Without Abiogenesis Proved One Cannot Convert

[biblear...@hotmail.com]

Abiogenesis simply never went past amino acids being created in a
lab.

At one time the naturalists believe that abiogenesis was true because
maggots came out of meat and rats came out of wheat. Also, some of
these naturalists read up on ancient Greek philosophers who made such
speculations.

The trouble is found in the fact that scientists with Ph.D's are
having difficulties in proving abiogenesis in their labs. However, if
it's hard for Ph.D's to produce life, why is it supposedly easy for
non-intelligent matter to create life out of itself?

In the past, when I have brought up this issue, some would post
replies containing links to journals which report that scientists have
supposedly created life. The fine notes however state that preexisting
genetic material was used. And this is true in EVERY case. Please read
your articles carefully before you respond. Make sure preexisting
genetic material is not used.

So therein is the problem and the prime reason as to why many, and one
such as myself, will not convert. It's just a matter of the facts.
The most primitive cell is much too complicated for even scientists to
create using current technology. Given this fact it says that are
information and tech savvy must be increased in order to make it
possible to create life. Since inert matter will never have the
capability as possessed by intelligence, it only adds to the extreme
doubt.

[Burkhard]

On 1 Sep, 21:16, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Abiogenesis simply never went past amino acids being created in a
> lab.
>
> At one time the naturalists believe that abiogenesis was true because
> maggots came out of meat and rats came out of wheat.

actually, the idea is much older than that, and was at some time
promoted by several theologians of the Christian Chruch (they hoed to
exculpate God from creating nasty stuff like maggots. Examples are
e.g. Augustine of Hippo (interpreting Genesis 1:20) Gerald of Wales ,
Theophrastus and Origines.

Also, some of
> these naturalists read up on ancient Greek philosophers who made such
> speculations.
>
> The trouble is found in the fact that scientists with Ph.D's are
> having difficulties in proving abiogenesis in their labs. However, if
> it's hard for Ph.D's to produce life, why is it supposedly easy for
> non-intelligent matter to create life out of itself?

Yeah, how can these naturalists claim that soemthing as mindless as
gravity can destroy an egg if it falls to the ground, when no PhD
scientists can recreate an egg from the shattered cells. Or how can
they claim that sex causes pregnancy, when they can't cerate babies in
petri dishes

> In the past, when I have brought up this issue, some would post
> replies containing links to journals which report that scientists have
> supposedly created life. The fine notes however state that preexisting
> genetic material was used.

Only for convenience sake, as it was already shown that these too can
(and have been) produced in the lab

And this is true in EVERY case. Please read
> your articles carefully before you respond. Make sure preexisting
> genetic material is not used.
>
> So therein is the problem and the prime reason as to why many, and one
> such as myself, will not convert.

Seems like a dangerous idea indicative of weak spiritual capacities,
to tie your belief to our current scientific knowledge. Me, my
metaphysics woudl not change a bit if �tomorrow, Venter makes a
complete bear from scratch

[biblear...@hotmail.com]

I disagree. While it is true that some Christians are weak in the
faith and compromised Genesis with abiogenesis and evolution, many
have not. These people lacked faith in that they feared that
abiogenesis and evolution were true and thus formulated compromises.
They lacked the courage to examine the evidence and to scrutinize
objectively.

When one examines evidence one should be scrupulous. One should be
scrupulous in examining all evidence for abiogenesis and evolution.
One should be critical. Now, in hindsight it's easy to see how the
evidence is weak for both ideas and that there is plenty of room for
chicanery. In fact, much chicanery has been exposed. It turns out
that the neanderthal specimen, in every case, had their teeth not in
proper occlusion. This was done to make them more primitive in
look.

An idea that is true must be true in fact also. The Bible being true
must align itself with the facts.

Myself, I will follow the facts. I don't have to fear the reality for
whatever reality is. If the reality was evolution I would be an
evolutionist (like I used to be).
If abiogenesis actually worked and was as simple as Darwin and Haeckel
conceived, I would probably be an atheist. But the fact being the
case, with our knowledge of physics, biology, genetics, and many other
fields - it is not possible for me to be an atheist. Plus I'm immersed
in design and intellect. Everyday I experience the difficulties in
design construction. It takes intelligence to construct things and
the moment that I leave anything to chance something goes wrong. Even
nature and reality rebukes me into being into intelligent design. You
cannot leave anything alone. Reality is harsh. Even not checking and
rechecking my messages leads to error. Much thought and concentration
are essential to good design as well as to accurate messages. If I
don't exercise intellect typos occur. If I don't use my intellect
something aways goes awry. Reality forces me to be a creationist and
does so in a very harsh way.




>
> �It's just a matter of the facts.

[raven1]

On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 08:59:23 -0700 (PDT), biblear...@hotmail.com
wrote:

>> Seems like a dangerous idea indicative of weak spiritual capacities,
>> to tie your belief to our current scientific knowledge. Me, my
>> metaphysics woudl not change a bit if �tomorrow, Venter makes a
>> complete bear from scratch
>
>I disagree. While it is true that some Christians are weak in the
>faith and compromised Genesis with abiogenesis and evolution, many
>have not. These people lacked faith in that they feared that
>abiogenesis and evolution were true and thus formulated compromises.
>They lacked the courage to examine the evidence and to scrutinize
>objectively.

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. And unless you're claiming
that life always existed, abiogenesis is also a fact. You just differ
with scientists as to whether or not magic was involved.

---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight

[Kalkidas]

biblear...@hotmail.com wrote in news:aaa6ad12-9b9a-4ce0-a3fe-
72cf9c...@f4g2000pbq.googlegroups.com:

> Abiogenesis simply never went past amino acids being created in a
> lab.
>
> At one time the naturalists believe that abiogenesis was true because
> maggots came out of meat and rats came out of wheat. Also, some of
> these naturalists read up on ancient Greek philosophers who made such
> speculations.
>
> The trouble is found in the fact that scientists with Ph.D's are
> having difficulties in proving abiogenesis in their labs. However, if
> it's hard for Ph.D's to produce life, why is it supposedly easy for
> non-intelligent matter to create life out of itself?
>
> In the past, when I have brought up this issue, some would post
> replies containing links to journals which report that scientists have
> supposedly created life. The fine notes however state that preexisting
> genetic material was used. And this is true in EVERY case. Please read
> your articles carefully before you respond. Make sure preexisting
> genetic material is not used.

So what would you consider to be "not" preexisting genetic material?

[eridanus]

El domingo, 2 de septiembre de 2012 17:03:31 UTC+1, (desconocido) escribi�:

The theory of evolution can have some weak points. All scientific
theories have some weak points, or even some errors. This should be
considered normal, for humans are making the science, not the gods.

But what is the reason to believe god exist, other than the brain
washing children are subject to during childhood?
If religion would had been been the result of personal happenstance...
something to come to our mind spontaneously... it would had at least
any sense. But it is not.
Muslims' children become Muslim, and not Buddhist, or Hindus, or
Christians. And the same can be said of Christians or other religions.

Religion is more or less like a mother language. We are taught to
speak the language used at our home when we are kids. And
this is not a miracle either.

Then, why should I think that god exists?
That is not an invention of leaders to control lower class individuals
and slaves? God is a very opportune invention to control people.
The leaders say they they are hearing voices, or that god had appeared
to them in dreams, or just simple talk with them, ordering to do this
or that.

On the other hand, for millenniums the leaders had prosecuted people
that negated the existence of gods, or those that were teaching the
doctrines of foreign gods. Most of the wars had been done in the name
gods.

Then, the existence of god is a lot weaker than the most rawer of the
sciences.
Then, why cannot explain yet how abiogenesis occurred,
or how to replicate it in a laboratory? Perhaps, we do not know yet
enough biochemistry to do it. Or perhaps they are using some
incorrect approach. Perhaps the solution is rather silly, but
scientists were unable to find it.

Someone said here, in this group, that intelligence is the capacity to
solve problems. If this is true, humans have little intelligence. We
have a lot more problems that intelligence to solve them.

To solve problems is the ability of a few particular people; too few
perhaps, that have some knack to reject common assumptions that
had failed, and to think something else. Of course, those that are
so daring incur in the risk of being wrong, it is only normal. But
on occasions the new theories can be rejected by the masters of
science. There are numerous cases that can be read in the history
of science.

Eridanus

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 1 Sep 2012 13:16:42 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by
biblear...@hotmail.com:

I can't convert until I prove abiogenesis?

Guess I'll have to keep my current beliefs, then...

