Evolution Example
Damien
Considering evolution of today's science, wouldn't you imagine in the
future some people from Earth will go to another planet and create life on
it ?
Our scientists find new ways to explore the universe, planets are
discovered around many different stars, recent experiments show that the
speed of light is no more a limit...
At the same time, knowledge on genetic programming is growing, complete
genomes of some species are being decrypted and analyzed, DNA manipulation
is becoming a tool to design new forms of life... Installing research labs
on a distant planet would be a good way to make potentially dangerous
experiments without threatening our civilization.
Now imagine scientists doing their experiments on a virgin planet and
starting to create more and more sophisticated forms of life :
micro-organisms, plants, fishes, mammals... Not in a few days, but possibly
during centuries or millenniums...
After creating some kind of monkeys, they may wish to create a kind of
intelligent being, similar to them, by modifying their genetic program...
I let you imagine how this story can be continued. If we can reasonably
assume this will happen in the future, we may also consider something
similar happened in the past and could explain our origins...
By the way, there is absolutely no evidence supporting the theory of
Evolution. Who ever observed that randomly mutations and natural selection
could modify the genetic program of a living being to result in a more
complicated being ? Why should the fact we are genetically close to some
monkeys imply they are our ancestors ? When you compare 2 versions of a
computer program, will you believe the last version came from the first one
by random actions of some viruses, or will you more intelligently suppose
they were created by the same programmer ?
If this seems of interest to you, you may appreciate to visit
http://www.rael.org
Best regards to everybody,
Damien
Erik Marksberry
On 2 Feb 1997, Damien wrote:
>
> By the way, there is absolutely no evidence supporting the theory of
> Evolution.
Except for observed speciation, observed changes in the phenotypic
frequencies of populations, the fossil record, genetic comparisons,
laboratory reproductions of evolution, and ontologic comparisons.
--
Erik Marksberry
mark...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Del
Damien wrote:
>
> Considering evolution of today's science, wouldn't you imagine in the
> future some people from Earth will go to another planet and create life on
> it ?
>
> Our scientists find new ways to explore the universe, planets are
> discovered around many different stars, recent experiments show that the
> speed of light is no more a limit...
Yeah right.
[...]
>
> I let you imagine how this story can be continued. If we can reasonably
> assume this will happen in the future, we may also consider something
> similar happened in the past and could explain our origins...
>
> By the way, there is absolutely no evidence supporting the theory of
> Evolution.
You speculate nonsense and then come up with this? How
comical!
> Who ever observed that randomly mutations and natural selection
> could modify the genetic program of a living being
Do you want their names? Why don't you learn the first
thing about evolution before you start telling everyone
what it's all about?
> to result in a more complicated being ?
What does "more complicated" mean? BTW evolution takes a long
time. Do you know of anyone who has seen Pluto make an
entire orbit of the Sun? If not then using your "logic"
there is "absolutely no evidence supporting the theory"
that Pluto does in fact orbit the sun.
> Why should the fact we are genetically close to some
> monkeys imply they are our ancestors ?
Because we know there is a direct correlation? You
might as well ask why we should assume that you are
human simply because you have human genes.
When you compare 2 versions of a
> computer program, will you believe the last version came from the first one
> by random actions of some viruses, or will you more intelligently suppose
> they were created by the same programmer ?
False analogy. Try again. Use something less sophistic
though please.
> Best regards to everybody,
Yeah, right.
>
> Damien
dode
On 2 Feb 1997 05:17:23 GMT, "Damien" <damien...@hol.fr> wrote:
>complicated being ? Why should the fact we are genetically close to some
>monkeys imply they are our ancestors ? When you compare 2 versions of a
>computer program, will you believe the last version came from the first one
>by random actions of some viruses, or will you more intelligently suppose
>they were created by the same programmer ?
>
I think that computer program analogy is out of date, work is being
done on self modifying or cross modifying simple programs (The virus
stage of devolution). Any hoo where is natural selection in the
current computer programming process?
AK AK!
__
/\ dode
Mdeli
"Damien" <damien...@hol.fr> wrote:
>By the way, there is absolutely no evidence supporting the theory of
>could modify the genetic program of a living being to result in a more
>complicated being ? Why should the fact we are genetically close to some
>monkeys imply they are our ancestors ? When you compare 2 versions of a
>computer program, will you believe the last version came from the first one
>by random actions of some viruses, or will you more intelligently suppose
>they were created by the same programmer ?
The fundamentalist view of evolution is forced on bible thumpers in order to be
logically consistent with their particular testament . Even if evolution proved
to be utter nonsense it would do nothing to support the creationist's viewpoint.
The key point for the Creationist is that the Bible is absolute truth. It
follows that species had to be created at one fell swoop. Added to this is the
logic that we are all miserable sinners due to the original sin and believing
anything which contradicts the bible is sinful. Christian belief hangs on this
thread.
To Creationists who see the Bible as unerring I pose these questions.
Where did Cain get his wife?
Did fishes survive the flood?
How did Kangaroos and sloths manage to get to Noah's ark?
What about birds?
Were there flies in the elephant room on Noah's ark?
How many different kinds?
Scientific belief takes its direction from evidence . Here opinion changes in
the light of new evidence. Science is continually adding to its sum of
knowledge. Should new evidence show that a scientific opinion is in error
opinion changes.
Each religion requires believe that its particular testament is god's word. All
religions claim their testament to be unerring. All other testaments are
rejected..
If theistic beliefs were not encased in theological concrete even theists
would have to concede that where God's word is not in agreement with God's work
(nature and the evidence it provides) it is preferable to believe in his work.
MD
...The Scientific method and the religious method are in complete conflict.
...As science advances religion retreats.
.
On The Way To Fly
Mankind was born on the African continent. The oldest
australopithicenes were found in the heart of Africa. As mankind evolved,
he migrated north to Europe. How do you think Africans came to be
dark-skinned and Europeans came to be fair-skinned? I'll tell you. In
sub-Saharan Africa, the rays of the sun are quite intense. Mankind there
did not have much need for clothing, as they were warm enough without
it....and they needed protection from the sun. Everyone knows that
dark-skinned people do not burn as easily as fair-skinned people.
Mankind in Europe had to ADAPT to a colder climate, bundling up and not
exposing their skin to the sun. Also, they were more squat because a
build such as theirs is more efficient when it comes to keeping a body
warm. Also, mankind in Africa was taller and thinner than mankind in
Europe. Why is that? Because the Africans didn't need a short stature
and body fat to keep themselves warm. I think I have explained evolution
quite clearly. These humans that migrated to Europe ADAPTED to their
surroundings. If they had not, they would have died off. Some did, and
some evolved to fit their new surroundings. It has been proven time and
time again in the animal kingdom. Why do you think viruses mutate?
They're evolving, fighting to stay alive despite all our efforts to kill
them. Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact.
Crazy Bob
In article <5d2l8d$r...@news.interlog.com>, hu...@interlog.com attempts
to speak coherently...
>
>To Creationists who see the Bible as unerring I pose these questions.
>
>Where did Cain get his wife?
>Did fishes survive the flood?
>How did Kangaroos and sloths manage to get to Noah's ark?
>What about birds?
>Were there flies in the elephant room on Noah's ark?
>How many different kinds?
Great Dobbs, do you have a macro for that or something? You're
beginning to remind me of a scratched record with a particularly
obnoxious and cheesy guitar riff, or one of those playground songs that
would keep going over and over...
I know a song
that'll get on yer nerves
I know a song
that'll get on yer nerves
I know a son--[Repeat ad implausium]
CB
Crazy Bob
In article
<Pine.GSO.3.95q.97020...@piglet.cc.utexas.edu>,
ch...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu attempts to speak coherently...
This is not proof, this is evidence of the usefulness of evolutionary
theory. Evolution has not been "proven time and time again" every
individual instance is not proof, merely further evidence for a theory
that hardly needs it. Evolution is a universally accepted theory, which
still does not make it fact... science doesn't deal in facts.
CB
The Jade Emperor
On 2 Feb 1997, Damien wrote:
> Considering evolution of today's science, wouldn't you imagine in the
> future some people from Earth will go to another planet and create life on
> it ?
>
> Our scientists find new ways to explore the universe, planets are
> discovered around many different stars, recent experiments show that the
> speed of light is no more a limit...
>
ahem. what recent experiments?! damn, if any experiment showed that, the
scientist would get a nobel prize in about .2 seconds. according to
special reletivity, any particle that can achieve light speed has 0 rest
mass (i.e. it can never stop) just by looking at the equations, you can
see that any particle that could exceed light speed would have to have a
complex rest mass (i.e. some number that contains a square root of a
negative number) i'm not saying this is impossible, but no such particle
(called a tachyon, which you've probably heard all over the place on Star
Trek) has ever been detected. either way, we're not made of those
particles, so we can never exceed light speed.
<snip snip>
>
> Best regards to everybody,
>
> Damien
>
>
>
why is it that in this group of people fighting agaist religion in the
name of science, people seem to be so ignorant or at least misinformed
about science?
john
S & R
>
> To Creationists who see the Bible as unerring I pose these questions.
>
Cain and Abel where the first children..Read the Bible!
> Did fishes survive the flood? No. Read the Bible.
> How did Kangaroos and sloths manage to get to Noah's ark?God sent all the animals to the ark. Read the Bible.
> What about birds?No. Read the Bible.
> Were there flies in the elephant room on Noah's ark?I would guess so.
> How many different kinds?How many different kinds of what? Flies??? Two of each. Read the Bible.
>
> Scientific belief takes its direction from evidence . Here opinion changes in
> the light of new evidence. Science is continually adding to its sum of
> knowledge. Should new evidence show that a scientific opinion is in error
> opinion changes.
>
> Each religion requires believe that its particular testament is god's word. All
> religions claim their testament to be unerring. All other testaments are
> rejected..
>
> If theistic beliefs were not encased in theological concrete even theists
> would have to concede that where God's word is not in agreement with God's work
> (nature and the evidence it provides) it is preferable to believe in his work.
>
> MD
> ...The Scientific method and the religious method are in complete conflict.
> ...As science advances religion retreats.
> .
Where do you get your understanding of religions? Surly not from study.
The Bible is the Word of God...Read the old testament then compare it to
the dead sea scrolls...Why, because in all your understanding, you will
find that the dead sea scrolls are over a thousand years older than any
writtings we have...And the meaning of this? They prove to the very word
that what we have today is the true and unchanging word of God.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From Rene'e
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Big Dave
S&M...I mean S&R wrote:
> Where do you get your understanding of religions? Surly not from study.
> The Bible is the Word of God...Read the old testament then compare it to
> the dead sea scrolls...Why, because in all your understanding, you will
> find that the dead sea scrolls are over a thousand years older than any
> writtings we have...And the meaning of this? They prove to the very word
> that what we have today is the true and unchanging word of God.
> --
No, they prove that what we have today is the translated word of whoever
wrote the dead sea scrolls. You also stated that 2 of each animal came
onto the ark, admonishing someone for not reading the bible. 7 pairs of
clean, one pair of unclean...read the bible. Or even better learn some
science.
Big Dave
Marjan P.
Damien <damien...@hol.fr> wrote in article
<01bc10c8$72bfb040$a4b295c2@damien>...
> Considering evolution of today's science, wouldn't you imagine in the
> future some people from Earth will go to another planet and create life
on
> it ?
>
> Our scientists find new ways to explore the universe, planets are
> discovered around many different stars, recent experiments show that the
> speed of light is no more a limit...
>
> genomes of some species are being decrypted and analyzed, DNA
manipulation
> is becoming a tool to design new forms of life... Installing research
labs
> on a distant planet would be a good way to make potentially dangerous
> experiments without threatening our civilization.
>
> Now imagine scientists doing their experiments on a virgin planet and
> starting to create more and more sophisticated forms of life :
> micro-organisms, plants, fishes, mammals... Not in a few days, but
possibly
> during centuries or millenniums...
> After creating some kind of monkeys, they may wish to create a kind of
> intelligent being, similar to them, by modifying their genetic program...
>
> assume this will happen in the future, we may also consider something
> similar happened in the past and could explain our origins...
And descendants would believe god has created them. But there should be
start.
> By the way, there is absolutely no evidence supporting the theory of
> Evolution. Who ever observed that randomly mutations and natural
selection
> could modify the genetic program of a living being to result in a more
> complicated being ?
By the way, there is absolutely no evidence supporting theory of god and
creation. Everything is conducting all way down to evolution. Of course,
some extraterrestrial intelligence could give some help to Earth, I can not
deny this. But first intelligence started for sure like scientist are
stating actually.
It is really incredible easy prove evolution. Just look at some documentary
film about animals and nature, where they compare same kind of animal (i.e.
birds) living in different environment for a while (maybe only few
centuries). Definitively different birds are from same ancestor (I do not
remember now name of bird, I think is called something like Marten?), but
has developed specifically functions living in different environments.
Of course I can not prove development of humankind from simple bacteria. I
can not go millions of years back.
> Why should the fact we are genetically close to some
> monkeys imply they are our ancestors ?
As I know we have 90% of genetically material same with some apes thanks to
common predecessor. Some kind of apes are also aware of their figure in
mirror. No other animal (except man) is capable of this, at least as I
know. Of course is much more difficult believe to connection between fishes
and humankind, but embryos at the beginning are near identical.
> When you compare 2 versions of a
> computer program, will you believe the last version came from the first
one
> by random actions of some viruses, or will you more intelligently suppose
> they were created by the same programmer ?
I'm programmer for 12 years and I admit I do not understand what you would
like to say?
Del
Crazy Bob wrote:
>
> This is not proof, this is evidence of the usefulness of evolutionary
> theory. Evolution has not been "proven time and time again" every
> individual instance is not proof, merely further evidence for a theory
> that hardly needs it. Evolution is a universally accepted theory, which
> still does not make it fact... science doesn't deal in facts.
"Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The
term THEORY is no longer appropriate except when referring to the
various models that attempt to explain HOW life evolves... it is
important to understand that the current questions about how life
evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution."
Neil A. Campbell, BIOLOGY 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p.434
____
"Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated
supporting the fact of evolution - that all living organisms present on
earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long
history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this
relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual
divergence from one another over the course of time.
Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question,
scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has
taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of
modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions
for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs."
Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, BIOLOGY 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers,
p.972
____
"A few words need to be said about the 'theory of evolution', which
most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved
from common ancestors.
"In everyday speech, 'theory' often means a hypothesis or even a mere
speculation. But in science, 'theory' means 'a statement of what are
held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or
observed", as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it.
"The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about
natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause
evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian
theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of
chemical and physical phenomena.
"In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with
modifications from common ancestors - the historical reality of
evolution - is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the
earth's revolution about the sun.
"Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis,
and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong
that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No
biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence
for evolution"; it simply has not been an issue for a century."
Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
p.15
On The Way To Fly
Go back and read the post again.
Steve Geller
Erik Marksberry wrote:
> > By the way, there is absolutely no evidence supporting the theory of
> > Evolution.
>
> Except for observed speciation, observed changes in the phenotypic
> frequencies of populations, the fossil record, genetic comparisons,
> laboratory reproductions of evolution, and ontologic comparisons.
<chuckle> Good one. I'll save that and make it come up as a macro the
next time one of these "know nothing" creationists spouts off.
Steve Geller
Mdeli wrote:
> The fundamentalist view of evolution is forced on bible thumpers in order to be
> logically consistent with their particular testament . Even if evolution proved
> to be utter nonsense it would do nothing to support the creationist's viewpoint.
That's a profound point. Nobody's ever seen a creation.
Matt Pillsbury
On 2 Feb 1997 22:09:00 GMT, Bob_C...@nospam.brown.edu (Crazy Bob)
wrote:
[...]
>This is not proof, this is evidence of the usefulness of evolutionary
>theory. Evolution has not been "proven time and time again" every
>individual instance is not proof, merely further evidence for a theory
>that hardly needs it. Evolution is a universally accepted theory, which
>still does not make it fact... science doesn't deal in facts.
OK, what does make something a fact then? If something has been
observed, it is a fact. Since evolution has been observed once
(actually, it's been observed a lot of times) it is a fact. Now, I
cannot state that evolution occurs in all populations, has always
occurred in the past, and will always occur in the future: that sort
of extrapolation is theoretical. However, if it has been observed
once, it is a fact. Science, in that it makes observations and records
them, does deal in facts, in that it forms observed things into
theoretical frameworks. Hence, if yr statement is to be taken as true,
you are denying that things that have been observed are factual. This
seems silly. Factuality is an a posteriori property, not a predictive
one.
>CB
>
______________________________________________________________________
Matt Pillsbury "It is impossible to distinguish
Matthew_...@brown.edu historical accident from the axiomatic
basis of the universe"-T.H. Huxley
Crazy Bob
In article <32f54b8b.107822109@news>, Matthew_...@see.sig.edu
attempts to speak coherently...
>
>OK, what does make something a fact then? If something has been
>observed, it is a fact. Since evolution has been observed once
>(actually, it's been observed a lot of times) it is a fact. Now, I
>cannot state that evolution occurs in all populations, has always
>occurred in the past, and will always occur in the future: that sort
>of extrapolation is theoretical. However, if it has been observed
>once, it is a fact. Science, in that it makes observations and records
>them, does deal in facts, in that it forms observed things into
>theoretical frameworks. Hence, if yr statement is to be taken as true,
>you are denying that things that have been observed are factual. This
>seems silly. Factuality is an a posteriori property, not a predictive
>one.
OK, fine... I'll give you that something observed once is a fact
(unless it was observed while the observer was on drugs, or hadn't
slept for 50 hours straight or has really bad eyesight or... well, you
get the picture) since absolute skepticism leads to the nightmare dead
end of solipsism. It is a fact that it happened that once. However, the
person who wrote that last post didn't observe the evolution of
Australopithecus into Homo whichever-came-first-in-the-model. (Note the
last word. Model. Theories and models are what science deals with, not
facts) Not unless he is some sort of overbeing with powers of great
longevity, which I sincerely doubt judging by the (marked lack of)
intelligence with which he has corresponded with me via e-mail.
BTW, are you going to come with us to see A Minor Forest the 11th?
Really great punk band from San Fransisco-- playing at the PW with
Dianogah from Chicago.
CB
Crazy Bob
In article <32F545...@nyssa.swt.edu>, jw3...@nyssa.swt.edu attempts
to speak coherently...
>
>No, they prove that what we have today is the translated word of
whoever
>wrote the dead sea scrolls. You also stated that 2 of each animal came
>onto the ark, admonishing someone for not reading the bible. 7 pairs
of
>clean, one pair of unclean...read the bible. Or even better learn some
>science.
>
>Big Dave
I always love the ones who are too busy thumping their Bibles to
actually read them.
CB
William Mayers
, you will
>find that the dead sea scrolls are over a thousand years older than
any
>writtings we have.
Those of us who have spent time in bible studies in seminary would have
to point out to you that the tale of Samuel in the Lion's Den is many
hundreds of years older than the Dead Sea scrolls. In fact, there're
passages in the Dead Sea scrolls that were taken from earlier writings.
The Dead Sea scrolls serve as additional material, in many cases
appearing to substantiate material we had before the Dead Sea scrolls
surfaced.
As an additional exercise, you might find a translation of the scrolls
in your local religious bookstore, and note how often there's reference
to material not considered canonical by protestants.
And find a copy of the translation of the Nag Hammadi texts.
Astounding to a first-time reader, to learn how much has been "lost"
(translation: suppressed) of early Christian material, that still
impacts mightily upon the human condition today.
Bill Mayers aka 'Allogenese'
William Mayers
In <5d3qro$4...@cocoa.brown.edu> Bob_C...@nospam.brown.edu (Crazy
Bill Mayers
William Mayers
In <32F545...@nyssa.swt.edu> Big Dave <jw3...@nyssa.swt.edu>
writes:
>S&M...I mean S&R wrote:
>
>> Where do you get your understanding of religions? Surly not from
study.
>> The Bible is the Word of God...Read the old testament then compare
it to
will
>> find that the dead sea scrolls are over a thousand years older than
any
word
>> that what we have today is the true and unchanging word of God.
>> --
whoever
>wrote the dead sea scrolls. You also stated that 2 of each animal came
>onto the ark, admonishing someone for not reading the bible. 7 pairs
of
>clean, one pair of unclean...read the bible. Or even better learn some
>science.
>
>Big Dave
And unless he's Jewish, he probably doesen't know which were the
"unclean" animals, or what physical feature identifies the "unclean"
beasts.
Bill Mayers
TarlaStar
On The Way To Fly <ch...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
> Mankind was born on the African continent. The oldest
>australopithicenes were found in the heart of Africa. As mankind evolved,
>he migrated north to Europe.
Actually they migrated East, to Java and China. Europe was a much
later development.
> How do you think Africans came to be
>dark-skinned and Europeans came to be fair-skinned? I'll tell you. In
>sub-Saharan Africa, the rays of the sun are quite intense. Mankind there
>did not have much need for clothing, as they were warm enough without
>it....and they needed protection from the sun.
There's a conflict in your argument. If you need protection from the
sun via clothing, then there's no difference between the SubSaharan
ancestors and those who need clothing to protect from cold. Mankind
did not evolve on the Savannah necessarily. The only member of our
family that does live on the Savannah is the baboon and we are a far
cry from them.
> Everyone knows that
>dark-skinned people do not burn as easily as fair-skinned people.
>Mankind in Europe had to ADAPT to a colder climate, bundling up and not
>exposing their skin to the sun. Also, they were more squat because a
>build such as theirs is more efficient when it comes to keeping a body
>warm. Also, mankind in Africa was taller and thinner than mankind in
>Europe. Why is that? Because the Africans didn't need a short stature
>and body fat to keep themselves warm.
Then I think you have a bit more explaining to do. Most Africans today
are not tall and thin. They are of average height and weight. Pygmies
have had a short stature for as long as mankind has been around. Your
explanation is just a bit too simple.
> I think I have explained evolution
>quite clearly. These humans that migrated to Europe ADAPTED to their
>surroundings. If they had not, they would have died off. Some did, and
>some evolved to fit their new surroundings. It has been proven time and
>time again in the animal kingdom. Why do you think viruses mutate?
>They're evolving, fighting to stay alive despite all our efforts to kill
>them. Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact.
Adaptation within a generation is not evolution. It's simply survival.
Evolution doesn't care about individuals, only species.
Tarla
***
Reverend Mutha Tarla Star of the Little Sisters of the Perpetually
Juicy; a Proud jism schism of the Church of the SubGenius.
Worshipping Juicy Retardo and "Connie" Dobbs since 1986.
Reyn
Crazy Bob wrote:
>
> In article
> <Pine.GSO.3.95q.97020...@piglet.cc.utexas.edu>,
> ch...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu attempts to speak coherently...
> >
> >australopithicenes were found in the heart of Africa. As mankind
> evolved,
> >dark-skinned and Europeans came to be fair-skinned? I'll tell you. In
> >sub-Saharan Africa, the rays of the sun are quite intense. Mankind
> there
> >did not have much need for clothing, as they were warm enough without
> >dark-skinned people do not burn as easily as fair-skinned people.
> >Mankind in Europe had to ADAPT to a colder climate, bundling up and
> not
> >exposing their skin to the sun. Also, they were more squat because a
> >build such as theirs is more efficient when it comes to keeping a body
> >warm. Also, mankind in Africa was taller and thinner than mankind in
> >Europe. Why is that? Because the Africans didn't need a short
> stature
> evolution
> >quite clearly. These humans that migrated to Europe ADAPTED to their
> >surroundings. If they had not, they would have died off. Some did,
> and
> >some evolved to fit their new surroundings. It has been proven time
> and
> >time again in the animal kingdom. Why do you think viruses mutate?
> >They're evolving, fighting to stay alive despite all our efforts to
> kill
> >them. Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact.
> >
>
> theory. Evolution has not been "proven time and time again" every
> individual instance is not proof, merely further evidence for a theory
> that hardly needs it. Evolution is a universally accepted theory, which
> still does not make it fact... science doesn't deal in facts.
>
What would you accept as proof? Please respond by e-mail and newsgroup
post, I don't always get to read the group
Thanks,
Reyn
David Gerard
On Sun, 2 Feb 1997 01:53:09 -0600, Erik Marksberry (mark...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu) wrote:
:On 2 Feb 1997, Damien wrote:
:> By the way, there is absolutely no evidence supporting the theory of
:> Evolution.
: Except for observed speciation, observed changes in the phenotypic
:frequencies of populations, the fossil record, genetic comparisons,
:laboratory reproductions of evolution, and ontologic comparisons.
Yeah, but you haven't found the missing link between humans and
fundamentalists, have you? Huh? Huh?
Evolution. Pish-tosh.
--
Reverend Doctor David Gerard, KoX, SP 4.04, kOh, KBM#9; Prestige Elite(tm)
Research Church of the SubGenius http://suburbia.net/~fun/scn/
Now a CARD-CARRYING SCIENTOLOGIST(tm)! No, really. Would I lie to you?
July 5, 1998, 7 AM. Saucers. End of the world. Your US$30 is your trip ticket.
Dr. Michael T. MacDonell
>
>Reyn
>
>What would you accept as proof?
>
>Reyn
What one regards as proof is pretty subjective. I can give you some
compelling evidence that SOME regard as proof. This is likely to be a
waste of time, but you asked the question, and it falls within my field
of expertise, so I will answer the question: Comparative DNA sequence
analysis.
A trivial example, for sake of illustration:
As part of the DNA sequence of a particular gene...
Organism A has: GGGGGGGGG
Organism B has: GGGGAGGGG
Organism C has: GGGGGGTGG
Organism D has: GGGGAAGGG
Organism E has: GGGAGGTGG
Organism F has: GGGAGGTTG
Then you would conclude that B and D share the same phylogenetic
(family) branch of the evolutionary tree, and that D is more highly
evolved than B. Likewise C, E, and F would appear to share the same
phylogenetic branch
, with F being more highly evolved than E, and E more highly evolved
than C. From this simple example, you would conclude that A is the
least highly evolved.
Clearly, it is much more complex than that, but if you were REALLY
interested you would have studied this stuff and already know the
answer. You aren't, you didn't, so I hope my little illustration will
help.
For all the rest of you jackasses waiting to post some mind-wrenchingly
stupid response, get stuffed!
Mike (Knight of the True Science and some other stuff)
--
+--------------------------------------+
| "There may be forces in the Universe |
| we know nothing about, but we know |
| nothing about them." Isaac Asimov |
+--------------------------------------+
Kieran P{eers
Hmmmm......only 2 of each...then how did the bee's survive for the 40
days and nights? anyway thats just my humble athiestic opinion......
:-0
Stephen Dobell
Now. I don't know whether I'm a jackass, but I am certain you will
take great pleasure in ascertaining that for me, so I'll leave that in
your hands. I do have a serious (dare I use the word "sincere"?) question
about this. It is a QUESTION. I really want to hear your answer. Okay:
In your example, would one automatically make the conclusions you suggest
if he didn't already have an evolutionary mindset? I think of Linnaeus,
who classified organisms according to similarities, but did not infer from
those similarities a lineage. Could the similarities (and their
variations) in your example be observed in a nonevolutionary (ie.
non-linear) way? Thanks, Steve
snip
> Then you would conclude that B and D share the same phylogenetic
> (family) branch of the evolutionary tree, and that D is more highly
> evolved than B. Likewise C, E, and F would appear to share the same
> phylogenetic branch
> , with F being more highly evolved than E, and E more highly evolved
> than C. From this simple example, you would conclude that A is the
> least highly evolved.
