New Concept on aliens and Jesus Christ

[john cobos]

Visit my web site at Http://www.geocities.com/area51/zone/6496
under construction leave feedback

[Bottlebob]

john cobos wrote:
>
> Visit my web site at Http://www.geocities.com/area51/zone/6496
> under construction leave feedback

John:

I'm not sure why you posted this to a car group (maybe you think Camaro
owners are the closest thing to extraterrestrials you've come across),
anyway the idea that God is/was and alien is NOT new. It's been kicked
around for 40 years. About the only thing God and your Earth visiting
UFO aliens share is their abysmally small probability of existing at
all. I'm sure there must be intelligent beings in the universe, it's
very doubtful that they would have two arms, two legs, and a head
though. Something evolved in an entirely different eco system would in
all probability look quite different. Just look at the different
species on our own planet, fish, insects, jelly fish, lizards, dogs,
bats, humans, and all of these share 90% of the same genes (maybe not
the jellyfish). Something with an entirely different genome might not
even be recognizable, maybe intelligent crystals, coherent and
intelligent clouds, 3 acres worth of intelligent slime, whatever you
could imagine the reality would probably be more strange.

Bottlebob

[Homunculus]

The idea of God being an alien being has been kicked around for more like 1500
years, not 4. More improbable than this "alien" intelligence existing all is the
fact that it chose to create us (probably out of loneliness), and then after all
the bullsht we gave it, it still wants to talk with us. Kind of pathetic. I pity
poor alien God. Read Phillip K. Dick's VALIS if you want to more about this tragic
weak thing we call God.

[SaGa]

I don't like it when people post the way he did... But you are a fool to beleive there
is no such thing as god, or how we formed from monkeys (otherwise known as evolution).
If we formed from apes (as they say) why are there still apes? That's the biggest
question. when a species evolves, ALL of it evolves. If you want to start another
flame war about this, I have facts about how untrue evolution really is.

By the way, not to be a jackass or anything, but.... Different occurences in the world
are happening just as the bible predicts.... Israel has been specified in the bible,
and even things such as El Nino have been predicted. If you think el nino is bad, just
wait and the weather will be dramatically worse. Or, even cosider the school
shootings, they were predicted by the bible too.

Sorry if I sound groggy, I just got back from California.

Regards,
SaGa

[Monroe Roden]

SaGa wrote:
snipped

> Or, even cosider the school
> shootings, they were predicted by the bible too.
>
> Sorry if I sound groggy, I just got back from California.

That explains part of it.

Happy Motoring.

Monroe

[Bottlebob]

SaGa wrote:
>
> I don't like it when people post the way he did... But you are a fool to beleive there
> is no such thing as god, or how we formed from monkeys (otherwise known as evolution).
> If we formed from apes (as they say) why are there still apes? That's the biggest
> question. when a species evolves, ALL of it evolves. If you want to start another
> flame war about this, I have facts about how untrue evolution really is.

SaGa:

No need to be calling people fools just because they don't believe like
you do. If you think the ideas someone presents are foolish BEFORE you
even hear them out you may be missing an opportunity to learn something.
About evolution, no person having the slightest knowledge of evolution
EVER said we evolved from monkeys. That is a distortion religion
propagates for its own reasons. Monkeys, apes, humans, the whole
primate family evolved from a single precursor. Monkeys and apes are
our cousins so to speak NOT our predecessors. So the 'biggest question'
is not a question at all, just religion's manipulation of the facts for
its own ends, or it's ignorant refusal to really understand evolution.

>
> By the way, not to be a jackass or anything, but.... Different occurences in the world
> are happening just as the bible predicts.... Israel has been specified in the bible,
> and even things such as El Nino have been predicted. If you think el nino is bad, just

> wait and the weather will be dramatically worse. Or, even cosider the school

> shootings, they were predicted by the bible too.