<snip maundering, unfortunately not the Maunder Minimum...>
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 16:45:27 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

>biblear...@hotmail.com wrote in news:aaa6ad12-9b9a-4ce0-a3fe-
>72cf9c...@f4g2000pbq.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Abiogenesis simply never went past amino acids being created in a
>> lab.
>>
>> At one time the naturalists believe that abiogenesis was true because
>> maggots came out of meat and rats came out of wheat. Also, some of
>> these naturalists read up on ancient Greek philosophers who made such
>> speculations.
>>
>> The trouble is found in the fact that scientists with Ph.D's are
>> having difficulties in proving abiogenesis in their labs. However, if
>> it's hard for Ph.D's to produce life, why is it supposedly easy for
>> non-intelligent matter to create life out of itself?
>>
>> In the past, when I have brought up this issue, some would post
>> replies containing links to journals which report that scientists have
>> supposedly created life. The fine notes however state that preexisting
>> genetic material was used. And this is true in EVERY case. Please read
>> your articles carefully before you respond. Make sure preexisting
>> genetic material is not used.
>
>So what would you consider to be "not" preexisting genetic material?

I would suspect that this would be restricted to elements
not found in any organic compound. Plutonium seem a good
candidate, as do the inert elements such as helium.

>> So therein is the problem and the prime reason as to why many, and one
>> such as myself, will not convert. It's just a matter of the facts.
>> The most primitive cell is much too complicated for even scientists to
>> create using current technology. Given this fact it says that are
>> information and tech savvy must be increased in order to make it
>> possible to create life. Since inert matter will never have the
>> capability as possessed by intelligence, it only adds to the extreme
>> doubt.

Yep, inert it is...

[Christopher]

> Myself, I will follow the facts. I don't have to fear the reality for
>
> whatever reality is. If the reality was evolution I would be an
>
> evolutionist (like I used to be).

Was it just the opinion that abiogenesis is improbable that led you to reject evolution as a whole? What other facts do you see as being incomaptible with the theory?

[Slow Vehicle]

On Sep 1, 2:16�pm, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:

<snip>

You are making a fairly common error, thinking you have proven
something by using a word for a specific concept that was repudiated
in the mid-19th century. Whether purposely or not, you are conflating
(and perhaps confusing) "spontaneous generation" (one kind of
abiogenesis", that is, wheat giving rise directly to mice, and rotten
meat giving rise directly to maggots), with 'the origin of life on
earth" (another kind of "abiogenesis", that is, life developing along
a spectrum form "clearly not alive" to "clearly alive", with many
stages along the way).

We know that "spontaneous generation abiogenesis" does not happen--
most of the steps I take canning my chutneys and salsas are there to
prevent the inclusion of living organisms, and their viable
reproductive structures, in the final product, so that the chutney
will not spoil.

We do not know how "the development of life on earth abiogenesis"
happened, but there are several fruitful ideas being pursued, all of
which are subject to experiment and falsification. There is no
evidence at all that that process was supernatural, or the handwork of
some super-being.

When you try to pretend that Pasteur and the boys proved that life on
earth could not have developed form stuff that was not, at some point,
what we would call alive today, by sterilizing beef broth in swan-
necked flasks, you are intentionally using the same term for the
process by which food spoils and the process by which life originated;
and with very little reason so to do.

You are misusing the words in the same kind of contentious way as if I
were to ask you why you claim that god does not have six arms, and
tusks, and a fondness for cacao flowers; since far more people see god
so than buy into your particular personification.

You are welcome to believe "goddidit"; but you should not act as if
you have found the answer, when what you have found is your excuse to
stop looking for an answer, and to mock those who chose to keep
investigating.

[walksalone]

biblear...@hotmail.com wrote in news:4156e9ee-556c-441b-a93b-
d367ff...@kg10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com:

> On Sep 1, 5:28�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On 1 Sep, 21:16, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > Abiogenesis simply never went past amino acids being created in a
>> > lab.

snip

> An idea that is true must be true in fact also. The Bible being true
> must align itself with the facts.

& of course, it doesn't. But why should it, as a political justification
for the Jewish religion, iot works. Otherwise, not so much.

> Myself, I will follow the facts. I don't have to fear the reality for
> whatever reality is. If the reality was evolution I would be an
> evolutionist (like I used to be).

eally, where have I heard that setup before? Oh yes, once I was an
atheist.

> If abiogenesis actually worked and was as simple as Darwin and Haeckel
> conceived, I would probably be an atheist. But the fact being the
> case, with our knowledge of physics, biology, genetics, and many other
> fields - it is not possible for me to be an atheist. Plus I'm immersed

Science has nothing to do with whimsys, fears of the unknown, or much of
anything WRT bleaters, also known devouts.

> in design and intellect. Everyday I experience the difficulties in
> design construction. It takes intelligence to construct things and
> the moment that I leave anything to chance something goes wrong. Even

Mechan ical & electrical things are like that. They want things their
way. If they don't get their way, the fits they throw can be impressive.

> nature and reality rebukes me into being into intelligent design. You
> cannot leave anything alone. Reality is harsh. Even not checking and

But you can, if you are nture.
http://www.teachersdomain.org/asset/tdc02_vid_deepseavents/default/

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/deep-sea-vents-
just-north-of-antarctica-flourish-with-species-never-seen-
before/2011/12/19/gIQAX4NgYP_story.html>

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/10.14/15-vent.html

http://venturedeepocean.org/life/

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/07/deepest-hydrothermal-vent/

<http://scientistatwork.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/leaving-astoria-for-
hydrate-ridge/>

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100202101245.htm

It appears life does just fine without a designer. Why one could almost
say it's miraculous.

> rechecking my messages leads to error. Much thought and concentration
> are essential to good design as well as to accurate messages. If I
> don't exercise intellect typos occur. If I don't use my intellect

Most of us just proof read, or use a spell checker.

> something aways goes awry. Reality forces me to be a creationist and
> does so in a very harsh way.

My condolences.

>> �It's just a matter of the facts.
>>
>>
>>
>> > The most primitive cell is much too complicated for even scientists
to
>> > create using current technology. � Given this fact it says that are

& yet, a primitive cell is not likely to be the first life. Even I am
aware of that.

snip

walksalone who is not a biologist,yet I can understand how life can
develop without a big daddy in the sky type being required. It's
somewhat more tedious than the forming of salt, yet the underlieng
principle works in both cases. No chemicals, no life. No us, no kids,
no nothing that we would recognise.

Religion summed up in one easy song? From the song of Osiris.

Thy fear is set in all the lands by reason of thy perfect love, and they
cry out to thy name making it the first of names, and all people make
offerings to thee. Thou art the lord who art commemorated in heaven and
upon earth.

[Eric Root]

That's exactly backwards; the ones who deny abiogenesis and evolution
are the ones who are weak in the faith.
(snip)

>
> Myself, I will follow the facts. I don't have to fear the reality for
> whatever reality is. If the reality was evolution I would be an
> evolutionist (like I used to be).

That's not true, because the reality is evolution, yet you are
evidently a creationist.

> If abiogenesis actually worked and was as simple as Darwin and Haeckel
> conceived, I would probably be an atheist.

Why? The truth of natural abiogenesis gives no reason to be atheist.
Your faith must be very weak.

> But the fact being the
> case, with our knowledge of physics, biology, genetics, and many other
> fields - it is not possible for me to be an atheist.

Sure, all you have to do is not believe in God.

> Plus I'm immersed
> in design and intellect. Everyday I experience the difficulties in
> design construction. �It takes intelligence to construct things and
> the moment that I leave anything to chance something goes wrong. Even
> nature and reality rebukes me into being into intelligent design. You
> cannot leave anything alone. Reality is harsh. �Even not checking and
> rechecking my messages leads to error. �Much thought and concentration
> are essential to good design as well as to accurate messages. If I
> don't exercise intellect typos occur. If I don't use my intellect
> something aways goes awry.

OK

> Reality forces me to be a creationist and
> does so in a very harsh way.
>

How? That is a very strange way to end the paragraph, having nothing
to do with the rest of the sentences.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > �It's just a matter of the facts.
>
> > > The most primitive cell is much too complicated for even scientists to
> > > create using current technology.

Therefore they weren't created using current tech. So what?

> > > Given this fact it says that are
> > > information and tech savvy must be increased in order to make it
> > > possible to create life.

Prove it.

> > > Since inert matter will never have the
> > > capability as possessed by intelligence, it only adds to the extreme
> > > doubt.

That is garble.

[Devils Advocaat]

On Sep 1, 9:16�pm, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Abiogenesis simply never went past amino acids being created in a
> lab.
>
> At one time the naturalists believe that abiogenesis was true because
> maggots came out of meat and rats came out of wheat. �Also, some of
> these naturalists read up on ancient Greek philosophers who made such
> speculations.

It was actually the Church that accepted this philosophical teaching.

>
> The trouble is found in the fact that scientists with Ph.D's are
> having difficulties in proving abiogenesis in their labs. However, if
> it's hard for Ph.D's to produce life, why is it supposedly easy for
> non-intelligent matter to create life out of itself?

Are you a vitalist?

>
> In the past, when I have brought up this issue, some would post
> replies containing links to journals which report that scientists have
> supposedly created life. The fine notes however state that preexisting
> genetic material was used. And this is true in EVERY case. Please read
> your articles carefully before you respond. Make sure preexisting
> genetic material is not used.

How does the use of pre-existing genetic material invalidate this.

Such self-replicating molecules would have existed before the first
cells.

