Do You Believe in Evolution or in Creation?
Zhragon
THE question "Do you believe in evolution or in creation?" is more
than a matter of idle curiosity. The answer that one gives will be
deeply reflected in his attitude toward his fellowman, his moral
values and his outlook on the future.
Belief in evolution is not new; it did not originate with Charles
Darwin. But, following publication, in 1859, of his book The Origin of
Species, the supporters of the idea have greatly increased in number.
In those lands where considerable emphasis is placed on "science," the
teaching of evolution holds a prominent place in school textbooks. It
is introduced in the early grades, and repeated and enlarged upon year
after year.
It is the desire to find more evidence for this teaching that has
also been a prime moving force in the exorbitantly expensive space
exploits of the nations. To NASA's planning chief, Wernher von Braun,
the flight of Apollo 11 was "nothing less than a step in human
evolution comparable to the time when life on earth emerged from the
sea and established itself on land." And Science magazine, in its
special issue of January 30, 1970, revealed: "The search for carbon-
containing material on the lunar surface is not only a component part
of the study of the origin and history of the moon, but an important
step in our understanding of the early stages of chemical evolution
leading to the origin of life." So it was with keen anticipation that
rock samples were brought back to the earth and carefully analyzed for
any traces of life, present or past, but the lack of publicity given
to the results was a reflection of the disappointment felt by
advocates of evolution. Still they push on farther, and at even
greater expense. Why? In an article entitled "Future in Space--From
Moon to Mars," U.S. News & World Report announced: "One of the main
goals of such an expedition is to search for evidence of life on the
planet."
Elmer
DanielSan
>
> THE question "Do you believe in evolution or in creation?" is more
> than a matter of idle curiosity.
Depends on what you mean by the word "believe". It's a loaded word, in
this context, with connotations of faith. Here, this is a better worded
answer:
I accept that the theory of evolution is the most viable explanation of
the observable facts. There are no observable facts for "creation".
Or, if there are, those that "believe in creation" refuse to give them.
> The answer that one gives will be
> deeply reflected in his attitude toward his fellowman, his moral
> values and his outlook on the future.
Not really, no.
>
> Belief in evolution is not new; it did not originate with Charles
> Darwin. But, following publication, in 1859, of his book The Origin of
> Species, the supporters of the idea have greatly increased in number.
> In those lands where considerable emphasis is placed on "science," the
> teaching of evolution holds a prominent place in school textbooks. It
> is introduced in the early grades, and repeated and enlarged upon year
> after year.
Kind of like archaeology, history, etc.
>
> It is the desire to find more evidence for this teaching that has
> also been a prime moving force in the exorbitantly expensive space
> exploits of the nations. To NASA's planning chief, Wernher von Braun,
> the flight of Apollo 11 was "nothing less than a step in human
> evolution comparable to the time when life on earth emerged from the
> sea and established itself on land." And Science magazine, in its
> special issue of January 30, 1970, revealed: "The search for carbon-
> containing material on the lunar surface is not only a component part
> of the study of the origin and history of the moon, but an important
> step in our understanding of the early stages of chemical evolution
> leading to the origin of life." So it was with keen anticipation that
> rock samples were brought back to the earth and carefully analyzed for
> any traces of life, present or past, but the lack of publicity given
> to the results was a reflection of the disappointment felt by
> advocates of evolution. Still they push on farther, and at even
> greater expense. Why? In an article entitled "Future in Space--From
> Moon to Mars," U.S. News & World Report announced: "One of the main
> goals of such an expedition is to search for evidence of life on the
> planet."
Still, there is evidence for one, but not the other. Or, if there is
evidence for "the other", it has never been given beyond a few ancient
scripts which have been shown to be contradictory and subject to wide
interpretation.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act *
* of the whole American people which declared that *
* their legislature should make no law respecting *
* an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the *
* free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of *
* separation between church and state." *
* --Thomas Jefferson, 1802 *
****************************************************
Christopher A. Lee
<vorl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>THE question "Do you believe in evolution or in creation?" is more
>than a matter of idle curiosity. The answer that one gives will be
>deeply reflected in his attitude toward his fellowman, his moral
>values and his outlook on the future.
Nobody "believes in evolution".
There is no symmetry between observed fact with well understood
mechanisms behind it, and a baseless preumption backed only by
religious belief.
>Belief in evolution is not new; it did not originate with Charles
>Darwin. But, following publication, in 1859, of his book The Origin of
>Species, the supporters of the idea have greatly increased in number.
>In those lands where considerable emphasis is placed on "science," the
>teaching of evolution holds a prominent place in school textbooks. It
>is introduced in the early grades, and repeated and enlarged upon year
>after year.
Because it's science, moron.
> It is the desire to find more evidence for this teaching that has
What "teaching", moron?
Science ain't scripture.
[snip]
Köi-Lö
> Zhragon said the following on 2/17/2008 6:46 PM:
>
>
>
> > THE question "Do you believe in evolution or in creation?" is more
> > than a matter of idle curiosity.
>
> Depends on what you mean by the word "believe". It's a loaded word, in
> this context, with connotations of faith.
For many, Evolution as the origin of man is based on "faith", since
there is no evidence that human evolved from monkeys .. er.. excuse me
a common ancestor.
> Here, this is a better worded
> answer:
>
> I accept that the theory of evolution is the most viable explanation of
> the observable facts. There are no observable facts for "creation".
> Or, if there are, those that "believe in creation" refuse to give them.
>
Observable facts are in the context of perception. The same facts you
claim for evolution can also be used for design.
> > The answer that one gives will be
> > deeply reflected in his attitude toward his fellowman, his moral
> > values and his outlook on the future.
>
> Not really, no.
>
>
Yes really. Did you read about the latest school killing, basically
unheard of in the 60's
why is that?
Köi-Lö
>
> What "teaching", moron?
>
> Science ain't scripture.
>
Ad-homined? the argument is lost, your argument. I understand you are
the resident atheist liar.
Why is that?
Steven J.
> THE question "Do you believe in evolution or in creation?" is more
> than a matter of idle curiosity. The answer that one gives will be
> deeply reflected in his attitude toward his fellowman, his moral
> values and his outlook on the future.
>
Evolution is not a "belief" in the sense that theological dogmas are
"beliefs." Scientists "believe" that humans share ancestors with
monkeys and mushrooms in the same sense that they "believe" that
matter is made of atoms, or that the Earth orbits the sun. They do
not take evolution "on faith," or accept it because they find it
ideologically preferable (the sense in which one "believes" in e.g.
democracy, or free enterprise, or socialism). Evolution (in the sense
of common descent) is the best explanation for a panoply of data from
many different fields: faunal succession in the fossil record, the
nested hierarchy of homologies in living things, biogeography of
living and fossil species, transitional fossils, and so forth. The
"theory of evolution" (change in populations over time as the result
of mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift) is the best
explanation for why evolution takes place, although it is less certain
than evolution itself.
It is not at all clear that one's acceptance of evolution is "deeply
reflected in his attitude toward his fellowman, his moral values and
his outlook on the future." One can assert all sorts of reasons why
one's views on evolution and creation *ought* to be deeply reflected
in these ways, but empirical support for such assertions is very
weak. There are racists and egalitarians, misanthropes and
philanthropists, individualists and collectivists among both groups.
It does seem to me that those who feel a need to deny evolution are
prone to one conspicuous moral failing: they prefer to say things
about evolutionary theory and the evidence bearing on it that fit
their ideology rather than things that are accurate.
Perhaps a third point is in order: theists generally believe that God
maintains and acts through the laws of nature. They do not see a
contradiction in, e.g. saying on the one hand that weather results
from natural causes studied by meteorologists and used to predict the
weather, and saying that God sends the rain on the just and the
unjust. They have no problem in finding compatible the statement that
God forms individuals in their mothers' wombs and that embryonic
development proceeds through natural, material causes studied by
biology. And some theists take a similar approach to evolution: they
insist that evolution and creation are complementary, not
contradictory: one is a scientific account of the facts, the other a
belief about the metaphysical underpinnings of those facts.
>
> Belief in evolution is not new; it did not originate with Charles
> Darwin. But, following publication, in 1859, of his book The Origin of
> Species, the supporters of the idea have greatly increased in number.
> In those lands where considerable emphasis is placed on "science," the
> teaching of evolution holds a prominent place in school textbooks. It
> is introduced in the early grades, and repeated and enlarged upon year
> after year.
>
> It is the desire to find more evidence for this teaching that has
> also been a prime moving force in the exorbitantly expensive space
> exploits of the nations. To NASA's planning chief, Wernher von Braun,
> the flight of Apollo 11 was "nothing less than a step in human
> evolution comparable to the time when life on earth emerged from the
> sea and established itself on land."