School shootings predicted? Pardon me if I'm a little skeptical, but
guns weren't even thought of in biblical times. Leaving that out, the
prediction of troubling times is a little too general to be considered a
valid prediction, there have been wars and famines since day one, and
predicting that they will happen in the future takes no stretch of the
imagination. If the bible is so good at predicting future events, let's
hear some specifics. I await your predictions from the bible, I'm
certainly willing to hear them out, *I* may learn something.

>
> Sorry if I sound groggy, I just got back from California.
>

> Regards,
> SaGa

Bottlebob

[SaGa]

Bottlebob wrote:

> SaGa wrote:
> >
> > I don't like it when people post the way he did... But you are a fool to beleive there
> > is no such thing as god, or how we formed from monkeys (otherwise known as evolution).
> > If we formed from apes (as they say) why are there still apes? That's the biggest
> > question. when a species evolves, ALL of it evolves. If you want to start another
> > flame war about this, I have facts about how untrue evolution really is.
>
> SaGa:
>
> No need to be calling people fools just because they don't believe like
> you do. If you think the ideas someone presents are foolish BEFORE you
> even hear them out you may be missing an opportunity to learn something.
> About evolution, no person having the slightest knowledge of evolution
> EVER said we evolved from monkeys. That is a distortion religion
> propagates for its own reasons. Monkeys, apes, humans, the whole
> primate family evolved from a single precursor. Monkeys and apes are
> our cousins so to speak NOT our predecessors. So the 'biggest question'
> is not a question at all, just religion's manipulation of the facts for
> its own ends, or it's ignorant refusal to really understand evolution.
>

I'm not calling them a fool for not beleiving what I do, I'm calling them a fool for being
ignorant.

Good points though.

> >
> > By the way, not to be a jackass or anything, but.... Different occurences in the world
> > are happening just as the bible predicts.... Israel has been specified in the bible,
> > and even things such as El Nino have been predicted. If you think el nino is bad, just
> > wait and the weather will be dramatically worse. Or, even cosider the school
> > shootings, they were predicted by the bible too.
>
> School shootings predicted? Pardon me if I'm a little skeptical, but
> guns weren't even thought of in biblical times. Leaving that out, the
> prediction of troubling times is a little too general to be considered a
> valid prediction, there have been wars and famines since day one, and
> predicting that they will happen in the future takes no stretch of the
> imagination. If the bible is so good at predicting future events, let's
> hear some specifics. I await your predictions from the bible, I'm
> certainly willing to hear them out, *I* may learn something.
>

They don't specify things in the bible such as guns. Otherwise things would have been given
names before their time.

One of the predictions...eh'? Well, in the 1980's, Barbera Walters (How do you spell that?)
reported on utterly thousands of Jews moving to Israel. That was predicted by the Bible.
Barbera Walters was fulfilling a prophecy without even knowing it.

Sorry if I sound groggy again...

Regards,
SaGa

[Danno]

john cobos wrote:
>
> Visit my web site at Http://www.geocities.com/area51/zone/6496
> under construction leave feedback

I think this person is looking to us F-Body owners, as higher beings (of
course), to comment on his website...

Danno
'84 Camaro SC
2.8L V-6/60, A4, 3.23 rear-end
139,000+ miles and still going!

[Em8569]

>From: SaGa <sa...@phoenix.crossroads.com>

>Or, even cosider the school
>shootings, they were predicted by the bible too.

Huh? Where? I missed that passage, I guess.

Emily

'85 Cutlass 383, 700, 3.70 posi, Global West Suspension, NOS cheater
12.60's on the engine
11.34 on NOS
'69 Camaro 421sb, 1200 ATI @ 13 psi, intercooled, Big Shot plate, autocross
suspension

[Adam Stouffer]

SaGa wrote:
>
>
> They don't specify things in the bible such as guns. Otherwise things would have been given
> names before their time.

Personally I think the bible is pure bullshit

>
> One of the predictions...eh'? Well, in the 1980's, Barbera Walters (How do you spell that?)
> reported on utterly thousands of Jews moving to Israel. That was predicted by the Bible.
> Barbera Walters was fulfilling a prophecy without even knowing it.
>

Sure you are still only 14 years old?