(snip)
Big Dave
Some crossposting moron wrote:
> Now. I don't know whether I'm a jackass,
Yes you are. Now go evolve in some related news groups. Did you really
need 14 newsgroups to ask everyone if you were a jackass? No. Moron.
Followups corrected.
--
*******************************************************************
*Big * * Kingpin & Associates. *
*Dave* * Message under construction. Pimp at your own risk*
*******************************************************************
Dr. Michael T. MacDonell
In <Pine.PTX.3.95c.97020...@carson.u.washington.edu>
Stephen Dobell <sdo...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>
>Now. I don't know whether I'm a jackass, but I am certain you will
>take great pleasure in ascertaining that for me, so I'll leave that in
>your hands. I do have a serious (dare I use the word "sincere"?)
>question about this. It is a QUESTION. I really want to hear your
>answer. Okay: In your example, would one automatically make the
>conclusions you suggest if he didn't already have an evolutionary
>mindset? I think of Linnaeus, who classified organisms according to
>similarities, but did not infer from those similarities a lineage.
>Could the similarities (and their variations) in your example be
>observed in a nonevolutionary (ie. non-linear) way?
>Thanks, Steve
Dear Steve:
No, a jackass answers with a post along the lines of "fuck you". It's
how you can tell what you are dealing with.
Your question is a serious one. In fact, from the shard of information
I gave, you would have to conclude quite a number of possibilities are
possible. In actuality, comparative sequence analysis requires looking
at a very large sample of DNA sequence. Added to this there is the
complication that there are very highly conserved sequences, ribosomal
RNA, for example, and less highly conserved sequences. In the end
analysis, computers are employed to sort out numerous changes in
pattern, that either support the conclusion that two organisms share
the same branch of a phylogenetic tree, and that one is more highly
evolved, or that the sequence mutations did NOT follow sequentially,
but in parallel.
As for the pre-DNA methods, there were obvious paradoxes with the
conclusions that could be made from comparing feathers, bones, etc.
Unfortunately, there was not "second type of data" that could be used
to referee the paradoxes. I recall being taught one of the paradoxes
in Junior College (this was in 1970) that certain furry four-legged
mammals appeared to be "more highly evolved" than humans, based on the
fact that they had a larger number of teeth, and so on.
The DNA sequence stuff was not just proposed, a priori. In the early
days there was much cautious testing of hypotheses with things that
were clearly related and about which something was known with relative
certainty about their phylogenetic relationships.
-Mike (Knight of the True Science and delighted to hear from someone
who uses their brain for something other than a hat-rack)
Glen Quarnstrom
Oh, shit. Two more maroons who think people in a dozen newsgroups
want to hang on every word of their private discussion. Clean up your
act, fuckheads. Trim those newsgroups.
Thomas Swanson
In article <Pine.PTX.3.95c.97020...@carson.u.washington.edu> Stephen Dobell <sdo...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>Now. I don't know whether I'm a jackass, but I am certain you will
>take great pleasure in ascertaining that for me, so I'll leave that in
>your hands. I do have a serious (dare I use the word "sincere"?) question
>about this. It is a QUESTION. I really want to hear your answer. Okay:
>In your example, would one automatically make the conclusions you suggest
>if he didn't already have an evolutionary mindset? I think of Linnaeus,
>who classified organisms according to similarities, but did not infer from
>those similarities a lineage. Could the similarities (and their
>variations) in your example be observed in a nonevolutionary (ie.
>non-linear) way? Thanks, Steve
>
The "evolutionary mindset" came about because of the observations. The
theory of evolution did not spring forth out of a vacuum.
To turn things about: without referencing the Bible, what evidence exists
to support a young earth, a flood and creation?
____________________________________________________________
Tom Swanson | "I have a cunning plan that cannot fail"
TRIUMF | S Baldrick
><DARWIN> "Your grasp of science lacks opposable thumbs."
L L B Waggoner
Duke York
> Monkeys have no soul, do they?
No, but man, could they rock! Remember the theme song?
Duke
Andrew Carol
In article <5djgti$i...@news.icanect.net>, Gong...@home.com (Lewd
Gongroid) wrote:
> Monkeys have no soul, do they?
What's a soul? How do you 'test' if an animal (or people) have them?
If there is no unambigious way to determine the presence of a
thing then it's existance is, at best, theoretical. Even a
statistical way to determine if a soul was present would be
useful. I haven't heard of any.
Oh well....
--
Andrew Carol "Could be worse. Could be raining."
car...@apple.com
Morphesius
On Sun, 09 Feb 97 03:39:29 GMT, Gong...@home.com (Lewd Gongroid)
wrote:
>Monkeys have no soul, do they?
Says who?
Morphesius.
Jerry
The monkey and the tree and man all have a space time soul. The monkey and
the tree collectively reincarnate. Most men collectively reincarnate as
well, however some men reincarnate whole as themselves.
Chris Krolczyk
(Note followups.)
In alt.atheism Lewd Gongroid <Gong...@home.com> wrote:
: Monkeys have no soul, do they?
"Lewd have no brain. Lewd crosspost this using forged address to absurdly
long list of newsgroups that could give a shit. Lewd _never_ climb trees
with us again to eat ripe bananas since Lewd insult us *and* make fool
of self in process. Ook ook ook."
And in all honesty, this didn't even rate a 4 on the Troll-o-Meter.
Feh.
--
Chris Krolczyk
krol...@mcs.com http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Towers/3048
UCEs: just another way of saying that you're greedy *and* stupid.
William H. Ivey
In <32fe2044....@news.earthlink.net> Morph...@usa.net
>
>>Monkeys have no soul, do they?
>
Non-monkeys, probably.-Wm
Michael L. Siemon
In article <32fe2044....@news.earthlink.net>, Morph...@usa.net wrote:
+On Sun, 09 Feb 97 03:39:29 GMT, Gong...@home.com (Lewd Gongroid)
+wrote:
+
+>Monkeys have no soul, do they?
+
+ Says who?
What's a soul? How does one determine if a monkey (or any other
organism) has one?
--
Michael L. Siemon m...@panix.com
"Green is the night, green kindled and apparelled.
It is she that walks among astronomers."
-- Wallace Stevens
Seeker
Jerry wrote:
>
> Morphesius wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 09 Feb 97 03:39:29 GMT, Gong...@home.com (Lewd Gongroid)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Monkeys have no soul, do they?
> >
> >
> > Morphesius.
>
> The monkey and the tree and man all have a space time soul. The monkey and
> the tree collectively reincarnate. Most men collectively reincarnate as
> well, however some men reincarnate whole as themselves.
Seeker
Morphesius wrote:
>
> On Sun, 09 Feb 97 03:39:29 GMT, Gong...@home.com (Lewd Gongroid)
> wrote:
>
> >Monkeys have no soul, do they?
>
> Says who?
>
> Morphesius.
they seem to recognize mortality. Do they have souls?
David F Lynch
Are we not men?
--
Dave (not David) Lynch/Mutant Uebergeek etc./Founder, Church of Eternal Man
dfly...@homer.louisville.edu/"Yo como hamon y queso bocadillo!"-Neil Peart
ObObsoleteHomepage:http://www.rlabs.com/lynch|(.)(.)|Please email followups
PERFECT SLACK FOREVER/ROUND THINGS ARE BORING/I'M SERIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Herb Huston
In article <5djgti$i...@news.icanect.net>,
Why would they want one?
--
-- Herb Huston
-- hus...@access.digex.net
-- http://www.access.digex.net/~huston
Jerry
Herb Huston wrote:
>
> In article <5djgti$i...@news.icanect.net>,
> Lewd Gongroid <Gong...@home.com> wrote:
> }Monkeys have no soul, do they?
>
> Why would they want one?
To reincarnate back to life again just like us.
Herb Huston
In article <330107...@pilot.infi.net>,
Jerry <sta...@pilot.infi.net> wrote:
}Herb Huston wrote:
}> In article <5djgti$i...@news.icanect.net>,
}> Lewd Gongroid <Gong...@home.com> wrote:
}> }Monkeys have no soul, do they?
}>
}> Why would they want one?
}
In that case, they can have mine.
schumach_at_rsn.hp.com
>> }Monkeys have no soul, do they?
>>
>> Why would they want one?
>
> To reincarnate back to life again just like us.
Ha, ha! That's a good one. Well, time to go home and
"re-incarnate" the flames atop my candelabra.
Lawrence Sayre
In message <5dqsac$h...@access4.digex.net> - hus...@access4.digex.net (Herb
Huston)11 Feb 1997 17:37:00 -0500 writes:
:>
:>In article <5djgti$i...@news.icanect.net>,
:>Lewd Gongroid <Gong...@home.com> wrote:
:>}Monkeys have no soul, do they?
:>Why would they want one?
:>--
Why would anyone want one?
-----------------------------------------
Man's mind is his basic tool of survival!
lsa...@en.com <Lawrence Sayre>
-----------------------------------------
Dick Craven
>In article <5djgti$i...@news.icanect.net>,
>Lewd Gongroid <Gong...@home.com> wrote:
>}Monkeys have no soul, do they?
>
>Why would they want one?
>
So they could play the blues?
All opinions are mine, and no one elses.
to eliminate junk email I am using a junk email address
you can email me at di...@nwlink.com
http://www.nwlink.com/~dickc
Dick (Chris) Craven,
Professor of Modern Humor
from the ICR.
Ed Infinitum
It's simple:
(1) get an ethereal petri dish.
(2) imagine that it's not empty.
(3) wait for a very long time.
or something...
Ghostwheel
Herb Huston wrote:
>
> Lewd Gongroid <Gong...@home.com> wrote:
> Monkeys have no soul, do they?
>
> Why would they want one?
The church wants them to have souls. More kids to screw and more money
in the coffers.
--
Ghostwheel - Kelly Rosato
------==Kajukenbo==------
Through This Fist Way, One Gains Long Life And Happiness
David Hultgren
In article <5djgti$i...@news.icanect.net>,
Sure they have, if the monky is realy BAD!
it can be reborn as a creationist!
//
In article <5dr81e$r...@access4.digex.net>,
>In article <330107...@pilot.infi.net>,
>Jerry <sta...@pilot.infi.net> wrote:
>}Herb Huston wrote:
>}> Lewd Gongroid <Gong...@home.com> wrote:
>}> }Monkeys have no soul, do they?
>}>
>}
>
FOR SALE: One human soul for a PPro 250 with SCSI-3 subsyte, OBO.
----------------------------
Steve "Chris" Price
Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"
ra...@kaiwan.com
John Hyde
In article <mls-090297...@mls.dialup.access.net> m...@panix.com
(Michael L. Siemon) writes:
>What's a soul? How does one determine if a monkey (or any other
>organism) has one?
The soul is the joint creation of man and the indwelling God. Your
soul is your future self. Man is born without a soul, and s/he brings
it into existence at the time of the first moral decision. The soul
grows progressively more real as our (right) decisions and actions
increase, or the soul can stagnate or even die if a person
deliberately and consistently embraces evil.
Only humans possess a soul. Other animals do not possess a soul,
because they are unable to comprehend the concept of God (a
prerequisite for making an independent and creative moral decision).
Angels do not possess souls, for the soul is our stepping-stone to
spirit status (we are not resurrected as spirits, but in a mid-state,
where the soul is the primary essence of our existence). Since angels
already exist in the spirit state, they do not generate souls when
they make spiritual growth decisions.
--
John C. Hyde eus...@exu.ericsson.se
"Only a brave person is able honestly to accept, and fearlessly to face,
what a sincere and logical mind discovers." -Rodan of Alexandria
Bond, James
In article <5dt8oo$2...@b03d21.exu.ericsson.se>,
eus...@cnn.exu.ericsson.se (John Hyde) wrote:
> The soul is the joint creation of man and the indwelling God. Your
> soul is your future self. Man is born without a soul,
If this is the case whats the problem with abortion?
> and s/he brings
> it into existence at the time of the first moral decision. The soul
> grows progressively more real as our (right) decisions and actions
> increase, or the soul can stagnate or even die if a person
> deliberately and consistently embraces evil.
If I make consistantly 'evil' choices then my soul will stagnate and die,
then doesn't this mean that I won't spend eternity in hell?
>
> Only humans possess a soul. Other animals do not possess a soul,
> because they are unable to comprehend the concept of God (a
> prerequisite for making an independent and creative moral decision).
Now you are pissing me off (btw, is this your intention? if so your on a
fast track to hades), I do not comprehend your concept of god but I can
assure you I am very capable of making a moral decision. How can you say
that your moral decisions are independant when they are in fact dependant
on your religious views?
Jeffrey Shallit
In article <5dt8oo$2...@b03d21.exu.ericsson.se>,
John Hyde <eus...@cnn.exu.ericsson.se> wrote:
>
>The soul is the joint creation of man and the indwelling God.
Pure assertion. Who has observed a soul? What test could we use
to determine if someone's soul has "died"?
>Your
>soul is your future self.
In that case, your soul cannot die unless you die, since if you
are not dead you will have a "future self". This contradicts what you
wrote below.
>Man is born without a soul, and s/he brings
>it into existence at the time of the first moral decision.
Contradicts your definition above, since one has a "future self"
whether or not one makes moral decisions.
>The soul
>grows progressively more real as our (right) decisions and actions
>increase, or the soul can stagnate or even die if a person
>deliberately and consistently embraces evil.
Pure assertion, contradicting your definition above.
>Only humans possess a soul.
Pure assertion.
>Other animals do not possess a soul,
>because they are unable to comprehend the concept of God (a
>prerequisite for making an independent and creative moral decision).
Utter and complete nonsense. Why should being able to comprehend the
concept of God have anything to do with moral decisions? I think
you need to read a little about the evolution of moral systems.