>
The quote from von Braun (whom, oddly, many creationists cite as a
fellow creationist) does not say that landing on the moon would help
find evidence for evolution, but that it would be a step in human
evolution. This seems to me to confuse cultural and technological
evolution with biological evolution, but that's a side issue.
I would have thought, myself, that the prime moving forces in space
exploration were national prestige, curiosity, and a vague hope for
all sorts of possible future payoffs from new scientific knowledge.
Of course, all that money spent on space exploration has to be spent
here on Earth, not in space, so another "prime moving force" is found
in local economies where components of space missions are
manufactured. If you work in a rocket factory, anything that gets the
government to buy more rockets must be a good idea.
The cost of space exploration is not so exhorbitant compared with
government expenditures as a whole.
>
> And Science magazine, in its
> special issue of January 30, 1970, revealed: "The search for carbon-
> containing material on the lunar surface is not only a component part
> of the study of the origin and history of the moon, but an important
> step in our understanding of the early stages of chemical evolution
> leading to the origin of life." So it was with keen anticipation that
> rock samples were brought back to the earth and carefully analyzed for
> any traces of life, present or past, but the lack of publicity given
> to the results was a reflection of the disappointment felt by
> advocates of evolution. Still they push on farther, and at even
> greater expense. Why? In an article entitled "Future in Space--From
> Moon to Mars," U.S. News & World Report announced: "One of the main
> goals of such an expedition is to search for evidence of life on the
> planet."
>
"Evolution" is not the same thing as abiogenesis and has, itself,
little to say about the likelihood of life on other planets. I don't
think you need the concept of common descent with modification to be
interested in the possibility of life on other worlds. Or do you
"believe in" (in the sense of finding desirable) ignorance and
obscurantism?
-- Steven J.
MarkA
>
>
> THE question "Do you believe in evolution or in creation?" is more
> than a matter of idle curiosity. The answer that one gives will be
> deeply reflected in his attitude toward his fellowman, his moral
> values and his outlook on the future.
>
Mostly it reflects how he gathers information about the world around him:
trust in (religious) authority figures, versus trust in data.
> Belief in evolution is not new; it did not originate with Charles
> Darwin. But, following publication, in 1859, of his book The Origin of
> Species, the supporters of the idea have greatly increased in number. In
> those lands where considerable emphasis is placed on "science," the
> teaching of evolution holds a prominent place in school textbooks. It is
> introduced in the early grades, and repeated and enlarged upon year
> after year.
>
> It is the desire to find more evidence for this teaching that has
> also been a prime moving force in the exorbitantly expensive space
> exploits of the nations.
Uh, no. There is PLENTY of evidence to support evolution right here on
Earth. Space exploration has an entirely separate set of goals.
> To NASA's planning chief, Wernher von Braun,
> the flight of Apollo 11 was "nothing less than a step in human evolution
> comparable to the time when life on earth emerged from the sea and
> established itself on land." And Science magazine, in its special issue
> of January 30, 1970, revealed: "The search for carbon- containing
> material on the lunar surface is not only a component part of the study
> of the origin and history of the moon, but an important step in our
> understanding of the early stages of chemical evolution leading to the
> origin of life." So it was with keen anticipation that rock samples were
> brought back to the earth and carefully analyzed for any traces of life,
> present or past, but the lack of publicity given to the results was a
> reflection of the disappointment felt by advocates of evolution.
I don't think that anyone expected to find traces of life, present or
past, in the lunar rocks. Furthermore, the lack of such traces was hardly
a disappointment to the "advocates of evolution", which would be
essentially the entire scientific community.
> Still
> they push on farther, and at even greater expense. Why? In an article
> entitled "Future in Space--From Moon to Mars," U.S. News & World Report
> announced: "One of the main goals of such an expedition is to search for
> evidence of life on the planet."
Mars may very well have harbored life at some point in its history.
However, the reasons for exploring the solar system go far beyond the
search for life.
--
MarkA
Chairman, EAC Dept of Incompetent Cryptography
Vs lbh pna ernq guvf, jr unir n wbo sbe lbh!
Christopher A. Lee
<Reel...@mailinator.com> wrote:
The net.psychopath Jabbers changes his nym to one he's forgotten he's
already used.
>On Feb 17, 10:03 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Zhragon said the following on 2/17/2008 6:46 PM:
>>
>>
>>
>> > THE question "Do you believe in evolution or in creation?" is more
>> > than a matter of idle curiosity.
>>
>> Depends on what you mean by the word "believe". It's a loaded word, in
>> this context, with connotations of faith.
>
>For many, Evolution as the origin of man is based on "faith", since
>there is no evidence that human evolved from monkeys .. er.. excuse me
>a common ancestor.
Only for pig-ignorant lying creationists.
>> Here, this is a better worded
>> answer:
>>
>> I accept that the theory of evolution is the most viable explanation of
>> the observable facts. There are no observable facts for "creation".
>> Or, if there are, those that "believe in creation" refuse to give them.
>
>Observable facts are in the context of perception. The same facts you
>claim for evolution can also be used for design.
How so, pig-ignorant liar, when there is no way of determining design?
>> > The answer that one gives will be
>> > deeply reflected in his attitude toward his fellowman, his moral
>> > values and his outlook on the future.
>>
>> Not really, no.
>
>Yes really. Did you read about the latest school killing, basically
>unheard of in the 60's
What the fuck has that got to with it, moron?
Are you masturbating over it as you gloat about it like you did all
the others?
>why is that?
Why is what, psychopath?
Christopher A. Lee
What "ad homined", moron?
And I understand you are the resident psychopath who orgasms as he
gloats over workplace shootings.
>Why is that?
Why is what, psychopath?
Christopher A. Lee
<stev...@altavista.com> wrote:
>On Feb 17, 8:46 pm, Zhragon <vorlon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> THE question "Do you believe in evolution or in creation?" is more
>> than a matter of idle curiosity. The answer that one gives will be
>> deeply reflected in his attitude toward his fellowman, his moral
>> values and his outlook on the future.
>>
>Two points:
>
>Evolution is not a "belief" in the sense that theological dogmas are
>"beliefs." Scientists "believe" that humans share ancestors with
>monkeys and mushrooms in the same sense that they "believe" that
>matter is made of atoms, or that the Earth orbits the sun. They do
>not take evolution "on faith," or accept it because they find it
>ideologically preferable (the sense in which one "believes" in e.g.
>democracy, or free enterprise, or socialism). Evolution (in the sense
>of common descent) is the best explanation for a panoply of data from
>many different fields: faunal succession in the fossil record, the
>nested hierarchy of homologies in living things, biogeography of
>living and fossil species, transitional fossils, and so forth. The
>"theory of evolution" (change in populations over time as the result
>of mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift) is the best
>explanation for why evolution takes place, although it is less certain
>than evolution itself.
Zhragon is yet another Jabriol sock puppet.
Michael Gray
<vorl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>THE question "Do you believe in evolution or in creation?" is more
>than a matter of idle curiosity.
It is a matter of imbecilic stupidity, oh Jabriol you fucking
dishonest freak.
DanielSan
> On Feb 17, 10:03 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Zhragon said the following on 2/17/2008 6:46 PM:
>>
>>
>>
>>> THE question "Do you believe in evolution or in creation?" is more
>>> than a matter of idle curiosity.
>> Depends on what you mean by the word "believe". It's a loaded word, in
>> this context, with connotations of faith.
>
>
> For many, Evolution as the origin of man is based on "faith", since
> there is no evidence that human evolved from monkeys .. er.. excuse me
> a common ancestor.
Except that there is. There's a whole slew of evidence. From Homo
sapiens to Homo erectus to Homo ergaster to Homo/Australopithecus
habilis (it's debatable whether habilis is a member of the Homo genus or
the Australopithecus genus) to Australopithecus garhi...
...all the way to Sahelanthropus tchadensis, which is the common
ancestor between Homo sapiens (human) and Pan troglodytes (chimpanzee)
and Pan Pan paniscus (bonobo).
I can show you these if you wish, and the scientific evidence behind it.
>
>> Here, this is a better worded
>> answer:
>>
>> I accept that the theory of evolution is the most viable explanation of
>> the observable facts. There are no observable facts for "creation".
>> Or, if there are, those that "believe in creation" refuse to give them.
>>
>
>
> Observable facts are in the context of perception. The same facts you
> claim for evolution can also be used for design.
Not really, no. Observable facts are observable to everyone and,
through extensive testing, a consensus can come through on the theory.