>
> So therein is the problem and the prime reason as to why many, and one
> such as myself, will not convert. � It's just a matter of the facts.
> The most primitive cell is much too complicated for even scientists to
> create using current technology.

Are you referring to cells alive at this time? If so a better term
would be "simplest".

> Given this fact it says that are
> information and tech savvy must be increased in order to make it
> possible to create life. �Since inert matter will never have the
> capability as possessed by intelligence, it only adds to the extreme
> doubt.

If I remove a gram of carbon from some calcite, a bacterial culture,
and your body, will you find any differences when you compare the
three samples?

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

eridanus wrote:
> El domingo, 2 de septiembre de 2012 17:03:31 UTC+1, (desconocido)
> escribi�:

[quote]

> But what is the reason to believe god exist, other than the brain
> washing children are subject to during childhood?
> If religion would had been been the result of personal happenstance...
> something to come to our mind spontaneously... it would had at least
> any sense. But it is not.

How do you stack that up with the fact that every human race and society
that we know about has a belief in some form of God and practices some form
of religious ritual as far back as we can find out? Even the very earliest
human species seemed to practice some kind of religious rituals.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

biblear...@hotmail.com wrote:

[...]

> An idea that is true must be true in fact also. The Bible being true
> must align itself with the facts.

Agree with you 100%. As Pope Leo XIII put it way back in 1893 in his
Providentissimus Deus encyclical :

"Let them loyally hold that God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, is
also the Author of the Scriptures - and that therefore nothing can be proved
either by physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the
Scriptures. If, then, apparent contradiction be met with, every effort
should be made to remove it. Judicious theologians and commentators should
be consulted as to what is the true or most probable meaning of the passage
in discussion, and the hostile arguments should be carefully weighed. Even
if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the discrepancy seems to
remain, the contest must not be abandoned; truth cannot contradict truth,
and we may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the
interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical discussion itself;
and if no such mistake can be detected, we must then suspend judgment for
the time being."

[...]

[Nick Keighley]

On Sep 3, 9:23�am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > In the past, when I have brought up this issue, some would post
> > replies containing links to journals which report that scientists have
> > supposedly created life. The fine notes however state that preexisting
> > genetic material was used. And this is true in EVERY case. Please read
> > your articles carefully before you respond. Make sure preexisting
> > genetic material is not used.
>
> How does the use of pre-existing genetic material invalidate this.

besides, hasn't ventner already cretaed novel genetic structures (ie.
DNA) from inorganic substrates? Yes to get em to do anything he had to
insert them into bacteria, but the genetic material was not pre-
existing.

They've also synthesised a (polio?) virus

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 3 Sep 2012 11:13:35 +0100, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:

Two points:

There are always mysteries, particularly so in primitive
societies.

Humans look for patterns, and the simplest "pattern" which
explains all the observed mysteries is a being who controls
them. And who, of course, has magnified human
characteristics. All of them, unfortunately.

IMHO, of course...

[Earle Jones]

In article <aajeiu...@mid.individual.net>,

*
That is a much healthier position than that pushed by some.

Bob Jones University says this:

"The Christian teaching of science requires not only a good
command of basic subject matter, but also the spiritual perception
to discern truth from error in a great variety of contexts. As a
prerequisite for this, the Christian teacher of science must be
thoroughly grounded in the Word of God. Moreover, he must have
firmly implanted in his mind a biblical framework of truth which
serves as the touchstone for his decision making. True science
will fit that framework; anything that fails to fit the biblical
framework must be rejected as erroneous."

Pope Leo XIII says that if the science conflicts with the scripture, we
must defer our judgment.

Bob Jones U. says that if the science conflicts with the scripture, we
must conclude the science is wrong.

Quite a difference.

earle
*
(old-earth, old man, atheist, naturally curly hair)

[Earle Jones]

In article <aaje6f...@mid.individual.net>,

"AlwaysAskingQuestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:

> eridanus wrote:
> > El domingo, 2 de septiembre de 2012 17:03:31 UTC+1, (desconocido)

> > escribio:

>
> [quote]
>
> > But what is the reason to believe god exist, other than the brain
> > washing children are subject to during childhood?
> > If religion would had been been the result of personal happenstance...
> > something to come to our mind spontaneously... it would had at least
> > any sense. But it is not.
>
>
> How do you stack that up with the fact that every human race and society
> that we know about has a belief in some form of God and practices some form
> of religious ritual as far back as we can find out? Even the very earliest
> human species seemed to practice some kind of religious rituals.

*
And further, as Prof. Robert Ornstein (Psychology, UC Berkeley) tells
us, in order for a religion to be successful, it must contain in its
fundamental belief system, something that is patently impossible.

It is necessary to "test the faith."

Anyone can believe "Be nice to each other", "Do not kill or steal", but
we all can agree with that. It does not require any faith.

A successful religion requires belief in such things as
life-after-death, virgin birth, magic tablets, a divine messiah (who has
either come already or is on the way). Have you read the wacky beliefs
of Scientology, dreamed up by a science-fiction writer in 1950?

*
Biologist Edward O Wilson (Harvard) attempts to reconcile science and
religion:

"...I had no desire to purge religious feelings. They were bred in
me; they suffused the wellsprings of my creative life. I also
retained a small measure of common sense. To wit, people must
belong to a tribe; they yearn to have a purpose larger than
themselves. We are obliged by the deepest drives of the human
spirit to make ourselves more than animated dust, and we must have
a story to tell about where we came from, and why we are here.
Could Holy Writ be just the first literate attempt to explain the
universe and make ourselves significant within it? Perhaps science
is a continuation on new and better-tested ground to attain the
same end. If so, then in that sense science is religion liberated
and writ large."

Do you like that: "Science is religion liberated and writ large"?

earle
*

[eridanus]

El lunes, 3 de septiembre de 2012 11:18:29 UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions escribi�:

It is very difficult to go back farther than some historical writes. But historical writes, in stone or clay, the most ancient, are related to kingdoms or empires. I can image that stories about communication with the gods, or spirits, can be more ancient than kingdoms and empires. But there is not any problem for a leader to tell, his orders were given by some god, of some feared and powerful ancestor. It is the leaders who had need to invent the gods, with orders favoring the leaders. But I do not see any reason to believe this concept of god, or talking spirits have to have any genetic or evolutionary reason.

the only thing that proves the existence of religions is that humans are susceptible to brain washing. Repeated experiences of the same actions and its probably contingencies made our our conditioned reflexes. Then, our believes are the result either of our experience. This is the way learn everything, from our language, to our certitudes. When I was a kid, I had to memorize the catholic catechism. There was a question that replied "the faith was a gift of god". I do not know from where they picked out this idea.
But if you do not like to think that our knowledge is "mostly" the result of some "operant conditioning". Then, in regard to our tenets, our believes in this or that, is the result of twenty thousand repetitions, as Aldous Huxley said in his novel A Brave New World. This also explains the importance that religious leaders give to "preaching" their messages. Repeat, repeat, repeat. We are no any different to a rat or pigeon of Skinner that had been taught to perform some behavior.

The fact that exists a few atheist, only proves that religious people are not the only ones preaching. That some people, very few, are sensible to some form of reasoning, and "had learned" to be skeptical. That is a skeptical is a person that has learned (this is an operant conditioning as well) that some statements are false. To be skeptical is not the exclusive turf of atheists. Religious people are also incredulous in regard to "other gods" or other doctrines. In some way, religious people are also atheists, to some degree, for they do not believe in the gods of other people.

Total atheist are thus those that do not believe in any god whatever.

Eridanus

[Frank J]

On 1 Sep, 16:16, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Abiogenesis simply never went past amino acids being created in a
> lab.

(snip)

While most of the other "Darwinists" will take the bait, I'll simply
remind readers that it had to go past that *in the wild* at least once
*by definition*. If indeed it did only happen once in a universe, or
even once in ~10^40000 universes, it would be zero problem for
evolution. Unfortunately, with some exceptions, most notably Michael
Behe, people who deny (or pretend to deny) evolution imply that
abiogenesis occurred many, many times. Some of them think it all
happened during one busy week a few 1000 years ago, while others think
it happened periodically over billions of years.

If you think it occurred more than once, the onus is on you to provide
*positive* evidence, not recycle the same old bait-and-switch. And if
you disagree with other evolution deniers on the basic "what happened
when," publicly challenge them. Few behaviors are more cowardly that
playing word games, then running for cover under the big tent.

[Paul J Gans]

You are confusing several different things. First, abiogenesis
has to do with the origin of life. Evolution has to do with the
changes life undergoes over time.

The two have NOTHING to do with each other. Nothing.

Evolution is quite well established both as to facts (observations)
and theory. Abiogenesis is not well established. We simply don't
know enough chemistry for it yet.

We don't even know the details of the earth's environment
when life seems to have first appeared.

Sadly, the abiogenesis debate is tangled up with religion. Some
religions assert that life was created by a supernatural God, and
that's that.

That's not science. Science, if you wish, is a kind of game to
see if we can explain the natural world *without* reference to
supernatural events.

Why? Because supernatural events make things too easy. They can
explain anything. Worse, they are often unique and have no
predictive value.

