with your ignorance. The Theory of Evolution

> > > is not embodied in the first person you ask. It's embodied in

> > > literally thousands of peer-reviewed papers in refereed science

> > > journals the world over.

> >

> > > If you want your questions answered, go read those, or find a good

> > > site on the web which will answer your questions, like this one:

> > >http://www.talkorigins.org

> > > which features a page that rebuts all of your ill-conceived

> > > creationist assertions:

> > >http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

> >

> > > > If you think life came to be from nothing, I

> > > > challenge you to prove it.

> >

> > > If you think that a god or an alien created us, I challenge you to

> > > prove it. You cannot, can you? Does this mean you're lying?

> >

> > > The fact is that whilst creationists are doing quite literally the

> > > cube root of squat to scientifically support their claims, scientists

> > > are working hard every day to investigate their own theories. That's

> > > the difference between real science and creationist bullshit.

> >

> > > > Some scientists have tried to create life from

> > > > nothing and all of their experiments failed or were later proved to be

> > > > failures.

> >

> > > It used to be that "airplanes" couldn't fly. Does this prove that

> > > heavier-than-air transport is impossible?

> >

> > > Anyone can make claims like you make. It's easy to make random claims

> > > when you don't have to support them. But the fact is that science is

> > > deep into investigation of how cells function, what the minimum genome

> > > is to sustain life, and how life arose from organic chemicals. Just

> > > because they do not have all the answers today means nothing. They

> > > will have answers tomorrow, and more next year and even more in the

> > > next decade, and more after that.

> >

> > > Meanwhile, what answers do the creationists have? Well, 200 years ago

> > > this was their answer: "godidit"

> >

> > > Could they support their answer with any science at all? No!

> >

> > > The year after Charles Darwin published "On the Origin..." this was

> > > their answer: "godidit"

> >

> > > Could they support their answer with any science at all? No!

> >

> > > At the turn of last century, this was their answer: "godidit"

> >

> > > Could they support their answer with any science at all? No!

> >

> > > When Einstein developed his General Theory of Relativity, this was

> > > their answer: "godidit"

> >

> > > Could they support their answer with any science at all? No!

> >

> > > At the turn of this century, this was their answer: "godidit".

> >

> > > Could they support their answer with any science at all? No!

> >

> > > Today, this is their answer: "godidit"

> >

> > > Can they support their answer with any science at all? No!

> >

> > > Do you see a pattern here?

> >

> > > > One scientist believe that house flys evolved from dead meat.

> > > > His proof was house flys coming out of dead meat and flying

away--he even

> > > > had pictures that were published in books. His theory was published in

> > > > several high school biology books. Several years later, another

scientist

> > > > proved that those flys did not evolve from meat but instead that adult

> > > > female house flys had laid their eggs in the dead meat.

> >

> > > That's the way science works. Notice it was a scientist using the

> > > scientific method who disproved this. Creationists had nothing

> > > whatsoever to do with it, because they cannot do science. Let that be

> > > a lesson to you.

> >

> > > BTW, until and unless you can produce references for your comments

> > > prior to that last sentence (beginning "Several years later...", they

> > > have to be labeled a lie. Which college textbooks was that claim

> > > published in?

> >

> > > > I believe his

> > > > theory was called "spontaneous generation [of life]". Life cannot evolve

> > > > from nothing.

> >

> > > Abiogenesis makes no such claim.

> >

> > > > Believe it or not, many modern day evolutionists have

> > > > serious problems with many of the various aspects of evolution theory.

> >

> > > I don't beleive it. Go ahead and name them. Right here in these

> > > world-wide public fora. List these problems, number them, and let's

> > > discuss them.

> >

> > > > was told by several evolutionists that evolutionists no longer concern

> > > > themselves with how life came to be.

> >

> > > They never did, because it's not evolution, it's abiogenesis. Got it

> > > now?

> >

> > > > Of course, we both know why that is

> > > > true. The reason is that evolutionists don't know how life came to

be and

> > > > that's the reason they don't concern themselves with trying to figure it

> > > > out. If they don't know how life came to be--that means many of the

> > > > aspects of the theory are false. Of course, some of the aspects of

> > > > evolution theory are correct and can be proved in the laboratory. The

> > > > advocates of creation science accept those aspects of evolution theory

> > > > that can be proved in a laboratory. So do I.