May I suggest Robert Wright's _The Moral Animal_?
Besides, how do you know that bonobos, for example, either do not
make moral decisions or cannot comprehend the concept of God? Where's
your evidence?
>Angels do not possess souls, for the soul is our stepping-stone to
>spirit status (we are not resurrected as spirits, but in a mid-state,
>where the soul is the primary essence of our existence). Since angels
>already exist in the spirit state, they do not generate souls when
>they make spiritual growth decisions.
What evidence do you have that angels exist, let alone possess or do
not possess souls?
>John C. Hyde eus...@exu.ericsson.se
>"Only a brave person is able honestly to accept, and fearlessly to face,
>what a sincere and logical mind discovers." -Rodan of Alexandria
It continues to amaze me what nonsense some theists will advocate.
Jeffrey Shallit, Computer Science, University of Waterloo,
Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1 Canada sha...@graceland.uwaterloo.ca
URL = http://math.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/
David F Lynch
/\/\ (ra...@kaiwan.com) wrote:
:
:
: FOR SALE: One human soul for a PPro 250 with SCSI-3 subsyte, OBO.
What if we don't want the oboe?
John Hyde
In article <007-130297...@macvalley.acs.umbc.edu> 0...@her.majesties.gov.uk (Bond, James) writes:
>In article <5dt8oo$2...@b03d21.exu.ericsson.se>,eus...@cnn.exu.ericsson.se (John Hyde) wrote:
>> The soul is the joint creation of man and the indwelling God. Your
>> soul is your future self. Man is born without a soul,
>
>If this is the case whats the problem with abortion?
The problem with abortion is that it invariably causes permanent
emotional damage to the woman who undergoes the procedure.
In addition, abortion is a form of damage control. As a former
restaurant manager, I can attest that many, many people are oblivious
to impending crises, and only act when it is really too late to solve
any underlying problems. Or, in other words, we are too busy putting
out fires to have time to engage in any fire prevention. And the
fires always leave damage.
I am personally opposed, philosophically, to this approach to life,
whether it be in incompetent restaurant management, or irresponsible
reproductive activities.
>> and s/he brings
>> it into existence at the time of the first moral decision. The soul
>> grows progressively more real as our (right) decisions and actions
>> increase, or the soul can stagnate or even die if a person
>> deliberately and consistently embraces evil.
>
>If I make consistantly 'evil' choices then my soul will stagnate and die,
>then doesn't this mean that I won't spend eternity in hell?
You have assessed the implications correctly.
If you are resurrected, you will find yourself in a much more pleasant
environment, but not a perfect one. Your spiritual and intellectual
growth and development will continue exactly at the point where it
left off when temporarily interrupted by mortal death. The body
supplied to you at resurrection time has the capability of "evolving"
into a spirit form (more or less -- crude choice of words, but none
others exist).
At some far distant point in time, long, long after resurrection day,
you will have acquired the capacity to recognize the personal presence
of God, when presented to him "face to face." Shortly thereafter, you
will undergo a permanent transformation, which will be the beginning
of you yourself becoming a time-transcendant being.
If, on the other hand, you are not resurrected, then death is
permanent. However, it is essentially YOU who decides if you will go
on. Are you a contributor, in life? Do you go out of your way to
manifest "good?" (Point: Good-seeking is more important than
evil-avoidance). If you have demonstrated an ability to make the most
of THIS life, then you will be given the opportunity to continue in
that vein in the hereafter (regardless of your theology).
>> Only humans possess a soul. Other animals do not possess a soul,
>> because they are unable to comprehend the concept of God (a
>> prerequisite for making an independent and creative moral decision).
>
>Now you are pissing me off (btw, is this your intention?
Of course not. I'm not sure what I did, but I apologize for offending
you unintentionally.
>I do not comprehend your concept of god but I can
>assure you I am very capable of making a moral decision.
Yes, and you are also capable of comprehending the concept of God.
To get a bit more technical, the reality is actually the reverse of
what I portrayed. When the capability of making a true moral decision
appears in the evolving early proto-humans, the ability of comprehend
some primitive concept of God also appears. The two events occur
simultaneously, and mark the appearance of intelligent life, from the
perspective of our unseen mentors.
> How can you say that your moral decisions are independant
>when they are in fact dependant on your religious views?
There is only an indirect relation between the two.
A true moral decision is always a mental "stretch," always goes beyond
mere teaching or past experience. Everythig else is largely a
deterministic response to various forms of conditioning.
--
John Hyde
In article <E5JJv...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> sha...@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes:
>In article <5dt8oo$2...@b03d21.exu.ericsson.se>,John Hyde <eus...@cnn.exu.ericsson.se> wrote:
>>The soul is the joint creation of man and the indwelling God.
>
>This contradicts what you wrote below.
>Pure assertion, contradicting your definition above.
>Utter and complete nonsense.
>I think
>you need to read a little about the evolution of moral systems.
>May I suggest Robert Wright's _The Moral Animal_?
>Jeffrey Shallit, Computer Science, University of Waterloo,
Mr. Shallit, I prefer to discuss matters with folks who can generate
original thoughts. Your entire critique is based on criticism, a
negative approach to dialogue which accomplishes nothing beyond ego
gratification. The only positive statement you make is to mention the
opinions of someone else who may have engaged in some original
research (practically an oxymoron, but I'll overlook it).
Historians, detectives, archeologists, and other professions are
constantly in the uncomfortable position of needing to draw
consclusions from fragmentary data that may even at first glance
appear to be self-contradictory. If you were really interested in
expanding your intellectual scope, you would not be so quick to
dismiss every new claim that comes your way. Or, at the very least,
you could ask some thoughtful questions, as some of your fellow
skeptics have done.
There are some rebuttals to your comments, but given your
destructionist approach, I'll not offer any at this time.
Marjan P.
John Hyde <eus...@cnn.exu.ericsson.se> wrote in article
<5dvl0p$1...@b02b05.exu.ericsson.se>...
> The problem with abortion is that it invariably causes permanent
> emotional damage to the woman who undergoes the procedure.
And what about permanent emotional and physical damage to children when
parents are not able to provide him not even with minimum for decent
life? I do not think abortion is something to take with easy but I
think should be left to women (and sometimes husband) to decide.
And also as I read comments from women which had an abortion your
"invariably" should be changed to "possible".
John Hyde
In article <01bc19fa$c11c3160$c52002c1@marjan> "Marjan P." <pre...@usa.net> writes:
>John Hyde <eus...@cnn.exu.ericsson.se> wrote in article <5dvl0p$1...@b02b05.exu.ericsson.se>...
>> The problem with abortion is that it invariably causes permanent
>> emotional damage to the woman who undergoes the procedure.
>And what about permanent emotional and physical damage to children when
>parents are not able to provide him not even with minimum for decent
>life?
As I go on ot explain in the rest of the original posting, I believe
that the problem is already way out of control by the time the
abortion becomes necessary. I believe that it is much more productive
to try to attack root causes, such as irresponsible behavior and low
self esteem.
>I do not think abortion is something to take with easy but I
>think should be left to women (and sometimes husband) to decide.
Well then we pretty much agree on this issue, then.
>And also as I read comments from women which had an abortion your
>"invariably" should be changed to "possible".
Well, my limited sampling has produced a result of 100%, but you make
a good point. Still, I believe that the emotional scars are probably
be due to hormones, and I believe that in most cases, the pain and
regret are present, if not repressed.
David F Lynch
John Hyde (eus...@cnn.exu.ericsson.se) wrote:
:
: The problem with abortion is that it invariably causes permanent
: emotional damage to the woman who undergoes the procedure.
Um, so does CHILDBIRTH.
: In addition, abortion is a form of damage control. As a former
: restaurant manager, I can attest that many, many people are oblivious
: to impending crises, and only act when it is really too late to solve
: any underlying problems. Or, in other words, we are too busy putting
: out fires to have time to engage in any fire prevention. And the
: fires always leave damage.
You think the FIRES leave damage.. you should see the damage left by
the FIRE ANTS!
: I am personally opposed, philosophically, to this approach to life,
: whether it be in incompetent restaurant management, or irresponsible
: reproductive activities.
I'm personally philosophically and morally opposed to the continued existence
of the human race.
: If you are resurrected, you will find yourself in a much more pleasant
: environment, but not a perfect one. Your spiritual and intellectual
: growth and development will continue exactly at the point where it
: left off when temporarily interrupted by mortal death. The body
: supplied to you at resurrection time has the capability of "evolving"
: into a spirit form (more or less -- crude choice of words, but none
: others exist).
You call yourself a CHRISTIAN? You're nothing more than a NEW AGE WUSS!
: At some far distant point in time, long, long after resurrection day,
: you will have acquired the capacity to recognize the personal presence
: of God, when presented to him "face to face."
At that point, you will be handed a mirror.
: Shortly thereafter, you
: will undergo a permanent transformation, which will be the beginning
: of you yourself becoming a time-transcendant being.
Or you could just speed up the whole process by sending $1 to PO
Box 140306, Dallas, TX, 75214.
: If, on the other hand, you are not resurrected, then death is
: permanent. However, it is essentially YOU who decides if you will go
: on. Are you a contributor, in life? Do you go out of your way to
: manifest "good?" (Point: Good-seeking is more important than
: evil-avoidance). If you have demonstrated an ability to make the most
: of THIS life, then you will be given the opportunity to continue in
: that vein in the hereafter (regardless of your theology).
What on earth makes you think I would WANT to go on forever?
: Of course not. I'm not sure what I did, but I apologize for offending
: you unintentionally.
Don't be a wuss. Kick him in the nuts.
: Yes, and you are also capable of comprehending the concept of God.
I'm capable of comprehending the concept of Vienna Sausage as well.
Doesn't mean I have to like it.
: To get a bit more technical, the reality is actually the reverse of
: what I portrayed. When the capability of making a true moral decision
: appears in the evolving early proto-humans, the ability of comprehend
: some primitive concept of God also appears. The two events occur
: simultaneously, and mark the appearance of intelligent life, from the
: perspective of our unseen mentors.
No, the appearance of intelligent life was marked by that obelisk and
when the ape used the rock to bash the other ape's head in.
: A true moral decision is always a mental "stretch," always goes beyond
: mere teaching or past experience. Everythig else is largely a
: deterministic response to various forms of conditioning.
By the use of the word "largely" you seem to signify your recognition
that this is essentialy a matter of degree.
Jeffrey Shallit
In article <5e019q$2...@b02b05.exu.ericsson.se>,
John Hyde <eus...@cnn.exu.ericsson.se> wrote:
>
>Mr. Shallit, I prefer to discuss matters with folks who can generate
>original thoughts.
You mean, you prefer to discuss things with people who don't dare
question your incoherent rubbish.
>Your entire critique is based on criticism, a
>negative approach to dialogue which accomplishes nothing beyond ego
>gratification.
On the contrary. Criticism and debate are an essential part of the
search for truth. No one's claims, neither yours nor mine, are exempt
from criticism. See, for example, Rauch's _Kindly Inquisitors_.
>The only positive statement you make is to mention the
>opinions of someone else who may have engaged in some original
>research (practically an oxymoron, but I'll overlook it).
Actually, it is often the case, at least in my field, that
research turns out not to be original. I have on at least ten
occasions rediscovered well-known results.
>Historians, detectives, archeologists, and other professions are
>constantly in the uncomfortable position of needing to draw
>consclusions from fragmentary data that may even at first glance
>appear to be self-contradictory.
And historians and archeologists publish in peer-reviewed journals,
where their ideas are subject to the critical scrutiny of others. They
also respond to legitimate criticism of their ideas.
Many of your points are completely demolished from the work of
Frans de Waal and others on non-human primates. I suggest
reading _Chimpanzee Politics_.
>If you were really interested in
>expanding your intellectual scope, you would not be so quick to
>dismiss every new claim that comes your way. Or, at the very least,
>you could ask some thoughtful questions, as some of your fellow
>skeptics have done.
>
>There are some rebuttals to your comments, but given your
>destructionist approach, I'll not offer any at this time.
In other words, you are unable to offer any reply to my criticisms.
Thanks for demonstrating rather conclusively the intellectual
bankruptcy of your position.
>John C. Hyde eus...@exu.ericsson.se
>"Only a brave person is able honestly to accept, and fearlessly to face,
>what a sincere and logical mind discovers." -Rodan of Alexandria
Jeffrey Shallit, Computer Science, University of Waterloo,
TarlaStar
eus...@cnn.exu.ericsson.se (John Hyde) wrote:
>In article <007-130297...@macvalley.acs.umbc.edu> 0...@her.majesties.gov.uk (Bond, James) writes:
>>In article <5dt8oo$2...@b03d21.exu.ericsson.se>,eus...@cnn.exu.ericsson.se (John Hyde) wrote:
>>> The soul is the joint creation of man and the indwelling God. Your
>>> soul is your future self. Man is born without a soul,
>>
>>If this is the case whats the problem with abortion?
>The problem with abortion is that it invariably causes permanent
>emotional damage to the woman who undergoes the procedure.
Bullshit.
***
Reverend Mutha Tarla Star of the Little Sisters of the Perpetually
Juicy; a Proud jism schism of the Church of the SubGenius.
Worshipping Juicy Retardo and "Connie" Dobbs since 1986.
Bond, James
(John Hyde) wrote:
>>and I writ
> The problem with abortion is that it invariably causes permanent
> emotional damage to the woman who undergoes the procedure.
Many things in life cause emotional damage, but they're not all considered
to be sins.
>
> In addition, abortion is a form of damage control. As a former
> restaurant manager, I can attest that many, many people are oblivious
> to impending crises, and only act when it is really too late to solve
> any underlying problems. Or, in other words, we are too busy putting
> out fires to have time to engage in any fire prevention. And the
> fires always leave damage
>
> I am personally opposed, philosophically, to this approach to life,
> whether it be in incompetent restaurant management, or irresponsible
> reproductive activities.