So science has to deal with abiogenesis. And that's the way it
is. Nobody is going to change science simply to accomodate one
or another religious view. It is impossible to satisfy them all
and in any case, as I said, the supernatural lies outside science.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Tom]

On Monday, September 3, 2012 6:18:27 PM UTC-7, Paul J Gans wrote:
>
> You are confusing several different things. First, abiogenesis
> has to do with the origin of life. Evolution has to do with the
> changes life undergoes over time.
>
> The two have NOTHING to do with each other. Nothing.
>
> Evolution is quite well established both as to facts (observations)
> and theory. Abiogenesis is not well established. We simply don't
> know enough chemistry for it yet.
>
> We don't even know the details of the earth's environment
> when life seems to have first appeared.

It goes even further. We don't even know if it first happened on earth at all. It's possible that life came to earth via comet. It may have originated elsewhere under some very odd conditions that may never have occurred on earth.

http://www.bioresearchonline.com/doc.mvc/Did-life-originate-in-deep-space-0001

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

eridanus wrote:

[...]

> the only thing that proves the existence of religions is that humans
> are susceptible to brain washing.

Just because an idea neatly fits your preconceptions does not mean that it
*proves* anything. If you want to talk in terms of *proof* then you need to
produce some results of actual scientific research that supports your ideas.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

The jury is still out on whether religion is genetically hardwired into the
human psyche but the evidence so far points in that direction.

> Have you read the wacky
> beliefs of Scientology, dreamed up by a science-fiction writer in
> 1950?
>
> *
> Biologist Edward O Wilson (Harvard) attempts to reconcile science and
> religion:
>
> "...I had no desire to purge religious feelings. They were bred in
> me; they suffused the wellsprings of my creative life. I also
> retained a small measure of common sense. To wit, people must
> belong to a tribe; they yearn to have a purpose larger than
> themselves. We are obliged by the deepest drives of the human
> spirit to make ourselves more than animated dust, and we must have
> a story to tell about where we came from, and why we are here.
> Could Holy Writ be just the first literate attempt to explain the
> universe and make ourselves significant within it? Perhaps science
> is a continuation on new and better-tested ground to attain the
> same end. If so, then in that sense science is religion liberated
> and writ large."
>
> Do you like that: "Science is religion liberated and writ large"?

Nah, that might be his experience, it's not mine.

[Paul J Gans]

Yup. And none of that negates evolution in any way.

[biblear...@hotmail.com]

On Sep 2, 1:28�pm, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 1, 2:16 pm, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> You are making a fairly common error, �thinking you have proven
> something by using a word for a specific concept that was repudiated
> in the mid-19th century. Whether purposely or not, you are conflating
> (and perhaps confusing) "spontaneous generation" (one kind of
> abiogenesis", that is, wheat giving rise directly to mice, and rotten
> meat giving rise directly to maggots), with 'the origin of life on
> earth" (another kind of "abiogenesis", that is, life developing along
> a spectrum form "clearly not alive" to "clearly alive", with many
> stages along the way).

Actually I made no such error. I did not confuse anything. I merely
pointed out that naturalists got their ideas from ancient thought.
Modern abiogenesis hypothesis came from the decrepit ideas of the
Greeks. I was merely tracing the origin of abiogenesis thought.

> We know that "spontaneous generation abiogenesis" does not happen--
> most of the steps I take canning my chutneys and salsas are there to
> prevent the inclusion of living organisms, and their viable
> reproductive structures, in the final product, so that the chutney
> will not spoil.

According to my Websters abiogenesis is spontaneous generation.

>
> We do not know how "the development of life on earth abiogenesis"
> happened, but there are several fruitful ideas being pursued, all of
> which are subject to experiment and falsification. �There is no
> evidence at all that that process was supernatural, or the handwork of
> some super-being.

Yes, but in each and every case the fruit was falsification.

>
> When you try to pretend that Pasteur and the boys proved that life on
> earth could not have developed form stuff that was not, at some point,
> what we would call alive today, by sterilizing beef broth in swan-
> necked flasks, you are intentionally using the same term for the
> process by which food spoils and the process by which life originated;
> and with very little reason so to do.

What spontaneous generation theorists believed, at that time that food
was needed for life to spontaneous generation to occur. On the early
earth they believed a different type of food was available, in the
form of chemicals.

>
> You are misusing the words in the same kind of contentious way as if I
> were to ask you why you claim that god does not have six arms, and
> tusks, and a fondness for cacao flowers; since far more people see god
> so than buy into your particular personification.

Actually spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are the same thing.
Mice from wheat is just an example of abiogenesis that was conceived.


>
> You are welcome to believe "intelligence did it"; �but you should not act as if

> you have found the answer, when what you have found is your excuse to
> stop looking for an answer, and to mock those who chose to keep
> investigating.

Intelligence does do it all the time.

[biblear...@hotmail.com]

On Sep 3, 1:23�am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 1, 9:16�pm, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Abiogenesis simply never went past amino acids being created in a
> > lab.
>
> > At one time the naturalists believe that abiogenesis was true because
> > maggots came out of meat and rats came out of wheat. �Also, some of
> > these naturalists read up on ancient Greek philosophers who made such
> > speculations.
>
> It was actually the Church that accepted this philosophical teaching.

That's because the philosophers were able to convince some Christians.
Augustine, for example, was into philosophy before he became a
Christian. He took the abiogenesis doctrine from the philosophers.

>
>
>
> > The trouble is found in the fact that scientists with Ph.D's are
> > having difficulties in proving abiogenesis in their labs. However, if
> > it's hard for Ph.D's to produce life, why is it supposedly easy for
> > non-intelligent matter to create life out of itself?
>
> Are you a vitalist?

According to the Wikipedia definition, no.

>
>
>
> > In the past, when I have brought up this issue, some would post
> > replies containing links to journals which report that scientists have
> > supposedly created life. The fine notes however state that preexisting
> > genetic material was used. And this is true in EVERY case. Please read
> > your articles carefully before you respond. Make sure preexisting
> > genetic material is not used.
>
> How does the use of pre-existing genetic material invalidate this.

Because you're using pre-existing genetic material to do the work.

>
> Such self-replicating molecules would have existed before the first
> cells.

Then that has to be explained and proven.

>
>
>
> > So therein is the problem and the prime reason as to why many, and one
> > such as myself, will not convert. � It's just a matter of the facts.
> > The most primitive cell is much too complicated for even scientists to
> > create using current technology.
>
> Are you referring to cells alive at this time? If so a better term
> would be "simplest".

I was merely using the words of ancient evolutionists.

>
> > Given this fact it says that are
> > information and tech savvy must be increased in order to make it
> > possible to create life. �Since inert matter will never have the
> > capability as possessed by intelligence, it only adds to the extreme
> > doubt.
>
> If I remove a gram of carbon from some calcite, a bacterial culture,
> and your body, will you find any differences when you compare the
> three samples?

Interesting question.

[Slow Vehicle]

On Sep 4, 11:13�ｿｽam, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:

> On Sep 2, 1:28�ｿｽpm, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 1, 2:16 pm, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>

> > You are making a fairly common error, �ｿｽthinking you have proven

> > something by using a word for a specific concept that was repudiated
> > in the mid-19th century. Whether purposely or not, you are conflating
> > (and perhaps confusing) "spontaneous generation" (one kind of
> > abiogenesis", that is, wheat giving rise directly to mice, and rotten
> > meat giving rise directly to maggots), with 'the origin of life on
> > earth" (another kind of "abiogenesis", that is, life developing along
> > a spectrum form "clearly not alive" to "clearly alive", with many
> > stages along the way).
>
> Actually I made no such error. I did not confuse anything. I merely
> pointed out that naturalists got their ideas from ancient thought.
> Modern abiogenesis hypothesis came from the decrepit ideas of the
> Greeks. I was merely tracing the origin of abiogenesis thought.

...making exactly the error I said you made, and that you denied.
ToE does not claim that rotten wheat generates mice; nor does it claim
that rotting meat generates maggots.
Using "abiogenesis" to mean "the origin of life on the planet" is
confusing. Given your history, it seems purposely confusing.

> > We know that "spontaneous generation abiogenesis" does not happen--
> > most of the steps I take canning my chutneys and salsas are there to
> > prevent the inclusion of living organisms, and their viable
> > reproductive structures, in the final product, so that the chutney
> > will not spoil.

> According to my Websters abiogenesis is spontaneous generation.

Oh, boy--Dictionary wars. Let's look.
abiogenesis: (Biol.) the now discredited theory that living organisms
can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.
RHWUD2, p. 4.

Do you see the "living organisms"part?

Any decent, non-sectarian, Biology 101 textbook will point out that
the "calssical" formations of abiognesis (including heterogenesis and
related ideas) were repudiated by Pasteur and the boys.

When you pretend that current ideas about the origin of life on earth
are the same kind of thing as "abiogenesis" in the repudiated sense of
spontaneous generation, you purposely conflate independent ideas; in
other words, you rais eup a straw man to have an easy target.