> >

> > > Evolution is a fact. It has been demonstrated in the laboratory and

> > > observed in nature. The only scientific explanation for this fact

> > > is the Theory of Evolution. That's why it's taught in schools. It

> > > has 150 years of solid science behind it, and it has never been proven

> > > wrong, nor has there ever been any other scientific explanation to

> > > match it.

> >

> > > It's that simple.

> >

> > > Budikka

> >

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

> >

> > Budikka,

> > You made some interesting points. I attended a evolution seminar about 8

> > years ago. That professor would have agreed with everything that you

> > wrote.

> > jason

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

>

> Thanks for the public admission in these world-wide fora that you

> cannot even handle, let alone rebut the facts of evolution.

>

> Budikka

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

I accept most aspects of evolution theory.

Jason

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Guest Jason
Posted

In article <q9t443pl9r2uuleeuq5t3qlk48pnofph8m@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> On Wed, 09 May 2007 19:27:54 -0700, in alt.atheism

> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> <Jason-0905071927540001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> >In article <99s44393vdd6b88aiapie53imd8m8augch@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> >

> >> On Wed, 09 May 2007 19:09:23 -0700, in alt.atheism

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

> >> <Jason-0905071909230001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> >> >In article <a4p4435faotd68qdr94mkqg2bml1dlt9tk@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein

> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> >> >

> >> >> On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:43:39 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

> >> >> (Jason) in

> >> >> <Jason-0905071643390001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

> >> >>

> >> >> [snip]

> >> >>

> >> >> >Don,

> >> >> >Good for you. I live in California. I read an article in the newspaper

> >> >> >yesterday indicating that all of the prisons in California--there are

> >> >> >about a dozen of them--are overcrowded. The governor wants to spend a

> >> >> >billion dollars on building even more prisons in California. Let me ask

> >> >> >you an honest question. If everyone in Calfornia was a Christian that

> >> >> >obeyed the 10 commandments--do you think that the Governor would

need to

> >> >> >spend a billion dollars constructing new prisons?

> >> >>

> >> >> The vast majority of the population of CA is Christian. There are

> >> >> fewer atheists in prison than one would expect given their % of the

> >> >> population.

> >> >>

> >> >> And that "obey" part is cheating. First, most of the 10C are not laws.

> >> >> Second, if you want laws the Torah has hundreds. Third, if people

> >> >> obeyed whatever rules then we would not need prisons.

> >> >

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

> >> >

> >> >I disagree. It's my opinion that If everyone in Calfornia was a

> >Christian that

> >> >obeyed the 10 commandments that we would not need any more prisons in

> >> >California. I believe that most reasonable people would agree with me.

> >> >

> >> The Ten Commandments have only a very peripheral relationship to

> >> Christianity. The worship of the Ten Commandments is a modern-day

> >> heterodoxy.

> >>

> >> I am curious. Would you just let all sex offenders, including rapists

> >> and pedophiles, go free because that is not forbidden in the Ten

> >> Commandments?

> >

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

> >

> >Good point. One of the commandents states: Thou shall not commit adultery.

> >The implication is clear--God wants people to get married and not cheat on

> >their mates. Other parts of the Bible make it clear that God wants men to

> >marry women. In fact, the main reason God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah is

> >because of their sins--such as the sin of sodomy.

>

> So you aren't relying on the Ten Commandments, are you.

>

> After all, beating someone to a bloody pulp isn't forbidden, either.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

You seem to be argumenatative. The 10 commandments are the main laws that

God established. Of course, there are other rules and laws in other parts

of the Bible. In fact, back in the 1700's and 1800's --many or even most

laws were based on the Bible.

jason

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Guest Jason
Posted

In article <c565439efgqhj1drnniho22me8fbtqfpus@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein

<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 09 May 2007 19:09:23 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

> (Jason) in

> <Jason-0905071909230001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

>

> >In article <a4p4435faotd68qdr94mkqg2bml1dlt9tk@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein

> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> >

> >> On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:43:39 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

> >> (Jason) in

> >> <Jason-0905071643390001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

> >>

> >> [snip]

> >>

> >> >Don,

> >> >Good for you. I live in California. I read an article in the newspaper

> >> >yesterday indicating that all of the prisons in California--there are

> >> >about a dozen of them--are overcrowded. The governor wants to spend a

> >> >billion dollars on building even more prisons in California. Let me ask

> >> >you an honest question. If everyone in Calfornia was a Christian that

> >> >obeyed the 10 commandments--do you think that the Governor would need to

> >> >spend a billion dollars constructing new prisons?

> >>

> >> The vast majority of the population of CA is Christian. There are

> >> fewer atheists in prison than one would expect given their % of the

> >> population.