--
------------------------
| Remove the NO-SPAM |
------------------------

[Dagon7]

>
>I think this person is looking to us F-Body owners, as higher beings (of
>course), to comment on his website...
>
>Danno

After all lots of people say the new camaro looks alien...hmmm

Ryan
89 5.7Liter IROC-Z

[VaMpY]

On Sun, 07 Jun 1998 22:42:51 -0500, Danno <da...@vet.purdue.edu> wrote:

>;cjohn cobos wrote:
>;c>
>;c> Visit my web site at Http://www.geocities.com/area51/zone/6496
>;c> under construction leave feedback
>;c
>;cI think this person is looking to us F-Body owners, as higher beings (of
>;ccourse), to comment on his website...
>;c
>;cDanno
>;c'84 Camaro SC
>;c2.8L V-6/60, A4, 3.23 rear-end
>;c139,000+ miles and still going!

Yep he was searching for us alright!

Personally though I have no reasons to doubt anyone beliefs or say it is
all false. I myself do enjoy the purity of atheism, but it is known that
ppl who decide to believe in something sometimes end up doing crappy stuff
and try to justify it with their belief's, sad if nothing less.

-Don't push you shit on me and I will do my best to return the favor.

ŠarkŠesire +'+VaMpY+'+
-'98 Z28 Forest Green

[SaGa]

Adam Stouffer wrote:

> SaGa wrote:
> >
> >
> > They don't specify things in the bible such as guns. Otherwise things would have been given
> > names before their time.
>
> Personally I think the bible is pure bullshit
>

Personally, I think you are pure bullshit...

> >
> > One of the predictions...eh'? Well, in the 1980's, Barbera Walters (How do you spell that?)
> > reported on utterly thousands of Jews moving to Israel. That was predicted by the Bible.
> > Barbera Walters was fulfilling a prophecy without even knowing it.
> >
>
> Sure you are still only 14 years old?
>

Of course I'm 14 dumbass. If you would goto church, you might learn stuff.

> --
> ------------------------
> | Remove the NO-SPAM |
> ------------------------

Regards,
SaGa

[IanGorg]

Be careful--the Bible also says that he who calls somebody a fool is in danger
of hellfire.

From Matthew 5:22--

"...but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

Ian

[Ringworm]

How any otherwise perfectly sane and rational person can believe that there is
some old guy w/ a beard that lives in this magical kingdom in the sky will
never cease to amaze me.

SaGa wrote:
>
> <A bunch of shit about how he believes in the above>
--
Ringworm
Anti-Archangel #11
http://newbie.darkridge.com

[Joskyn, aka, Death to Geeko the Muppet]

Whilst thinking of how I can Flame Archangel for Fun/No reason, SaGa
<sa...@phoenix.crossroads.com> Dumped this Post on alt.2600. Thus comes
my Reply/Flame.:

Bawhahahahahaha Praise be to Lord SaGa..... Fucking hell SaGa, does
"your" Church know that you swear like a Scum bag? Do they know you
frequent a Evil Hacking NG...You are a hippocrite SaGa... climb down
from your pious heights and remove your "Holy Ego" from this NG and
post to alt.religious.zealots or something "worthy" of your presence.

You have a very un-<place your religion here> attitude, unless the
religion you belong is some form of Devil worship...BTW how is AA?

A confirmed atheist

Joskyn

PUBLIC ENEMEY # 9
ANTI-ARCHANGEL # 26
ANTI-GEEKO The MUPPET # 1

"In Heaven an angel is nobody in particular."
George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~animal1
http://newbie.darkridge.com

SpamBots a total LAAmer for you to send some special offers
st...@primenet.com
stin...@hotmail.com
fd...@hotmail.com
add...@geocities.com

[Si_Druid]

SaGa <sa...@phoenix.crossroads.com> writes:

>I don't like it when people post the way he did... But you are a fool to beleive there
>is no such thing as god, or how we formed from monkeys (otherwise known as evolution).
>If we formed from apes (as they say) why are there still apes? That's the biggest
>question. when a species evolves, ALL of it evolves. If you want to start another
>flame war about this, I have facts about how untrue evolution really is.