> > We do not know how "the development of life on earth abiogenesis"
> > happened, but there are several fruitful ideas being pursued, all of

> > which are subject to experiment and falsification. �ｿｽThere is no

> > evidence at all that that process was supernatural, or the handwork of
> > some super-being.

> Yes, but in each and every case the fruit was falsification.

You should provide sources for this silly claim. You should also be
careful not to use "falsification" when you mean "mistake":
Claiming, for instance, that Haeckel's altered drawings influenced
Darwin's first book is a mistake the first time; once you look at the
dates of the two works, the same claim becomes a lie.
Again: please provide evidence of fraud in the fruitful ideas boout
the origin of life on earth being investigated by multiple
researchers.

> > When you try to pretend that Pasteur and the boys proved that life on
> > earth could not have developed form stuff that was not, at some point,
> > what we would call alive today, by sterilizing beef broth in swan-
> > necked flasks, you are intentionally using the same term for the
> > process by which food spoils and the process by which life originated;
> > and with very little reason so to do.
>
> What spontaneous generation theorists believed, at that time that food
> was needed for life to spontaneous generation to occur. On the early
> earth they believed a different type of food was available, in the
> form of chemicals.

1. Who is "they"? Sources, please.
2. Who claims that the precursor chemicals to the development of self-
replicating structures served as "food"? Sources, please.

Looks an awful lot like another straw man...

> > You are misusing the words in the same kind of contentious way as if I
> > were to ask you why you claim that god does not have six arms, and
> > tusks, and a fondness for cacao flowers; since far more people see god
> > so than buy into your particular personification.
>
> Actually spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are the same thing.
> Mice from wheat is just an example of abiogenesis that was conceived.

Actually, as shown above, "abiogenesis" because of its association
with spontaneous generation, is a careless term to use to refer to the
origin of life on earth.

Ganesh, Thor, and the FSM are all "gods"--which one is "god"?

> > You are welcome to believe "intelligence did it"; �ｿｽbut you should not act as if

> > you have found the answer, when what you have found is your excuse to
> > stop looking for an answer, and to mock those who chose to keep
> > investigating.
>
> Intelligence does do it all the time.

Really? Please provide a germane example, with citations.

[eridanus]

El martes, 4 de septiembre de 2012 17:03:25 UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions escribi�:

then, enlighten me with the meaning of religion. If it is not a brain washing what it is? I am eager to see the light.

Erinadus

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

OED does for me - "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling
power, especially a personal God or gods"

[eridanus]

OK, this is the fact. It is a believe.
I was alluding to a putative cause of religion, a brain washing.

In more technical words, religion is the result of an
"operant conditioning".

Eridanus

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

eridanus wrote:
> El viernes, 7 de septiembre de 2012 19:28:15 UTC+1,

> AlwaysAskingQuestions escribi�:

>> eridanus wrote:
>>
>>> El martes, 4 de septiembre de 2012 17:03:25 UTC+1,
>>

>>> AlwaysAskingQuestions escribi?:

>>
>>>> eridanus wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> [...]
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> the only thing that proves the existence of religions is that
>>>>> humans
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> are susceptible to brain washing.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Just because an idea neatly fits your preconceptions does not mean
>>
>>>> that it
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> *proves* anything. If you want to talk in terms of *proof* then you
>>
>>>> need to
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> produce some results of actual scientific research that supports
>>
>>>> your ideas.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> then, enlighten me with the meaning of religion. If it is not a
>>
>>> brain washing what it is? I am eager to see the light.
>>
>>
>>
>> OED does for me - "the belief in and worship of a superhuman
>> controlling
>>
>> power, especially a personal God or gods"
>
> OK, this is the fact. It is a believe.
> I was alluding to a putative cause of religion, a brain washing.
>
> In more technical words, religion is the result of an
> "operant conditioning".
>
> Eridanus

As mentioned elsewhere, the jury is still out but the evidence generally
points to religion being an inherent part of the human psyche. Have you any
actual evidence to contradict that conclusion?

[Frank J]

On 3 Sep, 21:18, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >On 1 Sep, 16:16, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> Abiogenesis simply never went past amino acids being created in a
> >> lab.
> >(snip)
> >While most of the other "Darwinists" will take the bait, I'll simply
> >remind readers that it had to go past that *in the wild* at least once
> >*by definition*. If indeed it did only happen once in a universe, or
> >even once in ~10^40000 universes, it would be zero problem for
> >evolution. Unfortunately, with some exceptions, most notably Michael
> >Behe, people who deny (or pretend to deny) evolution imply that
> >abiogenesis occurred many, many times. Some of them think it all
> >happened during one busy week a few 1000 years ago, while others think
> >it happened periodically over billions of years.
> >If you think it occurred more than once, the onus is on you to provide
> >*positive* evidence, not recycle the same old bait-and-switch. And if
> >you disagree with other evolution deniers on the basic "what happened
> >when," publicly challenge them. Few behaviors are more cowardly that
> >playing word games, then running for cover under the big tent.
>
> You are confusing several different things. �First, abiogenesis
> has to do with the origin of life. �Evolution has to do with the
> changes life undergoes over time.

I'm hoping you meant to reply to the troll, not to me. I know very
well that E and A are different things. And that it's 99+% of the
claimed alternatives to evolution that depend on a theory of
abiogenesis to explain all those "kinds". And that peddlers of those
"alternatives" (if not the fans who mindlessly parrot them) know that
too, and that that's why they constantly play bait-and-switch.

>
> The two have NOTHING to do with each other. �Nothing.
>
> Evolution is quite well established both as to facts (observations)
> and theory. �Abiogenesis is not well established. �We simply don't
> know enough chemistry for it yet.
>
> We don't even know the details of the earth's environment
> when life seems to have first appeared.
>
> Sadly, the abiogenesis debate is tangled up with religion. �Some
> religions assert that life was created by a supernatural God, and
> that's that.
>
> That's not science. �Science, if you wish, is a kind of game to
> see if we can explain the natural world *without* reference to
> supernatural events.
>
> Why? �Because supernatural events make things too easy. �They can
> explain anything. �Worse, they are often unique and have no
> predictive value.
>
> So science has to deal with abiogenesis. �And that's the way it
> is. �Nobody is going to change science simply to accomodate one
> or another religious view. �It is impossible to satisfy them all
> and in any case, as I said, the supernatural lies outside science.
>
> --

> � �--- Paul J. Gans- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Frank J]

On 4 Sep, 12:23, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> >http://www.bioresearchonline.com/doc.mvc/Did-life-originate-in-deep-s...

>
> Yup. �And none of that negates evolution in any way.

But other things could, if only the evidence were there:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

The scam artists know better than to address those potential
falsifiers, of course. If they're lucky, and play their word games
well enough, they can fool some into thinking that evoluton is
falsified, and others that it's unfalsifiable, all the the same time.

[eridanus]

El domingo, 9 de septiembre de 2012 23:28:08 UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions escribi�:

What exactly means "an inherent part of human psyche"? Can we say
that Chinese speak any of the different Chinese languages for they
are an inherent part of their Chinese psyche?

Or it is simple an accident? What if the baby is adopted by a couple
US Americans?

Then, if the children are able to learn any language that exist in
their home environment, it is a learning process and not a part
inherent of the psyche.

If one is raise into believing it does not exist any god, this is
not different. Then, being an atheist is an inherent part of my
psyche. Also, if I had been raised a Baptists in inherent to my
psyche that Catholic doctrine is a wrong one.
Also, If I was raised to believe that god Krishna is a nice and
compassionate dog is a inherent part of my psyche.
Or being Christian, of any sort, I should believe the goddess Kali
is a fake goddess and a very bloodthirsty one. Or just in case if
I was raised to believe in goddess Kali, this would be so natural
and so inherent to my psyche as speaking Chinese is for a Chinese.

Is that what you mean? That any shit we had learned as a child is
an inherent part of our psyche?

Eridanus

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

By an inherent part of our psyche I mean - to use your own language - shit
we are born with. You seem to be unable to understand the difference between
human propensity to be religious and the particular set of beliefs that any
particular group of humans use to express that propensity. You mention
language and that is actually an excellent comparison; the fact that
different human groups speak different languages doesn't undermine the fact
that using language is an inherent part of the human psyche.

[raven1]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 19:11:09 +0100, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:

>By an inherent part of our psyche I mean - to use your own language - shit
>we are born with.

Is anyone born religious? Or is it something that is learned as a
child?

>You seem to be unable to understand the difference between
>human propensity to be religious and the particular set of beliefs that any
>particular group of humans use to express that propensity. You mention
>language and that is actually an excellent comparison; the fact that
>different human groups speak different languages doesn't undermine the fact
>that using language is an inherent part of the human psyche.

I'd agree that religion is a part of the human psyche in as much as it
constitutes a subset of "magical thinking", to which humans are all
too susceptible.