>
>>> The answer that one gives will be
>>> deeply reflected in his attitude toward his fellowman, his moral
>>> values and his outlook on the future.
>> Not really, no.
>>
>>
>
>
> Yes really. Did you read about the latest school killing, basically
> unheard of in the 60's
Basically?
Lewis Somers, Jr, 1936, Williams College
Charles Whitman, 1966, University of Texas at Austin
Anthony Barbaro, 1974, Orleans High School
Brenda Spencer, 1978, Cleveland Elementary School
I submit to you that school killings have always happened. They're just
being reported now instead of being covered up.
> why is that?
>
Why don't you tell me?
Köi-Lö
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:46:01 -0800 (PST), Zhragon
>
>
> >THE question "Do you believe in evolution or in creation?" is more
> >than a matter of idle curiosity.
>
> It is a matter of imbecilic stupidity, oh Jabriol you fucking
> dishonest freak.
Not according to some who already replied. By the way are you still
backing up Christopher Lee alt.atheism resident liar. You really cant
be calling people dishonest . But then again isn't that the basis of
Atheism? No God Do as you wan't lie as you want?
Köi-Lö
Are you sure? I see you inherited the paranoia of Carol.
Common Jerk, lie some more and entertain us.
Köi-Lö
.
>
> Except that there is. There's a whole slew of evidence. From Homo
> sapiens to Homo erectus to Homo ergaster to Homo/Australopithecus
> habilis (it's debatable whether habilis is a member of the Homo genus or
> the Australopithecus genus) to Australopithecus garhi...
>
> .
Each could have been designed and the replaced with a better design by
terraformers.
Uncle Vic
> THE question "Do you believe in evolution or in creation?"
You're asking atheists in an atheist newsgroup? How fucking stupid are
you?
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack.
Kathy
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:jtuhr3p51vuktcs83...@4ax.com...
I hate to say this but I think he orgasms when he slanders people, threatens
them, torments and harasses them and encourages them to commit suicide.
Kathy
"Steven J." <stev...@altavista.com> wrote in message
news:a1cff304-df11-4c9e...@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 17, 8:46 pm, Zhragon <vorlon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> THE question "Do you believe in evolution or in creation?" is more
> than a matter of idle curiosity. The answer that one gives will be
> deeply reflected in his attitude toward his fellowman, his moral
> values and his outlook on the future.
>
Two points:
Brevity snips.
Steven, you are wasting your time replying to a Jabriol sock-puppet. He
doesn't read any replies longer than a few sentences due to his inability to
concentrate and lack of interest in what others have to say. In most cases
he doesn't even reply to what the person wrote or applies with more copy and
paste Watchtower Society pro-creation nonsense.
M.M. Martinson
"Köi-Lö" <Reel...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:15e1e2a9-f86b-4d67...@q70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
That's exactly what you do Antonio, you lie about and slander people, so why
are you so anti-atheist?
DanielSan
You'll have to provide evidence for that assertion. Currently, the
theory of evolution is the best explanation we have for what we're seeing.
If you have different evidence, by all means, supply it.
Darrell Stec
> One fine day in alt.atheism, Zhragon <vorl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> THE question "Do you believe in evolution or in creation?"
>
> You're asking atheists in an atheist newsgroup? How fucking stupid are
> you?
>
No answer exists. His stupidity is beyond measure.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec dar...@neo.rr.com
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)
> On Feb 17, 10:03 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Zhragon said the following on 2/17/2008 6:46 PM:
>
> > > THE question "Do you believe in evolution or in creation?" is more
> > > than a matter of idle curiosity.
>
> > Depends on what you mean by the word "believe". It's a loaded word, in
> > this context, with connotations of faith.
>
> For many, Evolution as the origin of man is based on "faith", since
> there is no evidence that human evolved from monkeys .. er.. excuse me
> a common ancestor.
Wrong and wrong.
Understanding the processes of evolution and the basic history of
hominid evolution is based on evidence. No faith needed, as faith is
believing what you know ain't so, and there's a stackload of evidence
for it. Remember, Darwin's explanation was in response to the facts
of evolution needing an explanation.
Hominids did NOT evolve from monkeys. Hominids are apes (one of the
species of Chimpanzee) which are primates. We no more evolved from
monkeys than sheep evolved from cows.
>
> > Here, this is a better worded
> > answer:
>
> > I accept that the theory of evolution is the most viable explanation of
> > the observable facts. There are no observable facts for "creation".
> > Or, if there are, those that "believe in creation" refuse to give them.
>
> Observable facts are in the context of perception. The same facts you
> claim for evolution can also be used for design.
But interestingly, only by people who assume design to start with.
And then falsify their work and ignore many questions.
> > > The answer that one gives will be
> > > deeply reflected in his attitude toward his fellowman, his moral
> > > values and his outlook on the future.
>
> > Not really, no.
>
> Yes really. Did you read about the latest school killing, basically
> unheard of in the 60's
> why is that?
Probably because the USA is heading towards a violent intollerant
country of hate. Wanna compare crime rates and church attendance with
some other country? It's not a pretty picture.
In the 60s in the US, there was a greater tolerance of variant world
views and less fundamental christian sects. And less kids with guns.
Al
Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)
> "Köi-Lö" <ReelMc...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
> > . But then again isn't that the basis of
> > Atheism? No God Do as you wan't lie as you want?
>
> That's exactly what you do Antonio, you lie about and slander people, so why
> are you so anti-atheist?
Because its confused about what atheists are and doesn't like the
competition.
Al
Wombat
When the OP started his screed of lies with a semi veiled insult,
repliers should not?
Wombat
Andre Lieven
Pot. Kettle. Deep Black.
You just busted *yourself*. <Laughs>
> Why is that?
Because telling lies about science is not only stupid, but goes
against
biblical injunctions to not lie.
HTH.
Andre
Christopher A. Lee
As is Koi-Lo.
>Are you sure? I see you inherited the paranoia of Carol.
And thus the schizophrenic psyschopath gives himself away once again.
You really will have to start thinking for a change annd not use
your standard idiocies if you want to fool people with your
nym-shifts.
>Common Jerk, lie some more and entertain us.
Oh, the irony.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>One fine day in alt.atheism, Zhragon <vorl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> THE question "Do you believe in evolution or in creation?"
>
>You're asking atheists in an atheist newsgroup? How fucking stupid are
>you?
It's a Jabriol cut'n'paste. He gave himself away in a different thread
using his standard paranoid bsessive nastiness.
And then defended himself using the same paranoid obsessive nastiness
calling himself Koi-Lo.
He doesn't even have the intelligence to use different paranoid
obsessive nastiness by each of his sock puppets.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
"Semi-veiled"?
He doesn't like his psychopathy brought up. Even though it's a matter
of record in the Internet archives.
Even in response to his orgasmic gloating every time there is a
school, mall or workplace shooting. Blaming it on natural selection.
Especially when he says natural selection tells people to kill
themselves, on a depression support group and one of them does.
What he did is well known on the Internet. There are FAQs for anybody
to see. Just google Jabriol and FAQ on either the web or groups. It's
all there for anybody and everybody to see.
And he blames everybody else but himself. He hates everybody. His
fellow JWs, his wife and family, his victims everybody else, but most
of all himself.
His response is to attack people who cite what they find there and
call them liars, adding them to his paranoid obsession list.
Being a coward he does this from a distance, hiding behind the
electrons.
Sooner or later he'll lose it completely. I hope it's when he can't do
any harm to those around him. When he's on trial for it his defence
will probably be "natural selection made me do it".
>Wombat
Christopher A. Lee
<andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>On Feb 17, 10:21 pm, "Köi-Lö" <ReelMc...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 17, 10:10 pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>> > What "teaching", moron?
>>
>> > Science ain't scripture.
>>
>> Ad-homined? the argument is lost, your argument. I understand you are
>> the resident atheist liar.
>
>Pot. Kettle. Deep Black.
>
>You just busted *yourself*. <Laughs>
He always busts himself. Every time he changes nyms he repeats the
same paranoid obsessions.
I don't know why I'm one of his targets.
Michael Gray
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 04:21:59 GMT, Uncle Vic <add...@withheld.com>
>wrote:
>
>>One fine day in alt.atheism, Zhragon <vorl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> THE question "Do you believe in evolution or in creation?"
>>
>>You're asking atheists in an atheist newsgroup? How fucking stupid are
>>you?
>
>It's a Jabriol cut'n'paste. He gave himself away in a different thread
>using his standard paranoid bsessive nastiness.
>
>And then defended himself using the same paranoid obsessive nastiness
>calling himself Koi-Lo.