> >>

> >> And that "obey" part is cheating. First, most of the 10C are not laws.

> >> Second, if you want laws the Torah has hundreds. Third, if people

> >> obeyed whatever rules then we would not need prisons.

> >

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

> >

> >I disagree. It's my opinion that If everyone in Calfornia was a

Christian that

> >obeyed the 10 commandments that we would not need any more prisons in

> >California. I believe that most reasonable people would agree with me.

> >

> Well, yes, if everyone obeyed the 10C and there were no other laws

> then there would be no one in prison. In fact, if everyone obeyed

> whatever laws we had then no one would need to be in prison. BFD.

 

I can't believe it--we finally agree on at least one point.

Guest Jason
Posted

In article <kf8543hbbi51a9tj0kmlk9feooa3a8ofst@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein

<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 09 May 2007 22:21:15 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

> (Jason) in <Jason-0905072221150001@66-52-22-2.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>

> wrote:

>

> >In article <c565439efgqhj1drnniho22me8fbtqfpus@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein

> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> >

> >> On Wed, 09 May 2007 19:09:23 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

> >> (Jason) in

> >> <Jason-0905071909230001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

> >>

> >> >In article <a4p4435faotd68qdr94mkqg2bml1dlt9tk@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein

> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> >> >

> >> >> On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:43:39 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com

> >> >> (Jason) in

> >> >> <Jason-0905071643390001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote:

> >> >>

> >> >> [snip]

> >> >>

> >> >> >Don,

> >> >> >Good for you. I live in California. I read an article in the newspaper

> >> >> >yesterday indicating that all of the prisons in California--there are

> >> >> >about a dozen of them--are overcrowded. The governor wants to spend a

> >> >> >billion dollars on building even more prisons in California. Let me ask

> >> >> >you an honest question. If everyone in Calfornia was a Christian that

> >> >> >obeyed the 10 commandments--do you think that the Governor would

need to

> >> >> >spend a billion dollars constructing new prisons?

> >> >>

> >> >> The vast majority of the population of CA is Christian. There are

> >> >> fewer atheists in prison than one would expect given their % of the

> >> >> population.

> >> >>

> >> >> And that "obey" part is cheating. First, most of the 10C are not laws.

> >> >> Second, if you want laws the Torah has hundreds. Third, if people

> >> >> obeyed whatever rules then we would not need prisons.

> >> >

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

> >> >

> >> >I disagree. It's my opinion that If everyone in Calfornia was a

> >Christian that

> >> >obeyed the 10 commandments that we would not need any more prisons in

> >> >California. I believe that most reasonable people would agree with me.

> >> >

> >> Well, yes, if everyone obeyed the 10C and there were no other laws

> >> then there would be no one in prison. In fact, if everyone obeyed

> >> whatever laws we had then no one would need to be in prison. BFD.

> >

> >I can't believe it--we finally agree on at least one point.

> >

> Do you see that it is a trivial point? If everyone obeyed X then there

> would be no need to punish anyone for not obeying X, for all values of

> X.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

That's correct. Do you believe that atheists are more likely to disobey

laws than Christians that feel that God is always watching them?

 

My answer is yes--what's your answer.

 

I already know that some atheists obey the law even if there are no cops

arround them.

Guest Jason
Posted

Matt,

What is your opinion related to the last paragraph of this report. Please

note from the Notes section that H.P. Yockey published his article in what

I believe is a peer-reviewed journal.

Jason

 

 

How Simple Can Life Be?

In Darwin's day, many people swallowed the theory of spontaneous

generation-that life arose from non-living matter. It was somewhat

easier to believe because the cell's structure was almost unknown.

Ernst Haeckel, Darwin's popularizer in Germany, claimed that a cell

was a 'simple lump of albuminous combination of carbon.'1 (Haeckel was

also a notorious fraud-he forged embryonic diagrams to bolster the

erroneous idea that the embryo's development recapitulated (re-traced)

its alleged evolutionary ancestry)2

 

But modern science has discovered vast quantities of complex, specific

information in even the simplest self-reproducing organism. Mycoplasma

genitalium has the smallest known genome of any free-living organism,

containing 482 genes comprising 580,000 bases.3 Of course, these genes

are only functional with pre-existing translational and replicating

machinery, a cell membrane, etc.

 

But Mycoplasma can only survive by parasitizing more complex

organisms, which provide many of the nutrients it cannot manufacture

for itself. So evolutionists must posit a more complex first living

organism with even more genes.