---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight

[eridanus]

El jueves, 13 de septiembre de 2012 19:12:57 UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions escribi�:

> eridanus wrote:
>
> > El domingo, 9 de septiembre de 2012 23:28:08 UTC+1,

>

> > If one is raise into believing it does not exist any god, this is
>
> > not different. Then, being an atheist is an inherent part of my
>
> > psyche. Also, if I had been raised a Baptists in inherent to my
>
> > psyche that Catholic doctrine is a wrong one.
>
> > Also, If I was raised to believe that god Krishna is a nice and
>
> > compassionate dog is a inherent part of my psyche.
>
> > Or being Christian, of any sort, I should believe the goddess Kali
>
> > is a fake goddess and a very bloodthirsty one. Or just in case if
>
> > I was raised to believe in goddess Kali, this would be so natural
>
> > and so inherent to my psyche as speaking Chinese is for a Chinese.
>
> >
>
> > Is that what you mean? That any shit we had learned as a child is
>
> > an inherent part of our psyche?
>
> >
>
>
>
> By an inherent part of our psyche I mean - to use your own language - shit
>
> we are born with. You seem to be unable to understand the difference between
>
> human propensity to be religious and the particular set of beliefs that any
>
> particular group of humans use to express that propensity. You mention
>
> language and that is actually an excellent comparison; the fact that
>
> different human groups speak different languages doesn't undermine the fact
>
> that using language is an inherent part of the human psyche.

The only thing that the existence of religion proves is that humans can easily learn anything whatever. They learn it as easily as the language. In fact, religions as well as folklore are a part of the language.

Then, the same as exist different languages exist different religions.

What is inherent to human brain is "how easily we are tamed." While most animals are inherently difficult to be tamed, specially for they have a poor memory.

Imagine then, that humans were a little like autists. We would be rather difficult to tame, and we would never be able to understood the "worshiping of a god", or to ask the gods some favors, or ask them for food, or other shit.

Autists are unable to figure out imaginary beings, like spirits or angels.

What situation is this? How do we teach a boy to believe in spirits and to believe in god? First, he hears the voice god, or the word, angel, or spirit.
At first, these words do not make any sense, for are not attached to any material objects. Are more difficult to grasp that the concept air. Then, the only way to impress the concept of air to a little boy, is by blowing on his face, or blowing over a glass full of water, and to make him the recall the feeling of a strong wind in its face. The air cannot be seen but indirectly by its effects. Then, to teach a child about imaginary beings, like a god, or some angels, he has to know first the existence of air, through the effects of the wind or your blowing. How the blowing can push out the milk from a spoon. You can see the effects of the air moving fast. Then, you make them recall granddad, or grandmother that are not present, for they living in another city. If he can recall the image of his grandparents, or a friend form school that is not present, well, god is also something similar. Except for the detail that god or the spirits are invisible. You never can go to house of god to take a piece of a

pple pie. Then, the house of god is a church, and you cannot see god there, for it is invisible. You will never experience that god would invite you to eat a piece of apple pie, or pizza, or an ice-cream. But if you reject for any unknown reason this argument about the existence of god, you would threaten the boy not letting him to eat any piece of pie, or any tasty pizza, or any ice-cream. This is what parents do when a boy learns in school that Santa does not exist, that the gifts are bought by the parents.
"If you do not believe in Santa, he would not let you any gifts this year." With this simple argument, you teach the boy not to challenge the existence of Santa. The same mechanism is used to make a child to learn, that he cannot reject the existence of god, or the existence of spirits, or the doctrine of the Islam, or any other.

It is a process of "conditioning", or taming, as used to be called in past times, before Paulov made the experiments with the dogs.

You can teach a monkey to prostrate like in an act of worshiping, Islam style, when you mention the word god. After made the bow and the prostration, you gave the monkey some peanuts seed are reward. Then, even if the monkey cannot say "I believe in god", he can prostrate himself in a posture of worshiping.

It is not very difficult to tame a monkey. But it is a lot easier to tame humans. For they have a much better memory. Like ten or twenty orders of magnitude greater. While you can teach a monkey to learn ten or twenty different words, a human being of the lower class, can learn as much as four of five thousand different words. While a very well tamed human being, can learn as much as 50,000 of his mother tongue, and perhaps some ten or twenty thousand words of a foreign language.
A carefully tamed human being can learn so much, that he can become a brain surgeon, or doctor of theoretical physics, or any other shit.

With much less training, he can become a great political liar that attracts a lot of potential voters and lots of money political campaigns. With a very good training, he can be an astounding preach liar, that can win a lot of money, buy telling believers in church how good they are, and by making him feel happy, he can successfully ask them pretty money.

To be a good preacher, you must be able to tell your clients, how good they are, and how bad and despicable are "the others"; the poor, the shitty black people, and so on. Those shitty people is not favored by god; that is the reason why they are so poor and miserable. While god loves all of them, for they are generous and give out money for their church. God is happy with them, and that is why they are blessed by material prosperity and a lot of money.

I think, all religions are based on these principles. Ask money to those that have it, for the gods would be happy and keep the privileges of high classes intact.

Eridanus

[Greg G.]

On Sep 13, 7:22�pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 19:11:09 +0100, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
>

> <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >By an inherent part of our psyche I mean - to use your own language - shit
> >we are born with.
>
> Is anyone born religious? Or is it something that is learned as a
> child?
>
> >You seem to be unable to understand the difference between
> >human propensity to be religious and the particular set of beliefs that any
> >particular group of humans use to express that propensity. You mention
> >language and that is actually an excellent comparison; the fact that
> >different human groups speak different languages doesn't undermine the fact
> >that using language is an inherent part of the human psyche.
>
> I'd agree that religion is a part of the human psyche in as much as it
> constitutes a subset of "magical thinking", to which humans are all
> too susceptible.

People have supercharged monkey brains and religion specializes in
exploiting the shit out of the weaknesses.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

eridanus wrote:

[...]

> To be a good preacher, you must be able to tell your clients, how
> good they are, and how bad and despicable are "the others"; the poor,
> the shitty black people, and so on.

I've been a Christian for over 60 years and funny enough I have never heard
a preacher saying that sort of shite.

YMMV - or you may simply live in the American Bible Belt where there seem to
be many interpretations of Christianity that seem somewhat weird to
Christians outside that belt.

[jillery]

I suppose Bible thumpers are more common in certain places in the U.S.
than others, but IIUC strict Presbyterians, Lutherans and Calvinists
still can be found throughout the world.

[eridanus]

El s�bado, 15 de septiembre de 2012 00:42:52 UTC+1, Greg G. escribi�:

this one was very good.

Eridanus

[eridanus]

El lunes, 17 de septiembre de 2012 20:32:43 UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions escribi�:

> eridanus wrote:
>
>
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> > To be a good preacher, you must be able to tell your clients, how
>
> > good they are, and how bad and despicable are "the others"; the poor,
>
> > the shitty black people, and so on.
>
>
>
> I've been a Christian for over 60 years and funny enough I have never heard
>
> a preacher saying that sort of shite.

You must had been among Christian civilized churches.
But I had heard a few sermons about how the good Christians
deserved they privileged status they have. But they should
remember to give back a part of their money, to be worthy
of the grace of god. For god gives in return 100 per 1.
This is a lot more than any bank or investment can do for
your money.

Eridanus

[Walter Bushell]

In article <abeltt...@mid.individual.net>,

"AlwaysAskingQuestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:

> eridanus wrote:
> > El domingo, 9 de septiembre de 2012 23:28:08 UTC+1,

> > AlwaysAskingQuestions escribió:

> >> eridanus wrote:
> >>
> >>> El viernes, 7 de septiembre de 2012 19:28:15 UTC+1,
> >>

> >>> AlwaysAskingQuestions escribió:

And some children of atheist parents go on to become believers.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

[Kermit]

On 19 Sep, 04:02, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <abelttFoo0...@mid.individual.net>,

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> �"AlwaysAskingQuestions" <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > eridanus wrote:
> > > El domingo, 9 de septiembre de 2012 23:28:08 UTC+1,

> > > AlwaysAskingQuestions �escribi�:

> > >> eridanus wrote:
>
> > >>> El viernes, 7 de septiembre de 2012 19:28:15 UTC+1,
>

> > >>> AlwaysAskingQuestions �escribi�:

Yes. Bearing in mind that inherited personality traits can manifest in
different ways.
One man that has a physically bold and confrontational personality may
become a wife beater, another with the same traits may become a
fireman. Meanness is largely taught. Nurture shapes our genetic
expression to varying degrees.

Remember that young adult American caught with the Taliban in
Afghanistan? His parents were some sort of Unitarian / New Age types,
and as a teenager he was converted to a Fundamentalist form of Islam.
I've wondered if he had a strong need for purpose, effort, and a path.
He might have been happy with being a US Marine.

> --
> This space unintentionally left blank.

Kermit

[Kermit]

On 1 Sep, 13:16, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Abiogenesis simply never went past amino acids being created in a
> lab.
>

> At one time the naturalists believe that abiogenesis was true because
> maggots came out of meat and rats came out of wheat.  Also, some of
> these naturalists read up on ancient Greek philosophers who made such
> speculations.
>

> The trouble is found in the fact that scientists with Ph.D's are
> having difficulties in proving abiogenesis in their labs. However, if
> it's hard for Ph.D's to produce life, why is it supposedly easy for
> non-intelligent matter to create life out of itself?