The name of a carp species that he employs to destroy the
alt.rec.ponds group.
Ye Old One
>
>
>THE question "Do you believe in evolution or in creation?" is more
>than a matter of idle curiosity. The answer that one gives will be
>deeply reflected in his attitude toward his fellowman, his moral
>values and his outlook on the future.
>
>Belief in evolution is not new; it did not originate with Charles
>Darwin. But, following publication, in 1859, of his book The Origin of
>Species, the supporters of the idea have greatly increased in number.
>In those lands where considerable emphasis is placed on "science," the
>teaching of evolution holds a prominent place in school textbooks. It
>is introduced in the early grades, and repeated and enlarged upon year
>after year.
>
> It is the desire to find more evidence for this teaching that has
>also been a prime moving force in the exorbitantly expensive space
>exploits of the nations. To NASA's planning chief, Wernher von Braun,
>the flight of Apollo 11 was "nothing less than a step in human
>evolution comparable to the time when life on earth emerged from the
>sea and established itself on land." And Science magazine, in its
>special issue of January 30, 1970, revealed: "The search for carbon-
>containing material on the lunar surface is not only a component part
>of the study of the origin and history of the moon, but an important
>step in our understanding of the early stages of chemical evolution
>leading to the origin of life." So it was with keen anticipation that
>rock samples were brought back to the earth and carefully analyzed for
>any traces of life,
Nononononono!!!
They were looking for the carbon, not for life. They wanted the
virgin, uncontaminated carbon that existed at the time of the solar
system's formation. And the found it.
> present or past, but the lack of publicity given
>to the results was a reflection of the disappointment felt by
>advocates of evolution.
You clearly do not understand the subject.
> Still they push on farther, and at even
>greater expense. Why?
Because exploration is what made man what he is today.
> In an article entitled "Future in Space--From
>Moon to Mars," U.S. News & World Report announced: "One of the main
>goals of such an expedition is to search for evidence of life on the
>planet."
Now, in this case they are really looking for life.
--
Bob.
David Schwartz
> For many, Evolution as the origin of man is based on "faith", since
> there is no evidence that human evolved from monkeys .. er.. excuse me
> a common ancestor.
So how do you explain complex biological contrivances? They can't have
been created by an all-powerful being, because an all-powerful being
would have no need for contrivances. (We build cars because we can't
teleport -- the existence of cars is proof we cannot teleport. Cars
are contrivances and evidence of limited power.)
DS
ZeroPoint
Today many scientists can't explain abiogenesis so they prefer to
ignore it. The basic idea of evolution is that all the plant, animal
and human life on this earth had its origin in one-celled life forms
that developed in the sea hundreds of millions of years ago. Though
some profess to believe that a Creator began the process, this is not
true of the majority. Evolutionists contend that the ancestors of man
included both apelike beasts and fish and even a banana. But that is
not what everyone believes.
ZeroPoint
It has come as quite a surprise to some parents when they learned
the extent to which the teaching of evolution permeates the school
courses. They may have taken for granted that, since they believed the
Bible, their children would also accept what the Scriptures say about
God and his creating of the earth and living things upon it. But when
the school puts forth more effort to emphasize evolution than the
parents do to give reasons for belief in creation, it is not difficult
to see which viewpoint will more deeply influence the child. (Prov.
22:6; Deut. 6:4-9) If you are a parent, do you take time at the
beginning of each school term to examine the textbooks that your
children will be using so you know what they are going to be taught?
Doing so would show your deep concern for their welfare. Then, if you
do find that the textbooks advocate evolution, what can you do about
it? You can, of course, tell your child what you believe, and you
should. But, to be truly persuasive, you may find that you need to
read and discuss together certain portions of the school textbook,
making sure that your child understands why the various theories in
support of evolution are in error and what the facts are that support
belief in creation.
An examination of current school textbooks shows that, in the earlier
grades in many localities, any direct mention of the term "evolution"
is rare. But the books may comment on early life forms that they say
developed in the sea "billions of years ago" and "prehistoric"
dinosaurs that lived "millions of years in the past." As the years
pass, more details are given. In support of evolution, they point
prominently to bones that have been unearthed and to fossils of living
things in the rocks. These books also emphasize mutations, or changes
in heredity, coupled with natural selection as the means by which new
species came into existence. Your child may be given the impression
that this has been well established by scientific research, and that,
while he is free to believe in creation if that is what he chooses,
all the facts support evolution. In order to reason clearly on the
matter, your child needs your assistance. He is in the world, exposed
to its viewpoints, so he needs to learn to examine facts, reason
sensibly and draw sound conclusions.--Prov. 5:1, 2.
Sanity's Little Helper
news:4e641a71-2813-49a0...@d5g2000hsc.googlegroups.com to
alt.atheism on 18 Feb 2008:
> Subject: Do You Believe in Evolution or in Creation?
> From: Zhragon <vorl...@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups:
> alt.religion.jehovahs-witn,alt.biology,alt.atheism,alt.talk.creationism
>
>
>
> THE question "Do you believe in evolution or in creation?" is
.. a dishonest one, as there are facts at our disposal, therefore belief
is not a requirement.
Here;'s some reading material, I look forward to your measured critique
of it in your own words:
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/writings/ancestorstale.shtml
ISBN: 0297825038
There are a whole load of references and cites you can follow too. Here
in civilisation (note spelling) we call it "education".
Let us know if you can be bothered, if you can't, then STFU and FOAD.
--
David Silverman D.B.E.
aa #2208
Lord Mayor of Dis
Lawful copyright holder of the term "Earthquack".
The monkeys are loose in the library again. They're gibbbering something
about "Answers In Genesis".
Sanity's Little Helper
news:572835e3-37af-46c0...@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com
to alt.atheism on 18 Feb 2008:
> On Feb 17, 10:03 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Zhragon said the following on 2/17/2008 6:46 PM:
>>
>>
>>
>> > THE question "Do you believe in evolution or in creation?" is more
>> > than a matter of idle curiosity.
>>
>> Depends on what you mean by the word "believe". It's a loaded word,
>> in this context, with connotations of faith.
>
>
> For many, Evolution as the origin of man is based on "faith", since
> there is no evidence that human evolved from monkeys .. er.. excuse me
> a common ancestor.
>
>> Here, this is a better worded
>> answer:
>>
>> I accept that the theory of evolution is the most viable explanation
>> of the observable facts. There are no observable facts for
>> "creation". Or, if there are, those that "believe in creation" refuse
>> to give them.
>>
>
>
> Observable facts are in the context of perception. The same facts you
> claim for evolution can also be used for design.
>
>> > The answer that one gives will be
>> > deeply reflected in his attitude toward his fellowman, his moral
>> > values and his outlook on the future.
>>
>> Not really, no.
>>
>>
>
>
> Yes really. Did you read about the latest school killing, basically
> unheard of in the 60's
> why is that?
>
>
Did you hear about the latest suicide bombing, basically unheard of
until the Christian world began interfering in Middle Eastern affairs?
Why is that?
Lars Eighner
<e42d9205-4a4b-4baf...@62g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>, the
lovely and talented ZeroPoint broadcast on alt.atheism:
This is the most crap I have seen crammed into one paragraph since Colin
Powell presented the "evidence" of Saddam's WMDs to the UN.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner.com
Countdown: 337 days to go.
MarkA
>
>
> It has come as quite a surprise to some parents when they learned
> the extent to which the teaching of evolution permeates the school
> courses.
These are the same parents who would find it surprising that the Earth is
not flat, and the Sun does not revolve around an Earth at the center of
the Universe.
> They may have taken for granted that, since they believed the
> Bible, their children would also accept what the Scriptures say about
> God and his creating of the earth and living things upon it. But when
> the school puts forth more effort to emphasize evolution than the
> parents do to give reasons for belief in creation, it is not difficult
> to see which viewpoint will more deeply influence the child. (Prov.
> 22:6; Deut. 6:4-9)
If you want to cripple your child's ability to think by infecting them
with religious beliefs, that is, unfortunately, your right. Don't expect
the public schools to be your willing accomplice.
> If you are a parent, do you take time at the
> beginning of each school term to examine the textbooks that your
> children will be using so you know what they are going to be taught?
> Doing so would show your deep concern for their welfare. Then, if you
> do find that the textbooks advocate evolution, what can you do about
> it? You can, of course, tell your child what you believe, and you
> should. But, to be truly persuasive, you may find that you need to
> read and discuss together certain portions of the school textbook,
> making sure that your child understands why the various theories in
> support of evolution are in error and what the facts are that support
> belief in creation.