What is wrong with damage control? Would you suggest to the incompetent
restaurant manager that he should allow a fire to continue until the
building is destroyed, or extinguish it while it is in the kitchen? Why
should a woman allow her life to be 'destroyed' by an unwanted child and
wouldn't that cause emotional damage?
>
> If you are resurrected, you will find yourself in a much more pleasant
> environment, but not a perfect one. Your spiritual and intellectual
> growth and development will continue exactly at the point where it
> left off when temporarily interrupted by mortal death. The body
> supplied to you at resurrection time has the capability of "evolving"
> into a spirit form (more or less -- crude choice of words, but none
> others exist).
You should have started the above paragraph with the words 'I belive that..'
You state the above as facts when they are not. Unless you have evidence.
>
> At some far distant point in time, long, long after resurrection day,
> you will have acquired the capacity to recognize the personal presence
> of God, when presented to him "face to face." Shortly thereafter, you
> will undergo a permanent transformation, which will be the beginning
> of you yourself becoming a time-transcendant being.
I see my God each morning when I'm shaving and brushing my teeth. (Not
that I shave my teeth that often)
btw, talking about time-transcendent beings will all the slackers stop
their time travel shenanigans as I'm currently receiving replies to the
replies to my replies of the messages I replied to. I think ;->
>
> If, on the other hand, you are not resurrected, then death is
> permanent. However, it is essentially YOU who decides if you will go
> on. Are you a contributor, in life? Do you go out of your way to
> manifest "good?" (Point: Good-seeking is more important than
> evil-avoidance). If you have demonstrated an ability to make the most
> of THIS life, then you will be given the opportunity to continue in
> that vein in the hereafter (regardless of your theology).
This depends on your (and my) measure of good. I think I'm good you may not.
>
> Yes, and you are also capable of comprehending the concept of God.
Yes I am capable of understanding the concept of a God, what I said in my
earlier post was that I do not comprehend your concept of god.
>
> To get a bit more technical, the reality is actually the reverse of
> what I portrayed. When the capability of making a true moral decision
> appears in the evolving early proto-humans, the ability of comprehend
> some primitive concept of God also appears. The two events occur
> simultaneously, and mark the appearance of intelligent life, from the
> perspective of our unseen mentors.
Hold on! 'proto-humans'? are you saying that you don't belive in creation!
and that you do belive in evolution! Dude are you a Christian? The Bible
says that mankind was created by God in his own image but, if I read your
comments correctly, we actually evolved from gods creations. Were these
'proto-humans' created in gods image? If we have evolved from gods true
chosen people aren't we just like the other animals on the earth, souless?
>
> > How can you say that your moral decisions are independant
> >when they are in fact dependant on your religious views?
>
> There is only an indirect relation between the two.
Clearly this is true.
>
> A true moral decision is always a mental "stretch," always goes beyond
> mere teaching or past experience. Everythig else is largely a
> deterministic response to various forms of conditioning.
Yes it is and no it doesn't, but that is only my opinion, and opinions I
have a-plenty.
Later Dudes.
John Hyde
In article <E5LAI...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> sha...@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes:
>In article <5e019q$2...@b02b05.exu.ericsson.se>,
>John Hyde <eus...@cnn.exu.ericsson.se> wrote:
>>
>>Mr. Shallit, I prefer to discuss matters with folks who can generate
>>original thoughts.
>
>You mean, you prefer to discuss things with people who don't dare
>question your incoherent rubbish.
No, I mean that I prefer to discuss matters with folks who can
generate original thoughts. (It's easy criticize oppponents when
you get to put words in their mouths). I also prefer to discuss
matters with folks who are open-minded enough to at least consider the
possibility that an oppent could have a valid position, a possiblity
that you clearly discounted from the start.
In addition, I prefer to discuss matters with persons who demonstrate
a certain minimum level of respect for their opponent. It is just
plain rude to use phrases such as "incoherent rubbish."
BTW, the rest of your counter-comments are still wholly devoid of an
original thought or even a thoughtful question. Thus, they are
deleted, and will STILL elicit no response.
Note that I cheerfully and willingly discuss matters with many of the
critics of my views. But only if they have some modicum of human
decency.
--
Marjan P.
> In article <01bc19fa$c11c3160$c52002c1@marjan> "Marjan P."
<pre...@usa.net> writes:
> >John Hyde <eus...@cnn.exu.ericsson.se> wrote in article
<5dvl0p$1...@b02b05.exu.ericsson.se>...
> >> emotional damage to the woman who undergoes the procedure.
>
when
> >parents are not able to provide him not even with minimum for decent
> >life?
>
> As I go on ot explain in the rest of the original posting, I believe
> that the problem is already way out of control by the time the
> abortion becomes necessary. I believe that it is much more
productive
> to try to attack root causes, such as irresponsible behavior and low
> self esteem.
I did not read original posting but I agree with you.
Unfortunately I'm pretty sure attacking root causes is impossible task.
You heal one root in the meantime 100 hundreds new grow. Of course I do
not think we should stop thinking globally, however I'm very
pessimistic in regard. And for overall future of humankind, too.
Herb Huston
Followups restricted somewhat.
In article <5dt8oo$2...@b03d21.exu.ericsson.se>,
John Hyde <eus...@cnn.exu.ericsson.se> wrote:
}In article <mls-090297...@mls.dialup.access.net> m...@panix.com
}(Michael L. Siemon) writes:
}
}>What's a soul? How does one determine if a monkey (or any other
}>organism) has one?
}
}The soul is the joint creation of man and the indwelling God. Your
}soul is your future self. Man is born without a soul, and s/he brings
}it into existence at the time of the first moral decision. The soul
}grows progressively more real as our (right) decisions and actions
}increase, or the soul can stagnate or even die if a person
}deliberately and consistently embraces evil.
So, how does one determine if a monkey, a human, or any other organism has
a soul?
}Only humans possess a soul.
How do you know?
} Other animals do not possess a soul,
}because they are unable to comprehend the concept of God (a
}prerequisite for making an independent and creative moral decision).
How do you know?
}Angels do not possess souls, for the soul is our stepping-stone to
}spirit status (we are not resurrected as spirits, but in a mid-state,
}where the soul is the primary essence of our existence). Since angels
}already exist in the spirit state, they do not generate souls when
}they make spiritual growth decisions.
How do you know that angels even exist?
stufnten
On 13 Feb 1997, John Hyde wrote:
> The problem with abortion is that it invariably causes permanent
> emotional damage to the woman who undergoes the procedure.
So can having the baby. That's why she'd want one in the first place, no?
stufnten[tm], Toby
***
reason is, and ought to be, the servant of the passions -Hume
http://members.tripod.com/~Tesseract
John Hyde
In article <007-140297...@macvalley.acs.umbc.edu> 0...@her.majesties.gov.uk (Bond, James) writes:
>(John Hyde) wrote:
>> The problem with abortion is that it invariably causes permanent
>> emotional damage to the woman who undergoes the procedure.
>Many things in life cause emotional damage, but they're not all considered
>to be sins.
I never claimed that abortion is a sin.
>> I am personally opposed, philosophically, to this approach to life,
>> whether it be in incompetent restaurant management, or irresponsible
>> reproductive activities.
>What is wrong with damage control? Would you suggest to the incompetent
>restaurant manager that he should allow a fire to continue until the
>building is destroyed, or extinguish it while it is in the kitchen? Why
>should a woman allow her life to be 'destroyed' by an unwanted child and
>wouldn't that cause emotional damage?
My complaint is with those who direct their abhorrance of abortion
towards the unfortunate women who find themselves compelled to undergo
the procedure. Rather than tormenting the poor confused women, their
efforts could be much more productively directed towards preventing
the conditions that lead to abortion.
A great place to begin would be to initiate a campaign against child
molestation. Another great place to begin would be to devise venues
wherein teens could engage pre-courtship practices. At present, the
only way teens of the opposite gender can "get together" is to sneak
it, which means that they invariable end up in wholly unsupervised
conditions. I have any number of other ideas, which require the
efforts of more than one person to bring them to fruition. But those
who one would think would be the most interested in pursuing such
ideas are frequently the least, and yse, I'm talking about the
religious activists.
>> To get a bit more technical, the reality is actually the reverse of
>> what I portrayed. When the capability of making a true moral decision
>> appears in the evolving early proto-humans, the ability of comprehend
>> some primitive concept of God also appears. The two events occur
>> simultaneously, and mark the appearance of intelligent life, from the
>> perspective of our unseen mentors.
>Hold on! 'proto-humans'? are you saying that you don't belive in creation!
>and that you do belive in evolution! Dude are you a Christian?
Maybe. I believe in God, and I believe in the divinity and dual
nature of Jesus of Nazareth. I guess if you need a label, you will
find one with which you feel comfortable.
The Bible
>says that mankind was created by God in his own image but, if I read your
>comments correctly, we actually evolved from gods creations. Were these
>'proto-humans' created in gods image?
Mankind manifests certain God-like characteristics, and those
characteristics exist by design. That is the meaning of the phrase
"created in God's image."
God only engaged in the design of mortal man at the highest level
(definitely a top-down design scenario). The actual implementation is
not too miraculous, and yes, evolution plays a major role in the
actual implementation.
Jeffrey Shallit
In article <5e1tmu$3...@b03d21.exu.ericsson.se>,
John Hyde <eus...@cnn.exu.ericsson.se> wrote:
>In article <E5LAI...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
>sha...@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes:
>>
>>You mean, you prefer to discuss things with people who don't dare
>>question your incoherent rubbish.
>
>No, I mean that I prefer to discuss matters with folks who can
>generate original thoughts.
Doubtful. You've shown me no sign of any ability to recognize a thought,
much less an original one. I've cited two books that cast serious doubt
on your claims; you have not shown any understanding why.
>(It's easy criticize oppponents when
>you get to put words in their mouths). I also prefer to discuss
>matters with folks who are open-minded enough to at least consider the
>possibility that an oppent could have a valid position, a possiblity
>that you clearly discounted from the start.
Be open-minded, but not so open that your brains fall out. If you
posted that the earth was flat, why should I consider the "possibility"
that you have a valid position?
I'd be glad to consider your position if you would present some *evidence*
for your claims, instead of mere assertions.
>In addition, I prefer to discuss matters with persons who demonstrate
>a certain minimum level of respect for their opponent. It is just
>plain rude to use phrases such as "incoherent rubbish."
Tough. I call 'em as I see 'em. Your posting *was* incoherent
rubbish. It was also self-contradictory, and (to use your favorite
word) unoriginal. It's the same claptrap I've seen from shoddy
thinkers for years. Lots of assertions, no evidence.
>BTW, the rest of your counter-comments are still wholly devoid of an
>original thought or even a thoughtful question. Thus, they are
>deleted, and will STILL elicit no response.
Thanks for demonstrating better than I could the intellectual
bankruptcy of your position. You just delete anything you can't answer!
>Note that I cheerfully and willingly discuss matters with many of the
>critics of my views.
Doubtful.
>But only if they have some modicum of human decency.
Translation: only if they accept my position and refuse to criticize it.
>John C. Hyde eus...@exu.ericsson.se
[self-serving .sig file deleted]
John Hyde
In article <E5M87...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> sha...@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes:
>In article <5e1tmu$3...@b03d21.exu.ericsson.se>,John Hyde <eus...@cnn.exu.ericsson.se> wrote:
>>In article <E5LAI...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> sha...@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes:
>>>You mean, you prefer to discuss things with people who don't dare
>>>question your incoherent rubbish.
>>
>>No, I mean that I prefer to discuss matters with folks who can
>>generate original thoughts.
>
>Doubtful. You've shown me no sign of any ability to recognize a thought,
>much less an original one.
Then tell me where you have previously read the information I posted
in the original message. If you can't, if you can't cite the precise
place where those ideas came from, then you will have proven to whole
internet community not only your pomposity (already well
demonstrated), but also the fact that you invent lies when it suits
your selfish purposes.
>I've cited two books that cast serious doubt on your claims;
You are unable to explain yourself, so instead you refer me to your
bibles. Gosh, even the most rabid fundamentalists can do better.
>Be open-minded, but not so open that your brains fall out.
Plus you are just plain rude.
:-)
David F Lynch
John Hyde (eus...@cnn.exu.ericsson.se) wrote:
: A great place to begin would be to initiate a campaign against child
: molestation. Another great place to begin would be to devise venues
: wherein teens could engage pre-courtship practices. At present, the
: only way teens of the opposite gender can "get together" is to sneak
: it, which means that they invariable end up in wholly unsupervised
: conditions.
This is a terrific idea, I think we should encourage teenagers to do it
while we watch. I can even bring a video camera!
Puck
>Herb Huston wrote:
>>
>> In article <5djgti$i...@news.icanect.net>,
>> Lewd Gongroid <Gong...@home.com> wrote:
>> }Monkeys have no soul, do they?
>>
>> Why would they want one?
> To reincarnate back to life again just like us.
Why would we want to?
--
Puck
Jeffrey Shallit
In article <5e4k4v$3...@b02b05.exu.ericsson.se>,
John Hyde <eus...@cnn.exu.ericsson.se> wrote:
>
>Then tell me where you have previously read the information I posted
>in the original message.
Oh, dear. You seem to have it exactly backwards. It was *you*
making the claims; it is up to *you* to support them. I've asked for
your evidence, and you have so far been unable to supply any.
>If you can't, if you can't cite the precise
>place where those ideas came from, then you will have proven to whole
>internet community not only your pomposity (already well
>demonstrated), but also the fact that you invent lies when it suits
>your selfish purposes.
Oh, dear. Has my little criticsm so nettled you that you must resort
to ad hominem attacks? How sad.