Do you expect scientists to be able to create stars, volcanoes, or
tornadoes in their labs? Even if we knew how to do something, we may
not be able to recreate all the necessary conditions. We don't have to
be able to create a star to study how they work, nor how they come
about.

And we never ran into any kind of immutable "dead end" in abiogenesis
research. We have continued to learn, and have developed several
reasonable pathways along which life might have developed.

>
> In the past, when I have brought up this issue, some would post
> replies containing links to journals which report that scientists have
> supposedly created life. The fine notes however state that preexisting
> genetic material was used. And this is true in EVERY case. Please read
> your articles carefully before you respond. Make sure preexisting
> genetic material is not used.

Preexisting genetic material is easy (now). But how it actually
happened is the tricky part. We are learning more about early
conditions on Earth, and will soon likely be able to describe it in
detail with a high degree of confidence. But even if we never know for
sure, "God did it" is no explanation. We know how rain comes about. Do
you think every spring shower is an inexplicable miracle, or do you
think that how scientists describe it is how God does rain showers?
God and $3.00 will get you a coffee at Starbucks.

A number of scientists are working on life's beginning. Those who are
theists simply say that they are trying to figure out how God did.
Same results, with or without God.

>
> So therein is the problem and the prime reason as to why many, and one
> such as myself, will not convert.

Stuff and nonsense. Science doesn't claim to have all the answers; it
may never have them. You have to be able to admit that you don't know
something, and that you may be wrong on things you think you do know,
in order to be a scientist. You aren't honest or humble or disciplined
enough to embrace science, even as a layman.

>   It's just a matter of the facts.
> The most primitive cell is much too complicated for even scientists to

> create using current technology.   Given this fact it says that are

> information and tech savvy must be increased in order to make it
> possible to create life.  Since inert matter will never have the
> capability as possessed by intelligence, it only adds to the extreme
> doubt.

Nonsense. Inert matter has no trouble creating stars, which we can't
do. We cannot control such vast amounts of mass yet, but that's really
just an engineering problem. When we do create life from scratch in
the lab, you'll claim that it's evidence of intelligent design.

Kermit

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <abeltt...@mid.individual.net>,
> "AlwaysAskingQuestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> eridanus wrote:

[...]

Brainwashing in reverse according to the Theory of Eridanus?

[eridanus]

El viernes, 21 de septiembre de 2012 20:00:19 UTC+1, Kermit escribi�:

> Kermit


I would explain this as a need of "transcendence" on the part of
some persons.

A person who had "absorbed" some concept of "being a transcendent
human" can have problems in life, if they feel they are a failure.
The person is trying
to adopt some "superior status" that would give him transcendence.
He can try science, but he is not well prepared to adopt science.
A unitarian faith, by example, or a sort of new age philosophy
can fail to give him this sense of transcendence. Why?
Because they "had not worked him" well to love this doctrine,
or the other. To found the "transcendent feeling" he is looking
for, he needs a sort of expert trainer, that would give him a
stronger "brain wash" that are ordinarily used. He had found one,
that transform him in a sort of fanatical
Muslim.

I was watching a video on the TV about the life of Mohamed Atta,
or someone else, I am not in mood to check it now. He was one that
participated in the hijacking of the planes that hit Twin Towers.

He was in Germany studying some degree of architecture. This must
had been so hard for him, for if it is hard to get a degree of
architecture, it must had to be a lot harder in a foreign
language as German. Then, you must try to figure him with
little money in Germany, living in a cheap German neighborhood
with some whore houses, and hookers walking the street, and sex
shops and all that. If he was raised in a small Egyptian village,
in a conservative family, this experience should had been a little
too strong for his conservative mind.
I do not recall if he obtained his degree or not. The last I had
heard was that he obtained a degree, but to find work of architect
in Egypt must had been very difficult. For the privileged jobs
are controlled by an elite.
Just image that he wanted to find a job, to have a good salary
and to marry a decent girl to found a family. All very normal.
But he had encountered a lot problems to get a job (caused by
overpopulation?) As his approach to life, after all the pains he
had endured to get a degree in Germany, had failed... he must had
been totally disappointed with a "normal live". Then, a little
memory he has about Then, it seemed that his dreams of
"transcendence" had come back to the surface of his mind.
In a way, "the world" had rejected him the opportunity of
waging a normal life. Then, he turned back his illusions to some
other form of transcendence, some mystical transcendence. He turned
back to Germany to continue his studies, but instead he frequented
more often the mosque, where he began to find some signs of
"fraternity" that was unknown in the ordinary world. It seemed they
were "like refugees" from an unkind and harsh world outside.

Who was the main controller of the fanatical teaching of a "pure"
Islamic doctrine that would push most of these young fellows to
wage a war to kill infidels?

The reality of life in Muslim countries, with their fast growth
of population in some of the most arid living lands of the planet,
had to produce a lot of frustrated youth? Not work, not copulation.

Then, as in Nazi Germany they blamed of their economic problems to
the Jews, here it has occurred about the same thing. The problems
are not only the Jews, but also the Christian infidels that are
helping them to occupy Palestine.

They are unable to see their problems in a direct way, but by means
of symbolic imaginary enemies.

Eridanus

[eridanus]

El s�bado, 22 de septiembre de 2012 09:05:18 UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions escribi�:

The first time, as far as I know, that brain washing was used occurred,
when some white American soldiers were liberated and came back to
the US.from North Korean prisons camps.

It occurred that this fine American soldiers had "converted" to
communism.

The North Koreans had worked on their minds and changed it in a
matter or a few months. It was rather easy for they were
prisoners, and second because they (the Koreans) knew how to do it.

Then, that religion is a brain wash is out of all doubt, but not
only religion, everything we know, either on ideology, folklore,
politics, and cultural material, is the result of some "operant
conditioning". This is the scientific concept to explain
"how are behavior" is established in our brain.
established.

Then, if you are a religious freak, the concept of brain wash it
should not look absurd. Since the religious people has a word
"conversion" to explain how a heathen end believing in your own
religion.
The reverse concept of "conversion" is "apostasy". But in a way,
apostasy and conversion are words for different sides of the
same coin.

One who abandons a religion to convert into another is both a
convert and an apostate at the same time.

Then, "operant conditioning" is a science that explains how
behavior is learn. It covers from playing the piano, to believe
Mohammad is prophet of god, or that GW Bush was a good president
of the US.

You can call this "brain washing" or more appropriately "operant
conditioning".

Eridanus

[Earle Jones]

In article <784382d3-74b1-4f54...@googlegroups.com>,

*
You are correct:

"The Oxford English Dictionary records its earliest known
English-language usage of brainwashing in an article by Edward Hunter in
New Leader published on 7 October 1950. During the Korean War, Hunter,
who worked at the time both as a journalist and as a U.S. intelligence
agent, wrote a series of books and articles on the theme of Chinese
brainwashing."

Something bothers me about this OED quote: First, the Korean War began
on June 24, 1950. The claim of brainwashing only three + months later
seems a bit hurried.

And the Chinese did not come into the war until November of 1950.

earle
*

[SkyEyes]

On Sep 21, 12:10 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> God and $3.00 will get you a coffee at Starbucks.

God and $2.25 will get you an extra-large coffee at Dunkin Donuts.
And it will be better coffee.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

So religion only began with the Korean War?

[eridanus]

the cite of OED can be wrong, but for some difference in dates.

I read an article in a book called "Science of Behavior" that presented
an article used by some CIA agent to explain the US army officers how
the "brain washing" was achieved. Then it followed some pages explaining
the procedure used by the Korean officers of camp of prisoners. It was
a mild and discreet procedure, and do not use torture of mistreatment of
prisoners.
the system was composed by several tricks, like rewarding informers to
rob prisoner officers of authority over the rest of soldiers. Then, they
rewarded those that were docile with some privileges. They can draw if
they liked to draw, or write stories if they like to write and so on.