I don't mean to take on the whole christian science community (again) but I'm going to be
blunt about this...

Evolution exists. An entire species does not evolve all at once and in the same direction
(example: squirrels on either side of the grand canyon). Creatures evolve because one
set of genes allows them to better fit into a particular ecological niche. So what if
there are TWO niches? there may be two sets of genes that better enable that creature to
fit into the niche. Why are there humans and monkeys? Humans have adapted for ground walk
in dry areas while most apes are designed for moist (jungle) climates, and to move in trees
or amongst heavy understory cover. So much for the biggest question. The difficulty with
the christian science view is that it presumes god exists. Thus it acts on faith. Faith
can never be proven because of its nature - unprovable things are taken as truth.

I am not placing myself in the heretic/atheist catagory, but 150 years of good science work
stands behind every last thing we believe about evolution. Thousands of years worth of faith
do not a proof make.

the Silicon Druid

(note about flame wars.... first flame i see in this topic and i stop posting on it, as will
saga, i believe. Thus, if people care to carry on an intellectual convo, im all for it. If
people want to vent agression, go post in alt.archangel)

[Dane]

john cobos <jco...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<6lf7k8$r...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...

> Visit my web site at Http://www.geocities.com/area51/zone/6496

> under construction leave feedback
>
>
>
>
>

Hell, I can give you a new concept to ponder right here....it's called
"editing your f*cking newsgroup lines"....

[Rob Hafernik]

In article <357B4CB9...@phoenix.crossroads.com>, SaGa
<sa...@phoenix.crossroads.com> wrote:

> I don't like it when people post the way he did... But you are a fool
to beleive there
> is no such thing as god, or how we formed from monkeys (otherwise known
as evolution).
> If we formed from apes (as they say) why are there still apes? That's
the biggest
> question. when a species evolves, ALL of it evolves. If you want to
start another
> flame war about this, I have facts about how untrue evolution really is.
>

<snip>

No need for the flame war, we don't need to hear any more. You've given
us all the information we need. The fact that you think that "when a
species evolves, ALL of it evolves" fills us in totally. We get it.

Say no more, say no more...

[Mr. Foot Grenade]

The issue has nothing to do with faith, but with ignorance. The Bible
was pre-scientific in its worldview. One cannot expect it to hold,
except by coincidence, scientific knowledge. The ignorance of the
biblical authors was scientific ignorance; however, their knowledge was
spiritual knowledge. Inasmuch as science is the investigation of
matter, and inasmuch as religion is the investigation of spirit, the two
fields do not, in actuality, conflict. The creation myth in Genesis has
nothing whatsoever to do with creation theories in science - they are
two completely separate perspectives, and should not be merged - nor
should they be made to compete with each other.

[Rob Hafernik]

You can argue that man didn't evolve from apes if you want (although the
evidence is overwhelming), but there isn't the slightest doubt that
evolution happens. We know this because scientists have observed it with
their bare eyes on many occasions. If you want a list of cites to dozens
of scientific papers on the subject (although I'm absolutely certain,
SaGa, that scientific facts are the last thing you are interested in), you
can get them at the Talk Origins archive at

http://www.talkorigins.org

Reading the Bible is a good thing, I recommend it for everyone, even
confirmed atheists. Considering how much of our society and culture comes
from it, a familiarity with it is essential.

Interestingly, evolution isn't mentioned EITHER way.

[Oneuf3Bs]

>Personally though I have no reasons to doubt anyone beliefs or say it is
>all false. I myself do enjoy the purity of atheism, but it is known that
>ppl who decide to believe in something sometimes end up doing crappy stuff
>and try to justify it with their belief's, sad if nothing less.
>
>-Don't push you shit on me and I will do my best to return the favor.
>
>

By your own explanation you are a agnostic. BTW true atheism is a religion in
and of itself.