I've heard assertions similar to yours from a street preacher in Madison,
Wisconsin in 1993. I'm sorry I can't tell you his name, but you might
check the mental hospitals in that area for further information.
Oh -- and he didn't offer any support for his claims, either.
>>I've cited two books that cast serious doubt on your claims;
>
>You are unable to explain yourself, so instead you refer me to your
>bibles.
Oh, dear. _Chimpanzee Politics_ is not a bible; neither is _The
Moral Animal_. Both have flaws -- the second one in particular. But
they *do* cast serious doubt on your claim that non-human
animals cannot act morally. Why not go read them and report back
to us?
> Gosh, even the most rabid fundamentalists can do better.
Doubtful. I've already cited *two* books. That's one more than
a typical fundamentalist has in his library.
>Plus you are just plain rude.
To hear how often you repeat this, one might conclude it is your
mantra.
Now how about dealing forthrightly with the criticisms I have raised?
>John C. Hyde eus...@exu.ericsson.se
[self-serving .sig deleted]
Jerry
Puck wrote:
Jerry:
> > To reincarnate back to life again just like us.
>
> Why would we want to?
>
collective reincarnation. Life forms live and enter the memory of the
past. If we cross our light speed barrier we will not find yesterday but
the memory of yesterday. Thus the memory of man exists in the collective
world of the dead. The collective memory reincarnates into life again.
This is true of the trees and the monkeys and mankind. Some men will
undergo a higher process of whole reincarnation in which the memory of
themselves is embedded within the mind of a new fetus. This is individual
reincarnation which is a subset of the general process.
You ask why people would want to reincarnate into life again. On the
collective level we are not given that choice. It is part of the process.
On the individual level, a mathematician who loves his work would enjoy
being reborn to continue his work. A musician may very well care to be
born again to continue his work. The same is true of many other people.
Some people will not want to live again. They merely become part of the
collective process and become a collective will to exist. Some people are
erased from the process and they are gone forever. Some people are unworthy
to remain within the process and are erased from memory.
In general those who want to go on will as long as they are do not fall
too low in their humanity and concern for the EArth.
Kenneth Fair
In article <5e2g15$2...@b02b05.exu.ericsson.se>, eus...@cnn.exu.ericsson.se
(John Hyde) wrote:
[stuff about abortion snipped]
Let's discuss proper Usenet behavior for a moment, and your rude lack
of it.
1) You are crossposting your assertions on abortion into twelve
newsgroups. It doesn't matter *what* you are posting; there's virtually
no way it can be on-topic for all of those groups. As a general rule,
if you think something belongs in more than one group, it doesn't.
Find the correct group, then post it there and there only.
2) I don't care what you have to say about abortion; even if
it was revealed to you by the Voice of God, discussions on abortion
are only on-topic in talk.abortion. Talk.abortion was created to be
the dumping ground for all abortion discussions on Usenet.
3) You posted these messages on abortion in talk.origins. Talk.origins
discusses the origins of species, life, and the universe. As such, we
have more than enough controversy without borrowing some from the
abortion debate, thank you very much.
4) You are making assertions without supporting them with any evidence.
When called on that lack, you say that you'll only talk to people who,
as far as I can tell, make stuff up too. Then you complain that
people's minds are closed to your ideas. My advice to you is to grow up.
You can't force people to believe what you say just by saying it;
you must provide support for your arguments.
--
KEN FAIR - U. Chicago Law | <http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/kjfair>
Of Counsel, U. of Ediacara | Power Mac! | CABAL(tm) | I'm w/in McQ - R U?
"Any smoothly functioning technology will be
indistinguishable from a rigged demo." Isaac Asimov
Kenneth Fair
In article <5e019q$2...@b02b05.exu.ericsson.se>, eus...@cnn.exu.ericsson.se
(John Hyde) wrote:
>Mr. Shallit, I prefer to discuss matters with folks who can generate
>original thoughts. Your entire critique is based on criticism, a
>negative approach to dialogue which accomplishes nothing beyond ego
>gratification. The only positive statement you make is to mention the
>opinions of someone else who may have engaged in some original
>research (practically an oxymoron, but I'll overlook it).
Translation: "I don't talk to people who are interested in what the
real world says. I want to talk to people who like to invent fantasies
from wholecloth, who enjoy making assertions without backing them up."
>Historians, detectives, archeologists, and other professions are
>constantly in the uncomfortable position of needing to draw
>consclusions from fragmentary data that may even at first glance
>appear to be self-contradictory. If you were really interested in
>expanding your intellectual scope, you would not be so quick to
>dismiss every new claim that comes your way. Or, at the very least,
>you could ask some thoughtful questions, as some of your fellow
>skeptics have done.
Translation: "I like making claims that I don't back up with evidence.
It's so much easier than having to answer tough questions."
>There are some rebuttals to your comments, but given your
>destructionist approach, I'll not offer any at this time.
Translation: "I can't think of any real answers to what you said, so
I'll just bluster and hope no one notices."
--
KEN FAIR - U. Chicago Law | <http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/kjfair>
Of Counsel, U. of Ediacara | Power Mac! | CABAL(tm) | I'm w/in McQ - R U?
To me, boxing is like a ballet, except there's no music, no
choreography, and the dancers hit each other.
Peter F. Curran
In article <330621...@pilot.infi.net>,
Jerry <sta...@pilot.infi.net> writes:
>Puck wrote:
>Jerry:
>> > To reincarnate back to life again just like us.
>>
>> Why would we want to?
>>
>>Ans. from Jerry: The original process for the production of man and beast
> In general those who want to go on will as long as they are do not fall
>too low in their humanity and concern for the EArth.
Wrong. Totally wrong. Try again.
Pete
--
dough knot male: nos...@pascal.stu.rpi.edu
Use address in Organization line, finger
for PGP key. Antispaam test in progress.
Barry O'Grady
Gong...@home.com (Lewd Gongroid) wrote:
:Monkeys have no soul, do they?
It's true. Monkeys don't have a soul. But that's irrelevent since there is no such thing
as a soul.
=====================================
Email address is bar...@fastlink.com.au
Please remove the * from the return adddress when replying.
Unsolicited commercial emails are not wanted.
Responses to my article are welcome.
Michael Emberley
Jeffrey Shallit (sha...@graceland.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
:
: It continues to amaze me what nonsense some theists will advocate.
God agrees!
--
Michael "Lab-Rat" Emberley, President/Co-Founder, FTTV Fan Club
---------------------------------------------------------------
"If you're cooking poultry/Make sure it's not pink!"
-mr. nobody, "Salmonella"
---------------------------------------------------------------
FTTV - YOUR STATION FOR FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT
Jim Nichols
In article <007-130297...@macvalley.acs.umbc.edu>,
0...@her.majesties.gov.uk (Bond, James) wrote:
I am sure the Atheist/Evolutionist will find a soul in some of the bones
they check out from time to time. Especially if they get govt. funding.
--
Best of Luck
Jim Nichols
Spam protection enabled
gammon
I have an interesting response to this particular line of thinking.
Evolution vs creationism Why must they be opposites?Because it is said
than man was created in Gods image? Why can't a soul evolve? Don't we
evolve physically and (in most cases) evolve emotionally from birth?
Abortion vs prolife? I see no difference here. Surely you cannot be so
simple minded as to think that a woman gets pregnant just so she can kill a
baby?
What is to say that god looks at time in a linear manner like we do.
God put us here to grow, learn evolve. If he is not linear then when he
created us in his image is imaterial. He being the prime mover may have
started the spark to start us as amoeba for us to struggle through life to
learn something. This does not discount Adam & Eve. What is time to god?
Since God has a plan for each and every one of us who is to say what
someone is doing is wrong. ONLY god! Any human who purports to know the
mind of god is worse than a fool.
A soul must evolve! WE all evolve by learning lessons, some easy some
difficult, but we all learn
Chris Krolczyk
In talk.origins John Hyde <eus...@cnn.exu.ericsson.se> wrote:
: In article <E5JJv...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> sha...@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes:
: >Pure assertion.
: >This contradicts what you wrote below.
: >Contradicts your definition above,
: >Pure assertion, contradicting your definition above.
: >Pure assertion.
: >Utter and complete nonsense.
: >I think
: >you need to read a little about the evolution of moral systems.
: >May I suggest Robert Wright's _The Moral Animal_?
: >What evidence do you have that angels exist,
: >It continues to amaze me what nonsense some theists will advocate.
: Mr. Shallit, I prefer to discuss.. matters with folks who can generate
: original thoughts. Your entire critique is based on criticism,
"Your entire critique is based on..." _what_?
Let me get this straight-you take Shallit's post, truncate it, and then
turn around and attempt to flame him for making a critique based on
actual _criticism_?
Laughter, thy name is Hyde. At least for now.
:a
: negative approach to dialogue which accomplishes nothing beyond ego
: gratification.
Uh huh. In other words, anyone else replacing "ego gratification"
with "bursting John Hyde's bubble" will get the real point of this
remark, correct?
: There are some rebuttals to your comments, but given your
: destructionist approach, I'll not offer any at this time.
What an _unbelievable_ suprise that you wouldn't.
--
Chris Krolczyk
krol...@mcs.com http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Towers/3048
UCEs: just another way of saying that you're greedy *and* stupid.
Richard L. Hood
My question to all atheists is this:
If all the atheists are so smart, why is it they only have a vocabulary of four-letter
words? God is real, and by your blasphemy, you have taken it on yourself to trod under
foot, the cross of Jesus Christ, you were on His mind the day He hung there dying,
taking my sins, as well as yours,and every person ever born then, or to be born in the
future, and taking them on Himself. Why, because He loves you, even if you reject Him
to the day of your death, and you have to stand before Him to be judged, He will still
love you, as He says, "Depart from me, for I never knew you." By your declaration that
God does not exist, you are only fulfilling prophecy, that says that men will become
lovers of themselves, professing themselves to be wise, God says they become fools. As
it is written in Romans 1:18-32:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it
unto them.
"You look for God in visible form, He reveals Himself in invisible things:"
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and
Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
"Deep down in your very soul, you know God exist:"
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were
thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
"All atheists profess themselves to be so smart, and someone such as myself, who is
doing what all Christians should do,witness, a fool? God says, they have become the
fools, knowing only four-letter vocabularies."
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to
corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own
hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more
than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did
change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their
lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in
themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over
to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness,
covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity;
whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things,
disobedient to parents,
"God says you are without understanding."
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable,
unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of
death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
You are now fully aware of the judgment of God, can you escape it? Yes, if you humble
yourself, ask forgiveness for you sins, and ask Jesus into your heart, then He will
reveal Himself to you. Reject Him, and you will still bow before Him, but it will be at
the Great White Throne Judgment, and there it will be too late, instead of your
Saviour, He becomes your judge. Accept Him now, for today is the day of Salvation, thus
said the Lord.
Rich
Christopher A. Lee
In article <33078A...@cland.net> "Richard L. Hood" <ri...@cland.net> writes:
>My question to all atheists is this:
>
>If all the atheists are so smart, why is it they only have a vocabulary of four-letter
We don't. We just treat people like you with exactly the same contempt
and disrespect you initially show us every time you come to us.
You already know that to us your god is a figment of your imagination.
So why preach at us about it as though it actually exists? It's rude,
disrespectful and intolerant of those who don't share your beliefs.
When you (yes, *you*, Richard L. Hood) do this you cannot complain when
you are treated with *equal* disrespect.
>words? God is real, and by your blasphemy, you have taken it on yourself to trod under
Until you prove otherwise it's a figment of your deluded imagination.
And it's downright rude, disrespectful, intolerant and even nasty for you
to sermonise about it where it is neither wanted nor needed.
Like you do in this article.
Yes, I know your religion tells you to go out and harrass non-believers
so you can get brownie-points for it. This does not excuse your bad manners.
Because whatever your motivation, all we see is your behaving like an
obnoxious jerk without any consideration for others. Because we are on
the receiving end of what appears to be deliberate nastiness on your part.
If you had any consideration or understanding for the your fellow man,
you would keep your religion to yourself. And we could all get get on
together in comparative harmony.
Instead you preach at us and complain when we treat you and your beliefs
with the same disrespect you showed us.
Quite frankly, I don't care whether you think you're fucking Jesus or
being fucked by him when you masturbate. Just don't expect us to do the
same.
>foot, the cross of Jesus Christ, you were on His mind the day He hung there dying,
[totally un-necessessary and gratuitously insulting sermon deleted]
>
>"All atheists profess themselves to be so smart, and someone such as myself, who is
>doing what all Christians should do,witness, a fool? God says, they have become the
No. You only *think* you should witness. It is this act of witnessing
that has turned you into an obnoxious jerk. So quit complaining when you
are treated like one.
>fools, knowing only four-letter vocabularies."
>
>22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
[more sermonising crap deleted]
I don't know what these idiots hope to achieve by sermonising and preaching
at people who don't share their delusion. To include biblical quotes as
though they actually meant anything to their unwilling audience has to be
the height of stupidity.
If you were serious about spreading the message, you would do it
objectively. From common ground that is shared by both Christians and
non-Christians alike.
But you don't. You don't have the common sense to realise this. Instead
you assume that non-Christians who don't share your basic assumptions are
going to be convinced by quoting the bible.
Would Koran quotes convince you that Mohammed really was Allah's Prophet?
I thought not. So why assume that Bible quotes are going to convince
anybody who doesn't already believe the bible?
We hear the same old discredited rubbish from your kind so many times a
day, everyday of the year it's not funny any more.
And you're impervious to reason.
*Y*O*U* raise the subject. So you should do it from your unwilling
audience's perspective.