>
IOW, teach them that the mythology of Bronze Age goat herders trumps all
of the scientific progress that has been made in the last 400 years. Then
wonder why they grow up and can't work a job more demanding than chief fry
cook.
> An examination of current school textbooks shows that, in the earlier
> grades in many localities, any direct mention of the term "evolution"
> is rare. But the books may comment on early life forms that they say
> developed in the sea "billions of years ago" and "prehistoric"
> dinosaurs that lived "millions of years in the past." As the years
> pass, more details are given. In support of evolution, they point
> prominently to bones that have been unearthed and to fossils of living
> things in the rocks. These books also emphasize mutations, or changes
> in heredity, coupled with natural selection as the means by which new
> species came into existence. Your child may be given the impression
> that this has been well established by scientific research, and that,
> while he is free to believe in creation if that is what he chooses,
> all the facts support evolution.
Yes, that is correct.
> In order to reason clearly on the
> matter, your child needs your assistance. He is in the world, exposed
> to its viewpoints, so he needs to learn to examine facts, reason
> sensibly and draw sound conclusions.--Prov. 5:1, 2.
Teaching your children to believe fairy tales in preference to science
would be child abuse, IMO. It offends me that the USA is rapidly on its
way to becoming a "3rd world" nation, due, in large part, to the rise of
religious fundamentalism, and anti-intellectualism.
--
MarkA
(My OTHER sig line is clever)
Christopher A. Lee
<elv...@noshpam.org> wrote:
>
>Did you hear about the latest suicide bombing, basically unheard of
>until the Christian world began interfering in Middle Eastern affairs?
>Why is that?
It's Jabriol, he orgasmed as he gloated over it.
Christopher A. Lee
Yet more in-you-face mindless stupidity by the nym-shifting, cowardly
psychopath who encourages people to commit suicide, and who orgasms as
Christopher A. Lee
<use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>In our last episode,
><e42d9205-4a4b-4baf...@62g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>, the
>lovely and talented ZeroPoint broadcast on alt.atheism:
>
>
>> Today many scientists can't explain abiogenesis so they prefer to
>> ignore it. The basic idea of evolution is that all the plant, animal
>> and human life on this earth had its origin in one-celled life forms
>> that developed in the sea hundreds of millions of years ago. Though
>> some profess to believe that a Creator began the process, this is not
>> true of the majority. Evolutionists contend that the ancestors of man
>> included both apelike beasts and fish and even a banana. But that is
>> not what everyone believes.
>
>This is the most crap I have seen crammed into one paragraph since Colin
>Powell presented the "evidence" of Saddam's WMDs to the UN.
It's the net.psychopath Jabriol again.
He's too stupid to hide himself properly.
He should have used a different id than zod...@gmail.com
Budikka666
him in promoting yet another of his Jehovah's Witness projects.
Budikka
Christopher A. Lee
<zod...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> It has come as quite a surprise to some parents when they learned
>the extent to which the teaching of evolution permeates the school
>courses.
The in-your-face net.psychopath who encourages suicide in depression
groups "because natural selection tells them to", who gloats over the
result and orgasms over workplace shootings, posts yet more
cut'n'paste deliberate falsehoods.
Do you deliberately give yourself away to feed your hatred for
yourself, your wife, your daughter, the JWs, the rest of the world
and above all you yourself, on the responses?
Elmer
> Today many scientists can't explain abiogenesis so they prefer to
> ignore it. The basic idea of evolution is that all the plant, animal
> and human life on this earth had its origin in one-celled life forms
> that developed in the sea hundreds of millions of years ago.
Bzzt. Wrong. Evolution is defined as the heritable genetic change in
reproducing populations over time. The fossil record and DNA simply are
observations that confirm this definition.
> Though
> some profess to believe that a Creator began the process, this is not
> true of the majority. Evolutionists contend that the ancestors of man
> included both apelike beasts and fish and even a banana. But that is
> not what everyone believes.
The belief doesn't matter unless it is supported by the evidence.
Mark K. Bilbo
e42d9205-4a4b-4baf...@62g2000hsn.googlegroups.com,
ZeroPoint <zod...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Today many scientists can't explain abiogenesis so they prefer to
> ignore it.
You lie.
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
Theology: The study of elaborate verbal disguises for non-ideas.
Christopher A. Lee
<gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 02:31:59 -0800 in
>e42d9205-4a4b-4baf...@62g2000hsn.googlegroups.com,
>ZeroPoint <zod...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Today many scientists can't explain abiogenesis so they prefer to
>> ignore it.
>
>You lie.
It's Jabriol. What do you expect?
Michelle Malkin
"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:88485e33-a06a-4e52...@62g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
Köi-Lö, Zhragon, and ZeroPoint are all Jabriol. Congrats on joining
him in promoting yet another of his Jehovah's Witness projects.
Budikka
Already plonked.
Anthony Wilson
> >It's a Jabriol cut'n'paste. He gave himself away in a different thread
> >using his standard paranoid bsessive nastiness.
> >
> >And then defended himself using the same paranoid obsessive nastiness
> >calling himself Koi-Lo.
>
> The name of a carp species that he employs to destroy the
> alt.rec.ponds group.
This idiot Jabriol can't live forever. He's not immortal. Maybe something
will happen to him.
Mark K. Bilbo
s6ajr313575pm10hp...@4ax.com, Christopher A. Lee
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
Pathological lying of course. If Jabbers couldn't lie, he'd have nothing
to say...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
“The larger the mob, the harder the test....when the
field is nationwide...then all the odds are on the man
who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre--
the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the
notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.
“The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men.
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more
and more closely, the inner soul of the people.
“We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and
glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their
heart's desire at last, and the White House will be
adorned by a downright moron.”
- H. L. Mencken
Christopher A. Lee
<gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:49:24 -0500 in
>s6ajr313575pm10hp...@4ax.com, Christopher A. Lee
><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 09:24:54 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 02:31:59 -0800 in
>>>e42d9205-4a4b-4baf...@62g2000hsn.googlegroups.com,
>>>ZeroPoint <zod...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Today many scientists can't explain abiogenesis so they prefer to
>>>> ignore it.
>>>
>>>You lie.
>>
>> It's Jabriol. What do you expect?
>
>Pathological lying of course. If Jabbers couldn't lie, he'd have nothing
>to say...
He'd still find another way of expressing his hatred for the JWs, his
family, the rest of the world and most of all himself.
Knowing what we do about the JWs, the hold they have over members,
their rules about sex etc we can probably guess what he would have to
say.
MarkA
>
> Today many scientists can't explain abiogenesis so they prefer to
> ignore it.
The field of abiogenesis continues to fascinate both scientists and
intelligent lay people alike. Like all the dark corners of human
scientific knowledge, it will eventually give up its secrets to those
bright enough and curious enough to tease them out.
> The basic idea of evolution is that all the plant, animal
> and human life on this earth had its origin in one-celled life forms
> that developed in the sea hundreds of millions of years ago. Though
> some profess to believe that a Creator began the process, this is not
> true of the majority. Evolutionists contend that the ancestors of man
> included both apelike beasts and fish and even a banana. But that is
> not what everyone believes.
Idiots like you prefer to believe that it happened "by magic", and that is
explanation enough.
Paul Hands
> THE question "Do you believe in evolution or in creation?" is more
> deeply reflected in his attitude toward his fellowman, his moral
> values and his outlook on the future.
>
> Darwin. But, following publication, in 1859, of his book The Origin of
> Species, the supporters of the idea have greatly increased in number.
> In those lands where considerable emphasis is placed on "science," the
> teaching of evolution holds a prominent place in school textbooks. It
> is introduced in the early grades, and repeated and enlarged upon year
> after year.
>
> It is the desire to find more evidence for this teaching that has
> also been a prime moving force in the exorbitantly expensive space
> exploits of the nations. To NASA's planning chief, Wernher von Braun,
> the flight of Apollo 11 was "nothing less than a step in human
> evolution comparable to the time when life on earth emerged from the
> sea and established itself on land." And Science magazine, in its
> special issue of January 30, 1970, revealed: "The search for carbon-
> containing material on the lunar surface is not only a component part
> of the study of the origin and history of the moon, but an important
> step in our understanding of the early stages of chemical evolution
> leading to the origin of life." So it was with keen anticipation that
> rock samples were brought back to the earth and carefully analyzed for
> to the results was a reflection of the disappointment felt by
> greater expense. Why? In an article entitled "Future in Space--From
> Moon to Mars," U.S. News & World Report announced: "One of the main
> goals of such an expedition is to search for evidence of life on the
> planet."
What a devastatingly pointless and dull post.
Evolution doesn't require belief : it's a science. The facts are
objectively verifiable.