Bernie
96 Camaro

[Mark A. Cochran]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <357B4CB9...@phoenix.crossroads.com>,
SaGa <sa...@phoenix.crossroads.com> wrote:
>I don't like it when people post the way he did... But you are a fool to beleive there
>is no such thing as god,

Sez you. Support?

>or how we formed from monkeys (otherwise known as evolution).

You know, I've read a great deal of Darwins writing, and *never* seen
this claim.

>If we formed from apes (as they say) why are there still apes? That's the biggest
>question.

No, the biggest question is how you can swallow this nonsense without
doing a tiny bit of research yourself.

>when a species evolves, ALL of it evolves.

Really? What tripe. Here's an example. The drug known on the market as
Streptase (streptokinase) was developed after it was discovered that a
few strep bacteria had evolved to secrete an enzyme which prevented blood
from clotting, and disolved existing clots; this drug has saved
countless lives when used following acute Myocardial Infarction. And
yet, only a miniscule fraction of strep bacteria have evolved the
ability to secrete this enzyme.
So much for your ridiculous claim.

>If you want to start another
>flame war about this, I have facts about how untrue evolution really is.
>

Right. Let's see them, but only if they stand up to intelligent
scrutiny better than what you've posted this time around.

>By the way, not to be a jackass or anything, but....

Too late...

>Different occurences in the world
>are happening just as the bible predicts.... Israel has been specified in the bible,
>and even things such as El Nino have been predicted. If you think el nino is bad, just

>wait and the weather will be dramatically worse. Or, even cosider the school

>shootings, they were predicted by the bible too.
>

Really? Please cite chapter and verse wherein these events were
predicted.
BTW, since you're such a bible scholar, tell us; do you eat ham? Do
you seek medical care when you're sick?
After all, according to your bible, both are wrong.

>Sorry if I sound groggy, I just got back from California.
>

No, actually you sound more brainwashed than groggy.

[This account protected by Spamgard(tm) - Mail without 'banana' in the
Subject: header will be bounced unseen.]
PGP and .sig file follows.

She's genuinely bogus.

[Finger coc...@netcom.com for PGP Public Key]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i

iQCVAgUBNXvyeNo7GDsbn4ZNAQHUbQQAomeav+2ZAhyPaAjIc7/uCQxF0oeu/M16
5EciggiUfvWd/ikalIGbb75IIDH9CETVbqKt72a4yC05uoiw8yxi/HzINcfTEEt1
VrdtZ6bvCOgD224KoqMjmyRGmKqjU+RtlrOQ3UZgJsxH3/1A6vT0SadBVj5lejul
bkoe3WzhShU=
=AZD3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Wôlfman]

<SNIP>

>>Of course I'm 14 dumbass. If you would goto church, you might learn stuff.

If you would open your eyes while IN church, YOU might see what a
self-contradictory teaching you follow.

>
>Bawhahahahahaha Praise be to Lord SaGa..... Fucking hell SaGa, does
>"your" Church know that you swear like a Scum bag? Do they know you
>frequent a Evil Hacking NG...You are a hippocrite SaGa... climb down
>from your pious heights and remove your "Holy Ego" from this NG and
>post to alt.religious.zealots or something "worthy" of your presence.
>
>You have a very un-<place your religion here> attitude, unless the
>religion you belong is some form of Devil worship...BTW how is AA?
>
>A confirmed atheist
>
>Joskyn
>

THANK YOU JOSKYN... you took the words right out of my keyboard.

[Wôlfman]

>> >SaGa wrote:
>> >
>> > I don't like it when people post the way he did... But you are a fool
to beleive there

>> > is no such thing as god, or how we formed from monkeys (otherwise known
as evolution).

>> > If we formed from apes (as they say) why are there still apes? That's
the biggest

>> > question. when a species evolves, ALL of it evolves.

You need to learn what the theory of evolution actualy says before you post
about it.

>> > If you want to start another flame war about this,

To paraphrase Silicon Druid's post: Nobody wants a flame war, just
intelligent discourse.