They also used the prisoner should here a political communist speech and
they had to form groups of discussion about the theme. It was not needed
to agree but to reason the theme, and to argue about. They were forced
to consider the theme and argument, for it was the time for eating. But
the officers of the camp do not let the groups to go to eat, unless they
were arguing on the theme for a period of time, like 15 or 20 minutes.
I do not recall the time exact. Then, as some groups had accomplished
the orders given of consider and argue about the theme of the day, they
went to eat. This put some pressure on the other groups to obey orders,
and go to eat as soon a possible.
With the known existence of informers officers and people of authority
felt without authority to impose some discipline on the soldiers. If
a prisoner robbed an item to another and were denounced, he was not
punished harshly, but simple commented on this fault in public before
the rest of the prisoners, using a moralistic speech about good
behavior and correct companionship, for all they were comrades. Then, buy showing that someone denounced was not harshly punished, the taboo
against denouncing comrades lost all stigma. There exist always some
personal frictions among people forced to life in close proximity as
happens with prisoners.
As time passed, most and most topics of political meaning were discussed.
They were forced to discus the topics. All members of the group had to
participate in by turns in the arguments. An Korean officer was taking
notes about the time each member of the group was speaking. After all of
them had its time of argument, they were able to go to eat. If someone
refused to speak for it was a communist rhetorical argument, they other
members of the group that were hungry pressed him to speak and finish
their penitence. You do not even needed to agree with the argument. The
order was simple to discuss it.
Then, I had not read how many of the soldiers were totally brainwashed.
I mean what was the rate of success with the system. But the only way
you can accept a political theory is buy discussing it. Then, as a
Korean officer was present, many retained themselves of presenting a
serious resistance to the communist arguments.
After discussing those communist arguments, you were free to go to eat
with your group. It is the equivalent of giving a child a sweet for
obeying orders. Once the prisoner obeyed their orders, they were free
to go to eat. It was also said, that the prisoners were eating the same
food as the Korean soldiers and officers, for they were all human beings
and was not accepted differences of social class in feeding.

I do not know if the declaration was real or false, but had a good sound.

Eridanus

Then, by arguing

[eridanus]

Religion as as old as ten thousand years or more. It is related
to domination of people and children. But religion is only an
aspect of controlling people. People is controlled on diverse
aspects. Look at the prohibition of eating pork of the Jews
and Muslims. Look at all the feeding rules they had to follow
and to the obligation they are subjected to.
Look also at the American children in schools swearing alliance
to the US. It reminds me of the Hitler youth swearing alliance
to the Fuhrer and the fatherland. The worshiping of US flag is also
a sort of obligation by millions docile people that were tamed to
look patriotic.

Then, religion is only a part of being tamed. Being tamed is a
condition of all social animals. And humans are social animals.

Eridanus

[R.Dean]

Most belong to half dozen protestant churches. IE Methodist, Baptist,
Lutheran, Presbyterian etc.
>

[R.Dean]

It's no different in the American South. The same denominations have
the overwhelming number of Christians.

[R.Dean]

On 9/17/2012 6:57 PM, eridanus wrote:

> El lunes, 17 de septiembre de 2012 20:32:43 UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions escribió:
>> eridanus wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>
>>> To be a good preacher, you must be able to tell your clients, how
>>
>>> good they are, and how bad and despicable are "the others"; the poor,
>>
>>> the shitty black people, and so on.
>>
>>
>>
>> I've been a Christian for over 60 years and funny enough I have never heard
>>
>> a preacher saying that sort of shite.
>
> You must had been among Christian civilized churches.
> But I had heard a few sermons about how the good Christians
> deserved they privileged status they have. But they should
> remember to give back a part of their money, to be worthy
> of the grace of god. For god gives in return 100 per 1.
> This is a lot more than any bank or investment can do for
> your money.
>

This is the scamming TV preachers. Who's god is the $!

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

eridanus wrote:
[...]

> I read an article in a book called "Science of Behavior" that
> presented
> an article used by some CIA agent to explain the US army officers how
> the "brain washing" was achieved.

[...]

I've figured it out ... you've been brainwashed about brainwashing.

[John Stockwell]

On Saturday, September 1, 2012 2:16:42 PM UTC-6, (unknown) wrote:
> Abiogenesis simply never went past amino acids being created in a
>
> lab.
>
>
>
> At one time the naturalists believe that abiogenesis was true because
>
> maggots came out of meat and rats came out of wheat. Also, some of
>
> these naturalists read up on ancient Greek philosophers who made such
>
> speculations.
>
>
>
> The trouble is found in the fact that scientists with Ph.D's are
>
> having difficulties in proving abiogenesis in their labs. However, if
>
> it's hard for Ph.D's to produce life, why is it supposedly easy for
>
> non-intelligent matter to create life out of itself?

Abiogenesis is a theme of research topics. As with any theory or schema
of theories, abiogensis is not "proven" it is a classification of an investigation theme.

>
>
>
> In the past, when I have brought up this issue, some would post
>
> replies containing links to journals which report that scientists have
>
> supposedly created life. The fine notes however state that preexisting
>
> genetic material was used. And this is true in EVERY case. Please read
>
> your articles carefully before you respond. Make sure preexisting
>
> genetic material is not used.
>
>
>

> So therein is the problem and the prime reason as to why many, and one
>
> such as myself, will not convert.

Convert? From what? To what?

> It's just a matter of the facts.
>
> The most primitive cell is much too complicated for even scientists to
>
> create using current technology. Given this fact it says that are
>
> information and tech savvy must be increased in order to make it
>
> possible to create life. Since inert matter will never have the
>
> capability as possessed by intelligence, it only adds to the extreme
>
> doubt.

Doubt is the lifeblood of science.


-John

[Devils Advocaat]

On 4 Sep, 18:58, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 3, 1:23 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > On Sep 1, 9:16 pm, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Abiogenesis simply never went past amino acids being created in a
> > > lab.
>
> > > At one time the naturalists believe that abiogenesis was true because
> > > maggots came out of meat and rats came out of wheat. Also, some of
> > > these naturalists read up on ancient Greek philosophers who made such
> > > speculations.
>

> > It was actually the Church that accepted this philosophical teaching.
>
> That's because the philosophers were able to convince some Christians.
> Augustine, for example, was into philosophy before he became a
> Christian. He took the abiogenesis doctrine from the philosophers.
>
The Greek philosophers in question, in the majority accepted and
followed the religion of the state.

Ergo they were not naturalists, which means that spontaneous
generation (not abiogenesis) was a theistic concept.

>
> > > The trouble is found in the fact that scientists with Ph.D's are
> > > having difficulties in proving abiogenesis in their labs. However, if
> > > it's hard for Ph.D's to produce life, why is it supposedly easy for
> > > non-intelligent matter to create life out of itself?
>

> > Are you a vitalist?
>
> According to the Wikipedia definition, no.
>
Which doesn't answer my question, are you a vitalist?

>
> > > In the past, when I have brought up this issue, some would post
> > > replies containing links to journals which report that scientists have
> > > supposedly created life. The fine notes however state that preexisting
> > > genetic material was used. And this is true in EVERY case. Please read
> > > your articles carefully before you respond. Make sure preexisting
> > > genetic material is not used.
>

> > How does the use of pre-existing genetic material invalidate this?
>
> Because you're using pre-existing genetic material to do the work.
>
Which doesn't invalidate the creation of life.

Self-replicating molecules would have to arise before the first life
could emerge.

Ergo, even nature would have used pre-existing genetic material.
>
> > Such self-replicating molecules would have existed before the first
> > cells.
>
> Then that has to be explained and proven.
>
Science deals in evidence, not proof. There is a difference between
these two concepts.

Would you accept any research paper that deals with the idea of self-
replicating molecules preceding living cells as evidence for the
concept being valid?

>
> > > So therein is the problem and the prime reason as to why many, and one

> > > such as myself, will not convert. It's just a matter of the facts.

> > > The most primitive cell is much too complicated for even scientists to
> > > create using current technology.
>

> > Are you referring to cells alive at this time? If so a better term
> > would be "simplest".
>
> I was merely using the words of ancient evolutionists.
>
What ancient evolutionists would they be?

>
> > > Given this fact it says that are
> > > information and tech savvy must be increased in order to make it
> > > possible to create life. Since inert matter will never have the
> > > capability as possessed by intelligence, it only adds to the extreme
> > > doubt.
>

> > If I remove a gram of carbon from some calcite, a bacterial culture,
> > and your body, will you find any differences when you compare the
> > three samples?
>
> Interesting question.

Can you answer it?

[eridanus]

It simple explain in logical terms how many US prisoners of War
in North Korea returned converted in communists.

You cannot explain it any better. Try to explain an alternative
hypothesis about their "conversion". They were not communists when
they got caught prisoners.

Try to explain the meaning of the Stockholm syndrome. That a girl
from a capitalist class was caught captive during some time, and
ended up convinced of the ideology of his captor.

It happened something similar, when the daughter of millionaire in
California was held prisoner by some extremists communist, the
Symbonese Liberation Army. The girl was utterly "converted" and
joined them and even participated in an armed robbery in a bank.

Eridanus

[Earle Jones]

In article <1af17032-2871-4e65...@googlegroups.com>,

*
"That girl" was Patty Hearst.

earle
*

[Earle Jones]

In article <50d7814d-d6b7-48d2...@googlegroups.com>,

*
Science is the process of explaining what we observe. The best way to
think about it is this: All scientific theories are in doubt. They
stand temporarily in place, until a better explanation comes along.

Some theories are stronger than others, having withstood close
examination for many years (the Theory of Evolution, for example.) The
atomic theory of matter is well established also. But they are both "in
doubt" and would be rejected when and if a better explanation comes
along.

If you cannot live with doubt and demand certainty, then religion is
right for you. If your 'faith' (belief without evidence) supports your
point of view, fine. If you believe "Goddidit" explains your beliefs,
fine. You can live with your 'certainty.'

I have learned to live with doubt.

earle
*