Creationism is a load of disjointed, non-factual drivel based on the
medieval maunderings of a bunch of illiterate and innumerate morons.
SkyEyes
> Today many scientists can't explain abiogenesis so they prefer to
> ignore it. The basic idea of evolution is that all the plant, animal
> and human life on this earth had its origin in one-celled life forms
> that developed in the sea hundreds of millions of years ago.
Well, the origin of the original single cells *might* have been in the
sea; or it *might* have been on ice - possibly methane ice; or it
*might* have been in moist clay sediments; or perhaps abiogenesis
happened off-planet and microbes came her via space debris or comets.
We just don't know yet.
> Though
> some profess to believe that a Creator began the process, this is not
> true of the majority. Evolutionists contend that the ancestors of man
> included both apelike beasts and fish and even a banana. But that is
> not what everyone believes.
What "everyone believes" has nothing to do with anything. The
important thing is *what the data points to*.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Cary Kittrell
> On Feb 18, 3:31=A0am, ZeroPoint <zodr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > =A0 =A0 Today many scientists can't explain abiogenesis so they prefer to
> > ignore it. The basic idea of evolution is that all the plant, animal
> > and human life on this earth had its origin in one-celled life forms
> > that developed in the sea hundreds of millions of years ago.
>
> Well, the origin of the original single cells *might* have been in the
> sea; or it *might* have been on ice - possibly methane ice; or it
> *might* have been in moist clay sediments; or perhaps abiogenesis
> happened off-planet and microbes came her via space debris or comets.
Or deep-sea thermal vents or deep subsurface rock or thermal
springs or the more remote sections of some bachelor alien's
refrigerator.
>
> We just don't know yet.
>
> > Though
> > some profess to believe that a Creator began the process, this is not
> > true of the majority. Evolutionists contend that the ancestors of man
> > included both apelike beasts and fish and even a banana. But that is
> > not what everyone believes.
>
> What "everyone believes" has nothing to do with anything. The
> important thing is *what the data points to*.
Not so fast! I want to hear more about the ancestral banana.
-- cary
Darrell Stec
Well, there was this mommy banana and a daddy banana.......
>
> -- cary
--
Later,
Darrell Stec dar...@neo.rr.com
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Feb 18, 3:31 am, ZeroPoint <zodr...@gmail.com> wrote:
In other words a Jabriol sock puppet.
>> Today many scientists can't explain abiogenesis so they prefer to
>> ignore it. The basic idea of evolution is that all the plant, animal
>> and human life on this earth had its origin in one-celled life forms
>> that developed in the sea hundreds of millions of years ago.
>
>Well, the origin of the original single cells *might* have been in the
>sea; or it *might* have been on ice - possibly methane ice; or it
>*might* have been in moist clay sediments; or perhaps abiogenesis
>happened off-planet and microbes came her via space debris or comets.
It's even been done in the lab by heating amino acids to produce
thermal proteins and subjecting the residue in salt water.
Two perfectly natural processes: heat from sunlight, geothermal or any
other source. Salt water commonly known as sea water.
Which the net.psychopath already knows because it has been pointed out
to him many times previously.
The intro:
http://www.theharbinger.org/xv/970527/index.html
The full story:
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html
>We just don't know yet.
But we do know that nothing has been found which requires any god.
>> Though
>> some profess to believe that a Creator began the process, this is not
>> true of the majority. Evolutionists contend that the ancestors of man
>> included both apelike beasts and fish and even a banana. But that is
>> not what everyone believes.
>
>What "everyone believes" has nothing to do with anything. The
>important thing is *what the data points to*.
These idiots imagine scientific explanations were plucked out of thin
air just like their beliefs, in an attempt to deny their pretend
friend.
Bolo MarkXXVI
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 02:35:51 -0800, ZeroPoint wrote:
>
>>
>> It has come as quite a surprise to some parents when they learned
>> the extent to which the teaching of evolution permeates the school
>> courses.
>
> These are the same parents who would find it surprising that the Earth is
> not flat, and the Sun does not revolve around an Earth at the center of
> the Universe.
>
Really? and they are the ones voting for a president.
>> They may have taken for granted that, since they believed the
>> Bible, their children would also accept what the Scriptures say about
>> God and his creating of the earth and living things upon it. But when
>> the school puts forth more effort to emphasize evolution than the
>> parents do to give reasons for belief in creation, it is not difficult
>> to see which viewpoint will more deeply influence the child. (Prov.
>> 22:6; Deut. 6:4-9)
>
> If you want to cripple your child's ability to think by infecting them
> with religious beliefs, that is, unfortunately, your right. Don't expect
> the public schools to be your willing accomplice.
>
Ah yes, the public school system is to enable children to thinks.
Not according to the following site:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1500338
Next you are going to claim all the dummies are Christians.
> IOW, teach them that the mythology of Bronze Age goat herders trumps all
> of the scientific progress that has been made in the last 400 years. Then
> wonder why they grow up and can't work a job more demanding than chief fry
> cook.
>
Does it matter? You teach them evolution and science and kids are still
dumb.
>
> Teaching your children to believe fairy tales in preference to science
> would be child abuse, IMO. It offends me that the USA is rapidly on its
> way to becoming a "3rd world" nation, due, in large part, to the rise of
> religious fundamentalism, and anti-intellectualism.
>
I see so the dummies are "christians". Well you can move elsewhere like
Darfour.
Killiam
"DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:n6KdnfdU85WLiSTa...@comcast.com...
> Köi-Lö said the following on 2/17/2008 8:21 PM:
>> On Feb 17, 11:13 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> .
>>> Except that there is. There's a whole slew of evidence. From Homo
>>> sapiens to Homo erectus to Homo ergaster to Homo/Australopithecus
>>> habilis (it's debatable whether habilis is a member of the Homo genus or
>>> the Australopithecus genus) to Australopithecus garhi...
>>>
>>> .
>>
>> Each could have been designed and the replaced with a better design by
>> terraformers.
>
> You'll have to provide evidence for that assertion. Currently, the theory
> of evolution is the best explanation we have for what we're seeing.
>
> If you have different evidence, by all means, supply it.
All Jabber's aka Köi-Lö's evidence comes from the Watchtower Society rags
and pro-creation websites. He's never produced one shred of evidence and
always runs away when asked to produce!
>
> --
> ****************************************************
> * DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
> *--------------------------------------------------*
> * "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act *
> * of the whole American people which declared that *
> * their legislature should make no law respecting *
> * an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the *
> * free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of *
> * separation between church and state." *
> * --Thomas Jefferson, 1802 *
> ****************************************************
M.M. Martinson
"Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alw...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:9d338439-3314-40fc...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Probably because the USA is heading towards a violent intollerant
country of hate. Wanna compare crime rates and church attendance with
some other country? It's not a pretty picture.
In the 60s in the US, there was a greater tolerance of variant world
views and less fundamental christian sects. And less kids with guns.
You'll never get the fundies to believe this. They say it's all going to
hell in a handbasket because the bible says so. It's what Jesus said would
happen. They don't look at and can't see anything else.
Bolo MarkXXVI
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 02:35:51 -0800 (PST), ZeroPoint
> <zod...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> It has come as quite a surprise to some parents when they learned
>> the extent to which the teaching of evolution permeates the school
>> courses.
>
> The in-your-face net.psychopath who encourages suicide in depression
> groups "because natural selection tells them to", who gloats over the
> result and orgasms over workplace shootings, posts yet more
> cut'n'paste deliberate falsehoods.
>
>
People who commit suicide and who are depressed have physiological
problems with their brain. Before advance medicine, societies would just
kill them off. This has biological function, no more "retard" in the
gene pool. The Spartan did it. The German did it. In fact Germany is
stable today because of it. Many tribes and cultures have rites of
passage for the young, either they survived or die, in in the US of A
this is reflected in high school hazing and gang initiation rites all
evolved traits to weed out the sick and weak and to conserve resources
for those who can use it. As for "natural selection" telling people to
kill themselves, many not be far off scientifically. Society still make
it hard for "retards" to live a normal life today. It could be there is
a genetic triger for these people to off themselves. Maybe a gene.
The future will tell.
Bolo MarkXXVI
orms
>
> Well, the origin of the original single cells *might* have been in the
> sea; or it *might* have been on ice - possibly methane ice; or it
> *might* have been in moist clay sediments; or perhaps abiogenesis
> happened off-planet and microbes came her via space debris or comets.
>
> We just don't know yet.
>
Don't you find it intriguing, that things "we just don't know" are
thought as hard core science facts?
Bolo MarkXXVI
>
> Not so fast! I want to hear more about the ancestral banana.