 

More recently, Eugene Koonin and others tried to calculate the bare

minimum required for a living cell, and came up with a result of 256

genes. But they were doubtful whether such a hypothetical bug could

survive, because such an organism could barely repair DNA damage,

could no longer fine-tune the ability of its remaining genes, would

lack the ability to digest complex compounds, and would need a

comprehensive supply of organic nutrients in its environment.4

 

Yet even this 'simple' organism has far too much information to be

expected from time and chance, without natural selection. The

information theorist Hubert Yockey calculated that given a pool of

pure, activated biological amino acids, the total amount of

information which could be produced, even allowing 109 years as

evolutionists posit, would be only a single small polypeptide 49 amino

acid residues long.5 This is about 1/8 the size (therefore information

content) of a typical protein, yet the hypothetical simple cell above

needs at least 256 proteins. And Yockey's estimate generously

presupposes that the many chemical hurdles can be overcome, which is a

huge assumption, as shown by many creationist writers.6

NB: natural selection cannot help, as this requires self-replicating

entities-therefore it cannot explain their origin.

 

Notes

Cited in M.J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to

Evolution, The Free Press, New York, 1996, p. 24. Return to text.

R.M. Grigg, 'Ernst Haeckel: Evangelist for evolution and apostle of

deceit', Creation Ex Nihilo 18(2):33-36, 1996. See online version.

Return to text.

A. Goffeau, 'Life With 482 Genes' Science, 270(5235):445-6, 1995.

Return to text.

W. Wells, 'Taking life to bits', New Scientist, 155(2095):30-33, 1997.

Return to text.

H.P. Yockey, 'A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous

Biogenesis by Information Theory', J. Theor. Biol., 67:377-398, 1977.

Return to Text.

C.B. Thaxton, W.L. Bradley & R.L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin,

Philosophical Library Inc., New York, 1984; W.R. Bird, W.R., 1991; The

Origin of Species: Revisited, Thomas Nelson, Inc., Nashville,

Tennessee, Vol. I Part III, 1991; S.E. Aw, 'The Origin of Life: A

Critique of Current Scientific Models' Creation Ex Nihilo Technical

Journal, 10(3):300-314, 1996; J.D. Sarfati, 1997 'Self- Replicating

Enzymes?' Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 11(1):4-6, 1997. See

online version. Return to Text.

Guest Martin Phipps
Posted

On May 10, 2:24 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> It has actually helped me stay out of prison and jail. When I was about 30

> years old, I could not find a job and was running out of money. I had a

> gun so knew that it would be easy to rob a store or rob people. The reason

> I did not do that was because I knew that God was watching me and would

> have been disappointed with me if I disobeyed one of his commandments.

 

All this proves was that your parents failed to teach you to be

morally centered: your entire reason for not robbing people nor

threatening them with violence is that you fear you will go to Hell.

You are a truly frightening person indeed.

 

Martin

Guest Martin Phipps
Posted

On May 9, 9:04 pm, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote:

> Martin Phipps wrote:

>

> > disappeared would seem to overwhelming support evolution! (Note that

> > different breed of dogs might as well be different species as it would

> > be impossible for a poodle to mate with a great dane!)

>

> Really?

> Mind, I am not doubting that, I just did not know. And still don't. It

> seems to me that this, if in fact the case, is more question of

> mechanics than of genetics.

 

It's more than mechanics because I don't think a poodle could carry

great dane puppies. It isn't a question of genetics -yet- but it does

show how species form (since poddles and great danes will never share

genes in the future).

> But I don't know. You happen to have a link for that?

 

I'm sure there are links with pictures proving me wrong but I don't

want to even think about that. :)

 

Martin

Guest Martin Phipps
Posted

On May 9, 9:39 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> On 9 May 2007 05:25:29 -0700, Martin <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> - Refer: <1178713529.569984.90...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>

>

> >"Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in

>

> >> Jesus died for my sins

>

> >Actually, no, he didn't. He was cruxified for causing a public

> >disturbance. The Romans weren't exactly known for lengthy trials. :)

>

> Jesus is a fictional character.

 

Either way he didn't die for Jason's sins.

 

Martin

Guest Martin Phipps
Posted

On May 10, 2:28 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> If I really believed there was no God, I would commit suicide if my doctor

> told me that I had cancer and needed to have chemo. and radiation for

> three or more months.

 

We long ago passed the point where fifty percent of cancers were cured

if detected in time.

 

Martin

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...