And when you behave like an obnoxiously stupid idiot, don't be surprised
when the annoyance and frustration shows itself in the language used.
the Grand Clavister
In <33078A...@cland.net> "Richard L. Hood" <ri...@cland.net>
writes:
>
>My question to all atheists is this:
>
>If all the atheists are so smart, why is it they only have a
vocabulary of four-letter
yourself to trod under
there dying,
to be born in the
>future, and taking them on Himself. Why, because He loves you, even
if you reject Him
>to the day of your death, and you have to stand before Him to be
judged, He will still
>love you, as He says, "Depart from me, for I never knew you." By your
declaration that
>God does not exist, you are only fulfilling prophecy, that says that
men will become
>lovers of themselves, professing themselves to be wise, God says
they become fools.
Not to be irreverent or anything, but, first of all, do you realize how
insane these paragraphs sound to people who do not "yet" have an
endless respect and tolerance for Christian dogma? Do you even realize
what I'm saying? That, to people who were not raised as Christians,
this stuff sounds like complete and utter insanity? That this guy who
lived and died 2,000 years ago had ME in particular in mind, and that
he was somehow taking MY sins into himself, when, let's face it, his
Dad was the one in the first place to establish what was and was not a
sin in the first place? And that he loves me throughout time and space
even though he died before I was born and that, because he loves
everyone, his love sounds kind of shitty and diluted? And that, on top
of all this, since the Bible quotations I have clipped are apparently
your only "proof" of all these bizarre assertions, that you are proving
your dogma with itself, rather than having any ACTUAL PROOF?
Is any of this getting through to you? Do you realize, even in a
sympathetic way, that the way to convert people to your cause is not to
drown them in your Christian dogmatic jargon? That it only makes things
worse? What kind of Christian _are_ you, anyway?
the Grand Clavister
[Hurting the sensitive and vulnerable since 1970]
--
I'M HARD AT WORK ON 'THE RING OF KEYS': AN APOTHEOSIS FOR YOURS TRULY
AND A CATACLYSMIC ORGY OF WEIRDNESS THAT WILL CHANGE THE WORLD FOREVER.
PLEASE HELP ME BY SENDING KEYS OF ANY SHAPE OR SIZE TO: O.L.I.N.Y.K., P.O.
BOX 2559, GRAND CENTRAL STATION, NEW YORK, NY 10163. YOU WON'T REGRET IT.
Visit my Hideously as-of-yet incomplete website: www.mindvox.com/~clavis
the Grand Clavister
But Jesus _does_ exist! He sharpens my pencil for me, if you know what
I mean...
the Grand Clavister
In <chrisleeE...@netcom.com> chri...@netcom.com (Christopher A.
Lee) writes:
>
>In article <33078A...@cland.net> "Richard L. Hood"
<ri...@cland.net> writes:
>>My question to all atheists is this:
>>
>>If all the atheists are so smart, why is it they only have a
vocabulary of four-letter
>
>We don't. We just treat people like you with exactly the same contempt
>and disrespect you initially show us every time you come to us.
>
>You already know that to us your god is a figment of your imagination.
>
>So why preach at us about it as though it actually exists? It's rude,
>disrespectful and intolerant of those who don't share your beliefs.
>
>When you (yes, *you*, Richard L. Hood) do this you cannot complain
when
>you are treated with *equal* disrespect.
>
>>words? God is real, and by your blasphemy, you have taken it on
yourself to trod under
>
>Until you prove otherwise it's a figment of your deluded imagination.
>
>And it's downright rude, disrespectful, intolerant and even nasty for
you
>to sermonise about it where it is neither wanted nor needed.
>
>Like you do in this article.
>
>Yes, I know your religion tells you to go out and harrass
non-believers
>so you can get brownie-points for it. This does not excuse your bad
manners.
>
>Because whatever your motivation, all we see is your behaving like an
>obnoxious jerk without any consideration for others. Because we are on
>the receiving end of what appears to be deliberate nastiness on your
part.
>
>If you had any consideration or understanding for the your fellow man,
>you would keep your religion to yourself. And we could all get get on
>together in comparative harmony.
>
>Instead you preach at us and complain when we treat you and your
beliefs
>with the same disrespect you showed us.
>
>Quite frankly, I don't care whether you think you're fucking Jesus or
>being fucked by him when you masturbate. Just don't expect us to do
the
>same.
>
>>foot, the cross of Jesus Christ, you were on His mind the day He hung
there dying,
--
the Grand Clavister
Yup.
the Grand Clavister
In <yF6BzcEb...@YGRI.net> Dyna...@YGRI.net (Doktor DynaSoar)
writes:
>
>"gammon" <gam...@greater.net> sent bitwaves which read:
>}I have an interesting response to this particular line of thinking.
>
> PRESCRIPTURES 3:02 -- 3:35
>
> Book of Genociis
>
> Disc 1, File 1
>
> Bespaken through "Bob" the Prophet in the Year 27 B.X.
>
> Transcribed from the Original Tapes
>
> For All Who Shall Heed
>
> In the beginning, there was PeE.
>
> And the PeE said, "Let there be The Bleeding Head of Arnold Palmer;
> and when that is done, let there be God."
>
> And then the PeE rested, and spake no more, but flowed forth in
> fullness forevermore.
>
> And God moved across the face of the PeE, and He looked at the PeE,
> and God said, "It is good."
>
> And He saw the darkness that surrounded the PeE, and He said, "Let
> there be yet more PeE."
>
> But there were none to urinate, so the Lord JHVH-1's PeE was
lacking
> in fullness.
>
> So God said, "Let there be firmament, and stars, and a sun; and on
the
> firmament let there be animals and dinosaurs, and invisible
monsters;
> and let there be water around them all, that they may drink; and
let
> there be bladders within the bowels of all creatures, that they
might
> make more PeE."
>
> And so the heavens and earth took form, and the PeE was
replenished.
>
> And God smelled the PeE, and said, "It is good."
>
> But God wanted not to create new PeErs Himself; for He desired
Slack.
> So He divided all the creatures into male and female; to the males
He
> gaveth dicks, and to the females He gaveth sleek quims; and He
madeth
> the moment of Squirt the greatest pleasure for the males, and the
> moment of Ooze the greatest pleasure for the females; therefore
they
> would mate, and make offspring to continue the flow of the PeE,
that
> the Lord JHVH-1 might rest and partake of the pleasures of all the
> PeEing that occured in abundance.
>
> And lo, there was peace in the heavens and on earth for ten billion
> years.
>
> But God had also created Xists, and they journeyed out of their
> bodies, and came to Earth. And they said: "This earth is good; but
> without bodies we can PeE not. We must build bodies for PeEing,
verily
> as God hath built us, and enter these bodies during their PeEing;
> otherwise shall we leave them to their own Wills, for though they
art
> pathetic in their ignorance, we love them in our mercy and for
their
> great PeEing."
>
> And so the Xists made SubGeniuses, who were perfect; for they PeEd
in
> plenty, and were like unto giants; and their race was that which is
> now called Yeti.
>
> And they lived for an thousand years, always in happiness and
> fulfillment through the PeE.
>
> For they had been bequeathed the gift of thought and knowledge by
the
> Xists, and were an hairy race; and their PeE was the staff of their
> knowledge, and pleasure.
>
> And the greatest of these was the First "Bob," for he was simple in
> works but wise in his Slack; and, though lazy of work, in his
PeEing
> he did pleaseth the Lord JHVH-1.
>
> But the First "Bob" became prideful in his Slackness; and he sought
to
> be as the Xists who made him and his brethren, and to make
creatures
> from the clay for himself to command.
>
> And so the First "Bob," and the SubGeniuses of the first city,
called
> Atlantis, did gain in knowledge and did endeavor to build a Man
from
> the clay.
>
> But the Clay was wise, and yielded not.
>
> And so they took the monkeys of the field and forest, and changed
> them, and made Humans, both Men and Women, and gaveth them Fingers
> with which to build and carry, and brains of earthly design, that
the
> Yetis might have more Slack, and might toil less.
>
> And these Humans pleased the First "Bob;" for he had made them
without
> Souls, and they were simple, and were dutiful as servants of the
> Yetis.
>
> For the First "Bob" in his wisdom had made them to find greater
> happiness in obeying the words of Masters than in all other
pursuits,
> yea, even the Squirt or Ooze Moments.
>
> For ten million years did the SubGenius Yetis and their human
beasts
> live in harmony; and the Xists still did PeE through the SubGenii,
and
> were pleased.
>
> But in his pride the First "Bob" thought not to give to his Men the
> Awareness of the PeE, which purifieth all Divine Beings; and so
they
> were unclean and corruptible.
>
> And the Elder Gods looked down from Hell and were jealous of the
Lord
> JHVH-1, and of the Xists, and of the First "Bob," for there was
great
> PeEing upon the earth, in which they shared not.
>
> For they were without form, and void, and could not PeE; and so
they
> had no Slack.
>
> And the Elder Gods saw that the humans likewise had no Slack, nor
did
> they PeE freely; and so they came down in the forms of angels to
tempt
> the humans; they made them drunk with the false spirit and with
rotten
> fruits.
>
> They said, "If thou joineth with us, thine Higher Gods which love
> thee, and be our Channels, and make strife among the SubGenii, then
> thou shalt know Slack, and shall PeE."
>
> In their simpleness the humans heeded, and they sought to fight
> against their masters and Creators; for in their darkness they knew
> not the Lord JHVH-1 from the Elder Gods.
>
> So the Lord JHVH-1, and His Xists, smote back against the Elder
Gods;
> but when the Elder Gods were victorious for awhile, the Xists
sought
> out a weapon of the Lord JHVH-1.
>
> And they did create a Pattern, and this Pattern was like unto the
Lord
> JHVH-1 in small form: it made its bearer to but dream, and these
> dreamings were brought into flesh by the Pattern.
>
> And it was called Omicron Epsilon, the Vision Beholding Itself.
>
> But the Xists in their wisdom saw dangers beyond dangers in the
weapon
> of the Pattern, and abandoned the weapon of the Pattern, and gave
it
> unto the First "Bob" for safekeeping, for they trusted him.
>
> But the First "Bob" was rebellious, for his Squirts had been
corupted
> by the Elder Gods secretly; and in his folly he turned the weapon
of
> the Pattern upon the Elder Gods; for he thought to be as the Xists
and
> the Lord JHVH-1, and have great power.
>
> And in one moment the dreams of the Elder Gods were made flesh, and
> the dreams of the Yeti SubGenii were made flesh, and likewise even
the
> small dreams of the Humans.
>
> And demons came, and demons from within demons, and from those also
> came demons; and the birth of demons never ended, until the demons
had
> smote and killed all the creatures they saw, even their makers.
>
> But as the creatures died, so likewise did their dreams, and thus
also
> the demons.
>
> And the Earth was emptied of creatures for the most part: both
> SubGenii and Humans, and also the great beasts of the land, which
were
> dinosaurs.
>
> But the demons of the dreams of the Elder Gods saw not the little
> things of earth, and flesh, but smote only the Elder Gods; and
these
> were the most powerful demons.
>
> But the demons were from their dreams, and in their wisdom of evil
the
> Elder Gods knew they must sleep without dreams to be rid of the
> demons.
>
> And the Elder Gods made themselves to fall into a great Sleep of
Ages;
> and the demons were driven out of the world and the heavens.
>
> But the sleep of the Elder Gods was of their own design; and they
> sleepeth with The Sleep of One Eye Open, that they might tempt and
> command the Humans again, as their tools and Keys of Oepening; and
so
> it has been since that time.
>
> On the Day of Judgement which shall come, those Humans tempted into
> bondage to the Elder Gods shall strive to open the Doorway to Doom,
> that the Elder Gods might reawaken; and the bloodspawn of the Yeti
> only may close it, lest all the earth and heavens be devoured by
the
> Elder Gods in Their jealousy.
>
> After the First "Bob" and Yeti SubGenii had used the weapon of the
> Pattern of Omicron Epsilon, there was peace on the earth; for most
> things which walk and swim and fly were dead; vermin, and mice and
> lemurs, and monkeys and crawling things: these only survived, as
did
> the Invisible Monsters.
>
> But this diminishing of the PeE displeased the Xists, and so they
> punished the First "Bob" by splitting him into two "Bobs," that his
> wisdom might no longer be mixed with folly; and thereafter the one
> "Bob" was good but foolish, while the other "Bob" was evil yet
wise.
>
> And LO, even as the Good "Bob" strove to lead the SubGenii out of
> darkness, and to Slack, so did the Evil "Bob" corrupt them and
tempt
> them with False Slack; and he devised Money to do this.
>
> And the Evil "Bob" did make certain SubGenius Yetis to lie down
with
> the beats of the field, which were Humans, and to mate with them,
> which is an abomination of PeE in the eyes of the Lord JHVH-1.
>
> And the Lord JHVH-1 saw this, and laughed; for, though He did hate
the
> Evil "Bob," He did yet knoweth the Skor in full, and thus also the
> past and future; and so He created a Plan.
>
> And the fruition of this Plan, which none can know, NAY, not even
the
> Xists, shall come in a time none but the triumphant of "Bobs" are
> given to know likewise.
>
> In accordance with this Plan, the Lord JHVH-1 did thus come down
upon
> the earth in many forms, again and again; and He did thus command
the
> Yeti to ravish the Pinks, which were human; and the Yetis, His
> servants, obeyed, though they were sore afraid, and despised the
touch
> of the Humans, who were smooth; for the Yetis were a hairy race in
> those days, not needful of clothing.
>
> Thus, in time, after many years and more years, the Yetis were no
> longer begat in purity, but were mixed with Humans; and they
possessed
> then both the cleverness of the Yetis, and the slavishness of the
> Humans.
>
> And they overunneth the earth in the Latter Days.
>
> And their PeE was corrupted, so that only those who remembered the
> Covenant PeEd freely; and these were few in number, and ever shall
be
> until the Second Day of Judgement.
>
> And only a small number of Yetis did uphold their Covenant, and
keep
> their seed and egg within their tribe; but they shall remain hide
in
> the far places, where Humans and those of mixed blood treadeth not.