>
>
> -- cary
>
Humans share 50% gegenetic material with Bananas, making Bananas a close
relative. Hence People are fruits.
Bolo MarkXXVI
> It's even been done in the lab by heating amino acids to produce
> thermal proteins and subjecting the residue in salt water.
>
> Two perfectly natural processes: heat from sunlight, geothermal or any
> other source. Salt water commonly known as sea water.
>
You should read a science journal. The miller experiments were a failure.
Killiam
"Lars Eighner" <use...@larseighner.com> wrote in message
news:slrnfrisbd....@debranded.larseighner.com...
> In our last episode,
> <e42d9205-4a4b-4baf...@62g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>, the
> lovely and talented ZeroPoint broadcast on alt.atheism:
>
>
>> ignore it. The basic idea of evolution is that all the plant, animal
>> and human life on this earth had its origin in one-celled life forms
>> some profess to believe that a Creator began the process, this is not
>> true of the majority. Evolutionists contend that the ancestors of man
>> included both apelike beasts and fish and even a banana. But that is
>> not what everyone believes.
>
> Powell presented the "evidence" of Saddam's WMDs to the UN.
That's because Jabbers, aka ZeroPoint got it from the Watchtower
pro-creation literature. It's from the cult's CDs.
>
>
> --
> Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner.com
> Countdown: 337 days to go.
Ralph
"Bolo MarkXXVI" <Conco...@fist.net> wrote in message
news:2Vnuj.6548$N95.1238@trnddc03...
They were? Care to give us a cite on that.
Elmer
Orig Life Evol Biosph. 2008 Jan 19 "A Reassessment of Prebiotic Organic
Synthesis in Neutral Planetary Atmospheres." By Cleaves HJ, Chalmers JH, Lazcano
A, Miller SL, Bada JL. Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of
Washington, Washington, DC, 20015, USA.
The action of an electric discharge on reduced gas mixtures such as H(2)O, CH(4)
and NH(3) (or N(2)) results in the production of several biologically important
organic compounds including amino acids. However, it is now generally held that
the early Earth's atmosphere was likely not reducing, but was dominated by N(2)
and CO(2). The synthesis of organic compounds by the action of electric
discharges on neutral gas mixtures has been shown to be much less efficient. We
show here that contrary to previous reports, significant amounts of amino acids
are produced from neutral gas mixtures. The low yields previously reported
appear to be the outcome of oxidation of the organic compounds during hydrolytic
workup by nitrite and nitrate produced in the reactions. The yield of amino
acids is greatly increased when oxidation inhibitors, such as ferrous iron, are
added prior to hydrolysis. Organic synthesis from neutral atmospheres may have
depended on the oceanic availability of oxidation inhibitors as well as on the
nature of the primitive atmosphere itself. The results reported here suggest
that endogenous synthesis from neutral atmospheres may be more important than
previously thought.
Ralph
Only by ignorant creationists.
Cary Kittrell
But then again, what Christopher pointed us to were not the Miller/Urey
experiments.
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
It would be more than odd, if anyone actually did that.
After reading several books and numerous magazine articles
on current work in abiogenesis, I have yet to see anything
in the field declared a "hard core science fact".
-- cary
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Where did you demonstrate that any are?
All abiogenesis means, is "life fwhere there wasn't life before".
It is a parsimonious, 100% accurate label of a field being
investigated.
Cary Kittrell
They were hardly a failure in terms of the original objective,
which could expressed as "Let's see if anything happens". Rather
a few intresting and unexpected things happened.
But a certain mystique regarding the results has grown up in the
minds of people who really don't understand the experiment
and its outcome. And every book I've read on the subject
is quick to point out not only the significance of
the work, but also the limited nature of the results and
the inflated picture of the experimets that has diffused
into the popular mind.
-- cary
M.M. Martinson
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:6jko85-...@75-104-212-218.cust.wildblue.net...
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 02:31:59 -0800 in
> e42d9205-4a4b-4baf...@62g2000hsn.googlegroups.com,
> ZeroPoint <zod...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ignore it.
>
You expected the truth from jabbers?
>
> --
> Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
> EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Theology: The study of elaborate verbal disguises for non-ideas.
Kathy
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:bd1jr39to022nh3or...@4ax.com...
> It's the net.psychopath Jabriol again.
>
> He's too stupid to hide himself properly.
>
> He should have used a different id than zod...@gmail.com
After awhile you can spot the nyms and the types of nyms he uses.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
Where did I mention them, moron?
You should read a science journal.
Abiogenesis research has shown amino acids and peptides forming
naturally under a wide variety of conditions.
None of which require divine intervention.
It is irrelevant that what it is now thought that Miller and Urey's
idea of the primitive athmosphere was wrong.
It is just one of the many situations in which it happened.
Perfectly naturally.
With no divine intervention.
You really should read a science journal before embarrassing yourself.
Did you even bother to read the links I gave you?
Describing the generation of simple proto cells using ordinary,
natural processes?
With no divine intervention.
Michael Gray
It is going to hell-in-a-handbasket BECAUSE of Christian Dogma that is
being taken advantage of by the major corporate pirates.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
I thought JW pro-creation literature said "Thou shalt only have sex
with your wife and then only when you want her to have a child. Thou
shalt use no other position than the missionary one and thou shalt
make sure neither of you gettest any pleasure from it".
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
And even when it's a new one he still posts the same JW drek, the same
orgasmic gloating over school etc shootings or the same rants about
the same people he hates.
Kathy
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 22:47:08 -0800 (PST), Andre Lieven
> <andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 17, 10:21 pm, "Köi-Lö" <ReelMc...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>>> On Feb 17, 10:10 pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> > What "teaching", moron?
>>>
>>> > Science ain't scripture.
>>>
>>> Ad-homined? the argument is lost, your argument. I understand you are
>>> the resident atheist liar.
>>
>>Pot. Kettle. Deep Black.
>>
>>You just busted *yourself*. <Laughs>
>
> He always busts himself. Every time he changes nyms he repeats the
> same paranoid obsessions.
>
> I don't know why I'm one of his targets.
You're one of his targets because you had the guts to tell him what you
think of him. Because you know what he is. He can't handle that. He wants
everyone to think he's really a nice guy deep down. If he finds out where
you live he'll post the info here on Usenet and accuse you of all manner of
sex crimes. He's done it to my husband and myself and who knows how many
other people on Usenet.
>
>>> Why is that?
>>
>>Because telling lies about science is not only stupid, but goes
>>against
>>biblical injunctions to not lie.
>>
>>HTH.
>>
>>Andre
>
Kathy
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:19:38 -0800 (PST), "Köi-Lö"
> <Reel...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
>>Common Jerk, lie some more and entertain us.
>
> Oh, the irony.
Unless he learned his lesson you can expect some disgusting lesbian and
bestiality porn in your email. He'll then accuse you of being a porn addict.
In his sick feverish mind he'll believe what he says because he knows you
have the porn he sent you. He's a psycho case and a dangerous person. He's
crazy!
Bolo MarkXXVI
Amazon.com: Miller/Urey experiment proves that life evolved... or ...To
sum it up, the Miller/Urey experiment was a failure, and Miller was well
aware of its failings before he recently passed away. ...
www.amazon.com/tag/science/forum?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=FxZ58KVEERYS5E&cdThread=Tx3L6XAPNOEXZJU
Bolo MarkXXVI
I see so, those who teach in school are creationist. I thought there was
a law against this.
Bolo MarkXXVI
I see, so you are saying was started by a creator, or maybe it came from
time traveling borg.
Kathy
"Michael Gray" <mike...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:vtjir3d89ufjccn0e...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 02:35:19 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
> <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 04:21:59 GMT, Uncle Vic <add...@withheld.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>One fine day in alt.atheism, Zhragon <vorl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> THE question "Do you believe in evolution or in creation?"
>>>
>>>You're asking atheists in an atheist newsgroup? How fucking stupid are
>>>you?
>>
>>It's a Jabriol cut'n'paste. He gave himself away in a different thread
>>using his standard paranoid bsessive nastiness.
>>
>>And then defended himself using the same paranoid obsessive nastiness
>>calling himself Koi-Lo.
>
> The name of a carp species that he employs to destroy the
> alt.rec.ponds group.
He used a lot of socks to destroy the pond group. He also used anonymous
remailers and something called Hipcrime. He impersonated other posters using
their nyms. He had help from at least two other mentally unstable JWs... all
out of spite and hate and obsession!
Cary Kittrell
I am? That's rather odd. I could have sworn what I was trying
to say was more like "People who do not understand current
scientific research should refrain from having loud opinions
about it".
Really. I was.
-- cary
Diäbloë *~ ®
"ZeroPoint" <zod...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5f945fd8-13ed-465b...@41g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
Illegal plagiarized WTS literature snipped.
Kathy
"Anthony Wilson" <tw19...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47b9ac09$0$6131$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>> >
>> >It's a Jabriol cut'n'paste. He gave himself away in a different thread
>> >using his standard paranoid bsessive nastiness.
>> >
>> >And then defended himself using the same paranoid obsessive nastiness
>> >calling himself Koi-Lo.
>>
>> The name of a carp species that he employs to destroy the
>> alt.rec.ponds group.
>
> will happen to him.
He's only in his 40s and suffers from Epilepsy, depression, delusions,
sadism, obsessions and who knows how many other mental illnesses. He can
live a long time on the right medication, all paid for by us taxpayers.
Kathy
"Michelle Malkin" <hypa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:_7ednc4EjPCwNiTa...@comcast.com...
>
>
> "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:88485e33-a06a-4e52...@62g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
> Köi-Lö, Zhragon, and ZeroPoint are all Jabriol. Congrats on joining
> him in promoting yet another of his Jehovah's Witness projects.
>
> Budikka
>
> Already plonked.
Like whack-a-mole he'll just pop up with another new sock puppet as fast as
you killfile them.
>
>
Diäbloë *~ ®
NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.204.213.205
X-Trace: trnddc03 1203374687 151.204.213.205 (Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:44:47 EST)
> Cary Kittrell wrote:
>
>>
>> Not so fast! I want to hear more about the ancestral banana.
>>
>>
>> -- cary
>>
>
> Humans share 50% gegenetic material with Bananas, making Bananas a close
> relative. Hence People are fruits.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Ralph wrote:
What kind of cite is that, moron?
A forum anybody who has no idea what they're talking about, can post
to?
Here's a clue: did Miller and Urey see amino acids and peptides
generated using purely natural processes?
Yes or No?
Has this been observed under such a wide variety of conditions that
biochemists and others working in the field conclude it is
inevitable?
Yes or No?
Did you even bother to follow the links to Sidney Fox and the
protocells generated by natural processes with no divine intervention?
Yes or No?
Are you proud of your wilful ignorance and your inability to read for
comprehension?
Yes or MNo?
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Cary Kittrell wrote:
Where did he say that, liar?
curtjester1
> THE question "Do you believe in evolution or in creation?" is more
> than a matter of idle curiosity. The answer that one gives will be
> deeply reflected in his attitude toward his fellowman, his moral
> values and his outlook on the future.
>
> Belief in evolution is not new; it did not originate with Charles
> Darwin. But, following publication, in 1859, of his book The Origin of
> Species, the supporters of the idea have greatly increased in number.
> In those lands where considerable emphasis is placed on "science," the
> teaching of evolution holds a prominent place in school textbooks. It
> is introduced in the early grades, and repeated and enlarged upon year
> after year.
>
> It is the desire to find more evidence for this teaching that has
> also been a prime moving force in the exorbitantly expensive space
> exploits of the nations. To NASA's planning chief, Wernher von Braun,
> the flight of Apollo 11 was "nothing less than a step in human
> evolution comparable to the time when life on earth emerged from the
> sea and established itself on land." And Science magazine, in its
> special issue of January 30, 1970, revealed: "The search for carbon-
> containing material on the lunar surface is not only a component part
> of the study of the origin and history of the moon, but an important
> step in our understanding of the early stages of chemical evolution
> leading to the origin of life." So it was with keen anticipation that
> rock samples were brought back to the earth and carefully analyzed for
> any traces of life, present or past, but the lack of publicity given
> to the results was a reflection of the disappointment felt by
> advocates of evolution. Still they push on farther, and at even
> greater expense. Why? In an article entitled "Future in Space--From
> Moon to Mars," U.S. News & World Report announced: "One of the main
> goals of such an expedition is to search for evidence of life on the
> planet."
I believe in creation because of all the complexity that life forms
have, and the necessity to have all the functional parts to survive
because without them they wouldn't have survived much less developed.
If life arises on it's own without any 'dabbling' then we should see
that. We should see a little minute thing turning into a little bitty
thing..turning into. We should see it often and in abundance.
Evolution fails at this. As far as Evolution entails, I don't know
exactly what it is..or how it's defined. I like to think of change as
just diversity, and to define how far that goes...is where science can
be helpful if not bent on wanting to see stuff and get overly excited
about stuff that is heavy into speculation than it is just proving one
step at a time. Of course since the evolutionist doesn't do well at
the beginning....they tend to go backwards. For now, my money is on a
Creator creating bugs different and having a leg, that's not related
to say a giraffe's leg. Of course if one trust's in the Bible in
toto, then it's easier to accept that there are 'divisions' in life
that had boundaries.
CJ
Ips-Switch
"Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:fpd2b8$9g1$1...@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
He's just parroting the Witchpower's, ....er,... Watchtower's stance on it.
>
> -- cary
>
>
Ips-Switch
"Bolo MarkXXVI" *IS* JABRIOL/Jehovahs Witness<Conco...@jerkingfist.net>
wrote in message news:XOnuj.6544$N95.5258@trnddc03...
Notice how Jabriol calls the mentally challenged "retards." Reminds me of
his calling bi-racial children "banana eating black bastard human wannabes."
And this from a self proclaimed fundamentalist Christian Jehovah's Witness
who gets to live in the Watchtower paradise forever as his reward.
>
> People who commit suicide and who are depressed have physiological
> problems with their brain. Before advance medicine, societies would just
> kill them off. This has biological function, no more "retard" in the gene
> pool. The Spartan did it. The German did it. In fact Germany is stable
> today because of it. Many tribes and cultures have rites of passage for
> the young, either they survived or die, in in the US of A
> this is reflected in high school hazing and gang initiation rites all
> evolved traits to weed out the sick and weak and to conserve resources for
> those who can use it. As for "natural selection" telling people to kill
> themselves, many not be far off scientifically. Society still make it hard
> for "retards" to live a normal life today. It could be there is a genetic
> triger for these people to off themselves. Maybe a gene.
> The future will tell.
Free Lunch
Michael <news...@orneveien.org> wrote in
<pan.2008.02.19....@orneveien.org>:
>On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:46:01 -0800, Zhragon wrote:
>
>> "Do you believe in evolution or in creation?"
>
Theistic evolution?
Christopher A. Lee
Do they copyright it?
Most fundy organisations want their bullshit to be disseminated as far
and wide as possible.
Pastor Dave
<curtj...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
The religion of evolution takes a lot more faith than
I have, that's for sure! :)
There are six kinds of evolution. But only one has
been proved and that is microevolution. For example,
we have a variety of birds today and they probably
all came from a common ancestor. A bird.
Macroevolution, meaning one kind from another
(man from ape, birds from dinos, etc.), has never
once been observed and there is no such thing as
a chain of fossils showing one kind turning into
another kind and anyone who says one does exist,
is lying, or ignorant of the subject, period.
Question evolutionists and make them show you
the proof. You will keep getting circular arguments
and them demanding that you "prove that it could
not have happened". <chuckle>
--
O
/
/
<><[]()X()[]><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>
\
\
O
I know God won't give me anything I can't handle.
I just wish He didn't trust me so much.
Free Lunch
Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote in
<ssakr3hnrtokkm2f9...@4ax.com>:
Two lies in one sentence. Congratulations on showing your hypocrisy.
>There are six kinds of evolution. But only one has
>been proved and that is microevolution.
What hogwash. First, tell me exactly what the 'six kinds of evolution
are', then explain why you claim that five of them are false.
>For example,
>we have a variety of birds today and they probably
>all came from a common ancestor. A bird.
They came from dinosaurs.
Of course all mammals are roughly as similar to each other as all birds.
>Macroevolution, meaning one kind from another
>(man from ape, birds from dinos, etc.),
Men and other great apes are no more different from each other than the
various raptors are from each other. You admit that all birds share a
common ancestry, you are engaging in special pleading to assert that
humans don't share a common ancestry with other great apes.
>has never
>once been observed and there is no such thing as
>a chain of fossils showing one kind turning into
>another kind and anyone who says one does exist,
>is lying, or ignorant of the subject, period.
You lie when you demand a special form of evidence called 'observed'
when there is plenty of other evidence that supports it.
>Question evolutionists and make them show you
>the proof. You will keep getting circular arguments
>and them demanding that you "prove that it could
>not have happened". <chuckle>
You keep demanding proof, even though scientists have tried to get you
to understand that they use evidence. It's almost as if you are
intentionally misleading, again.