>
> And they shall be feared, and shunned, until the Day of the
Arrisal,
> when the Lord JHVH-1 shall permit the returning of the Xists to
earth.
>
> But the times of these days are not for thine to know, sayeth the
> "Bobs."
>
> And returning to earth after some time, the Lord JHVH-1 looked and
saw
> that the Elder Gods were gone, and asleep, and unable to persecute
> Him; likewise He saw what the Xists had done; and He was sore
> displeased: for where there had been one tribe in harmony, with
> slaves, there were now two in conflict, both mixed in blood with
> slaves, and therefore seeking to make slaves of one another.
>
> So He punished the Xists, and banished them from earth, that they
> might be without bodies and might not PeE.
>
> And He ordained this punishment to last 80 millions of years; so
that
> only on the day of the Arrisal might the Xists return to earth, to
> resume their PeEing.
>
> And the Day of the Arrisal is of the fifth day of the fifth month
of
> the year of the Beast tripled; let he who has wisdom calculate the
> number of the day of the Arrisal.
>
> For on this day shall the First Judgement fall, and there shall be
a
> battle of merchants like unto a great Auction: and the servants of
the
> Good "Bob" shall do battle with the servants of the Evil "Bob"; and
> whichsoever army greeteth the Xists, by that shall the Xists judge
the
> fate of earth.
>
> For the Xists loveth the First "Bob," who knoweth Slack; and so
they
> equally hate the Bad "Bob," which knoweth AntiSlack.
>
> And the Elder Gods await this judgement; for they covet the earth
and
> heavens of the Lord JHVH-1, and seek to steal away His Throne.
>
> And though the Lord JHVH-1 seeth fit to send each man and Yeti such
> plagues as accord with His choosing, the plagues of the Elder Gods
> shall be of such greater danger that even the "Bobs" may not
foresee
> them, nay, not even in visions.
>
> And there shall be desolation, lest the Xists be greeted by the
armies
> of the Good "Bob," bearing gifts of their liking, which only the
"Bob"
> knoweth.
>
> For the Good "Bob" selleth all, even the least and the last; and
all
> buyers are joyous unto his selling.
>
> Yet the Evil "Bob" buyeth all, and in his cleverness shall he pay
> prices not of the full worth of thine goods, and the goods of all
the
> earth; but he shall trick thee, and all thine brethren, and will
make
> not fair trade.
>
> For he buyeth souls, which have no price.
>
> And those who knoweth not the Good "Bob" from the Evil "Bob" shall
> verily sell away their souls, and shall be lost.
>
>
>--
>(@ @)\DynaSoar\___, Doktor DynaSoar Iridium, Scienfictiontologist
> ll ll Yetii Genetii Research InstiToot, Somedamnwhere,
VA
>Clench of The One True Pipe Dream, ElectroChurch of the SubGenius
>"We have but one purpose, and that remains unknown." dyn...@infi.net
Wayne Delia
In <33078A...@cland.net>, "Richard L. Hood" <ri...@cland.net> writes:
>My question to all atheists is this:
>
>If all the atheists are so smart, why is it they only have a vocabulary of four-letter
An atheist can be characterized by someone who lacks a belief in God. I'm an
atheist, and there are no words in my response which are exactly the number
of letters you think our vocabulary is limited to. You are therefore proved wrong.
>God is real
So is my disbelief.
>and by your blasphemy, you have taken it on yourself to trod under
>foot, the cross of Jesus Christ,
If I could, I certainly would do it.
>you were on His mind the day He hung there dying,
Actually, I think He had other things to think about.
>taking my sins, as well as yours,
So why all the concern about sin?
>and every person ever born then, or to be born in the
>future, and taking them on Himself.
Uh-huh. Yup. Demands for belief through guilt.
>Why, because He loves you, even if you reject Him
>to the day of your death, and you have to stand before Him to be judged, He will still
>love you, as He says, "Depart from me, for I never knew you."
So Jeffrey Dahmer is actually up there in heaven, despite his murder and
cannibalism? If he is, I do not desire to go to heaven.
Wayne Delia, red...@ibm.net
rrus...@ffg.com
>You are now fully aware of the judgment of God, can you escape it? Yes, if you humble
>yourself, ask forgiveness for you sins, and ask Jesus into your heart, then He will
>reveal Himself to you. Reject Him, and you will still bow before Him, but it will be at
>the Great White Throne Judgment, and there it will be too late, instead of your
>Saviour, He becomes your judge. Accept Him now, for today is the day of Salvation, thus
>said the Lord.
>
>Rich
You would think that The Almighty just might bestow upon his
messengers the ability to punctuate correctly.
rostaman
TarlaStar
eus...@cnn.exu.ericsson.se (John Hyde) wrote:
>In article <E5LAI...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> sha...@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes:
>>In article <5e019q$2...@b02b05.exu.ericsson.se>,
>>John Hyde <eus...@cnn.exu.ericsson.se> wrote:
>>>
>>>Mr. Shallit, I prefer to discuss matters with folks who can generate
>>>original thoughts.
>>
>>You mean, you prefer to discuss things with people who don't dare
>>question your incoherent rubbish.
>No, I mean that I prefer to discuss matters with folks who can
>generate original thoughts. (It's easy criticize oppponents when
>you get to put words in their mouths). I also prefer to discuss
>matters with folks who are open-minded enough to at least consider the
>possibility that an oppent could have a valid position, a possiblity
>that you clearly discounted from the start.
Is this statement an example of your own ability to remain open
minded: "The problem with abortion is that it invariably causes
permanent emotional damage to the woman who undergoes the procedure."
?
Because it seems to me to be a statement of assumed fact, which is
absolutely untrue.
>In addition, I prefer to discuss matters with persons who demonstrate
>a certain minimum level of respect for their opponent. It is just
>plain rude to use phrases such as "incoherent rubbish."
It's just plain rude to assume that you know the emotional tenor of
every woman who's ever chosen an abortion.
Tarla
***** Rev. Mutha Tarla Star*****
"Art is moral passion married to entertainment. Moral passion
without entertainment is propaganda. Entertainment without
moral passion is television." -Rita Mae Brown
*****www.ionet.net/~bmyers/homepage.html*****
David F Lynch
David Gerard (gerdw_remove-this...@cougar.vut.edu.au) wrote:
:
: Evolution. Pish-tosh.
I'd just like to point out that I won the fish toss when I was in third
grade.
That is all.
--
Dave (not David) Lynch/Mutant Uebergeek etc./Founder, Church of Eternal Man
dfly...@homer.louisville.edu/"Yo como hamon y queso bocadillo!"-Neil Peart
ObObsoleteHomepage:http://www.rlabs.com/lynch (.)(.) Please email followups
PERFECT SLACK FOREVER|ROUND THINGS ARE BORING|I'M SERIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*
xona
Man has sex with woman
Woman has man's baby
Man has sex with baby
Baby grows and becomes TV evangelist
xona
John Hyde
In article <5eap9i$h...@ionews.ionet.net> bmy...@ionet.net (TarlaStar) writes:
>eus...@cnn.exu.ericsson.se (John Hyde) wrote:
>Is this statement an example of your own ability to remain open
>minded: "The problem with abortion is that it invariably causes
>permanent emotional damage to the woman who undergoes the procedure."
>?
>Because it seems to me to be a statement of assumed fact, which is
>absolutely untrue.
Dear Rev. Mutha Tarla Star,
I've already addressed this issue in another posting, and I'm pretty
sure that I was responding to YOU (perhaps it was a different female
Bobite -- if so, sorry for the confusion).
I backed off from such a sweeping statement, although I still believe,
based on personal experience, that something in a woman's hormonal
balance is thrown off-kilter by undergoing an abortion, and the
effects are often if not usually very long-lasting. The effect is
very real, which is why I attribute it to hormones (kind of like PMS,
which is also *very* real, but short-lived!)
the Grand Clavister
In <5ea4bu$p...@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> red...@ibm.net (Wayne Delia)
writes:
It's really simple. Christ was schizophrenic. It was probably brought
on by bad diet, or a childhood illness, or being sodomized every night
until he was 13 by his "father", Joseph. That's why he had the original
Messiah Complex, and why he actually thought people would give a shit
what he had to say, when everyone knows he was just a self-deluded
queer-boy.
the Grand Clavister
[But at least he wasn't a nigger. Or was he...?]
TarlaStar
eus...@cnn.exu.ericsson.se (John Hyde) wrote:
>In article <5eap9i$h...@ionews.ionet.net> bmy...@ionet.net (TarlaStar) writes:
>>eus...@cnn.exu.ericsson.se (John Hyde) wrote:
>>Is this statement an example of your own ability to remain open
>>minded: "The problem with abortion is that it invariably causes
>>permanent emotional damage to the woman who undergoes the procedure."
>>?
>>Because it seems to me to be a statement of assumed fact, which is
>>absolutely untrue.
>Dear Rev. Mutha Tarla Star,
>I've already addressed this issue in another posting, and I'm pretty
>sure that I was responding to YOU (perhaps it was a different female
>Bobite -- if so, sorry for the confusion).
>I backed off from such a sweeping statement, although I still believe,
>based on personal experience, that something in a woman's hormonal
>balance is thrown off-kilter by undergoing an abortion, and the
>effects are often if not usually very long-lasting. The effect is
>very real, which is why I attribute it to hormones (kind of like PMS,
>which is also *very* real, but short-lived!)
And do you have anything aside from anecdotal evidence and personal
assumptions to support your position? If I, as a woman, tell you that
you're wrong, will you believe me? If not, then why should I believe
you?
Big Dave
-- Sequoia wrote:
>
> In article <5dqsac$h...@access4.digex.net>, hus...@access.digex.net wrote:
>
> **In article <5djgti$i...@news.icanect.net>,
> **Lewd Gongroid <Gong...@home.com> wrote:
> **}Monkeys have no soul, do they?
>
> Well I sure hope that they do. If they don't, then I doubt very much that
> we do either. Perhaps because monkey's live with such a much higher moral
> code than we do we humans don't even realize how far down the evolutional
> ladder we are and assume that other life forms in the universe live with no
> moral code. For example, it's rare for a Monkey to rape it's own children
> (or any other children), allow their parents to die helplessly in order
> that they may gain the dead parents material posessions, or to murder their
> friends and neighbors over a few morsels of food. We humans are quite
> content to do all of these things and much much more. Shoot--I've never
> even knew a monkey who told a lie!!!
>
Actually when everyone was teaching different apes sign language, they
did lie quite frequently to get out of trouble. I read somewhere that
they were putting all the "talking" apes on one island after the
experiments were done. Has anyone else heard anything about that.
afa-b removed from groups. Please keep it that way.
--Dave
> ________________________________
> Live Long and Prosper.
John Hyde
In article <kjfair-ya02408000...@uchinews.uchicago.edu> kjf...@midway.uchicago.edu.REMOVETHIS (Kenneth Fair) writes:
>In article <5e019q$2...@b02b05.exu.ericsson.se>,eus...@cnn.exu.ericsson.se (John Hyde) wrote:
>>Mr. Shallit, I prefer to discuss matters with folks who can generate
>>original thoughts.
>
>real world says. I want to talk to people who like to invent fantasies
>from wholecloth, who enjoy making assertions without backing them up."
>>Historians, detectives, archeologists, and other professions are [etc.]
>
>Translation: "I like making claims that I don't back up with evidence.
>It's so much easier than having to answer tough questions."
>>There are some rebuttals to your comments, but given your [...]
>
>Translation: "I can't think of any real answers to what you said, so
>I'll just bluster and hope no one notices."
Translation:
I don't have a good rebuttal to your reply, so I'll just ridicule you
by putting words into your mouth based on my own limited understanding
of what you wrote. Then, to be sure I get in the last word, I'll set
the followups so that I and my compatriots won't see your reply.
Two can play your silly game.
Forum
On 16 Feb 97 01:21:16 GMT, "gammon" <gam...@greater.net> wrote:
>I have an interesting response to this particular line of thinking.
>
A very interesting and evolved discussion. And there are more
definitive points, such as the use of the word "soul."
A high form of mysticism teaches that there is only one 'soul' in the
entire universe. What is often called "soul", or "souls" are termed
'soul-personalities', i.e. particular reflections of 'the soul'. The
universal soul is perfect and cannot be evolved, but its reflections.
i.e. 'soul-personalities' are evolving to a degree of perfect
reflection, although such terminus is not guaranteed.
Hu-man kind is a Unity with no exact distinct separation point in its
stream of construction, but is Dual in its nature which one calls
"body and soul", and is Triune in its expression, which is "body,
mind, and soul."
Herein 'mind' is a metaphysical condition comprising what may be
called the hu-man's 'soul-personality' and is being refined by
personal experience on the mundane plane, the only place and
conditions where it can gain evolvement.
'Mind' therefore persists through numerous incarnations with end of
reflecting its divine purpose and attaining immortality.
'God' is a term that has as many definitions as there are individuals,
and perhaps a better term is the Supreme Being. Such a Being's
concepts would seem to be universal and unconcerned with individual
hu-man's definitions of time and space and particulars, all of which
are evanascent and ever-changing. Hu-man does study and learn and
detect and codify as laws and principles the actualities he perceives,
whether unaided or aided by technology, and finds these facts
relatively helpful in dealing with nature and cosmic forces.
The Supreme Being would be approachable by anyone---on the supreme
Being's terms rather than on the individual hu-man's. If the Supreme
being enters into an individual's experience it would have to be
accomplished with the experience of the Supreme expressed in the terms
"Light, Life, and Love," on an impersonal basis. There can be no
selectivity on particular, individual characteristics as height, sex,
age, national origin, religion, etc.
This experience leads into the subject of what counts, i.e.
consciousness, and here there is gradient departure of belief from
many types of students.