>> >I have facts about how untrue evolution really is.

There are just as many so-called facts disproving YOUR belief system too.
The problem is, nobody who was THERE is HERE, and all we have now are
stories distorted by generations of retellings.

BTW, why the hell did this thread get crossposted to alt.2600.warez? :)

[Adam Stouffer]

Googolplex wrote:
>
>
> Well, YOU might learn a bit about evolution, BEFORE you make your wild (and
> wrong) statements. As far as church goes...shall I bore you with dozens of
> Old and New Testament prophecies that didn't come true/were contradicted in
> their time? You don't read your bible very well, if you think it's a solid
> platform from which to quote prophecies.
>
> goog...@ripco.com

I think its funny how the vatican declared that the earth revolved
around
the sun like 400 years after it was proven.

Adam

[SaGa]

Googolplex wrote:

> SaGa (sa...@phoenix.crossroads.com) wrote:
>
> : Of course I'm 14 dumbass. If you would goto church, you might learn stuff.

>
> Well, YOU might learn a bit about evolution, BEFORE you make your wild (and
> wrong) statements. As far as church goes...shall I bore you with dozens of
> Old and New Testament prophecies that didn't come true/were contradicted in
> their time? You don't read your bible very well, if you think it's a solid
> platform from which to quote prophecies.
>

What's so wrong about them? I can remember several different faults in
evolution. You learn that stuff in Sunday School, and Church. Please,
enlighten me with these so called "false prophecies".

> goog...@ripco.com

Regards,
SaGa

[SaGa]

Joskyn, aka, Death to Geeko the Muppet wrote:

> Whilst thinking of how I can Flame Archangel for Fun/No reason, SaGa
> <sa...@phoenix.crossroads.com> Dumped this Post on alt.2600. Thus comes
> my Reply/Flame.:
>
> >
> >
> >Adam Stouffer wrote:
> >
> >> SaGa wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > They don't specify things in the bible such as guns. Otherwise things would have been given
> >> > names before their time.
> >>
> >> Personally I think the bible is pure bullshit
> >>
> >
> >Personally, I think you are pure bullshit...
> >
> >> >
> >> > One of the predictions...eh'? Well, in the 1980's, Barbera Walters (How do you spell that?)
> >> > reported on utterly thousands of Jews moving to Israel. That was predicted by the Bible.
> >> > Barbera Walters was fulfilling a prophecy without even knowing it.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Sure you are still only 14 years old?
> >>
> >

> >Of course I'm 14 dumbass. If you would goto church, you might learn stuff.
> >

> >> --
> >> ------------------------
> >> | Remove the NO-SPAM |
> >> ------------------------
> >
> >Regards,
> >SaGa
>

> Bawhahahahahaha Praise be to Lord SaGa..... Fucking hell SaGa, does
> "your" Church know that you swear like a Scum bag?

All I use is Dumbass. It means Ignorant Fool. Ass is merely a donkey. That's the way I see things.

> Do they know you
> frequent a Evil Hacking NG...You are a hippocrite SaGa...

I would hardly call this evil.

> climb down
> from your pious heights and remove your "Holy Ego" from this NG and
> post to alt.religious.zealots or something "worthy" of your presence.
>

I simply replied to another post narcing on my religion and that's something people have no right to
do! They have a right to question it, not put it down because they think they're all big and bad.

> You have a very un-<place your religion here> attitude, unless the
> religion you belong is some form of Devil worship...BTW how is AA?
>

Ha! Devil worship... List the things wrong with my attitude... I'm not cocky, I only use Dumbass
as a cuss word, though there have been times I used fuck, well, say anything else and don't be an
faggot about it.

> A confirmed atheist
>

you can't be an athiest. Athiest means you don't beleive in anything and that doesn't just go for
religion.Do you beleive we're the only ones in the universe?
Do you beleive we were created from evolution? And if we were, how were we created from it?

> Joskyn
>
> PUBLIC ENEMEY # 9
> ANTI-ARCHANGEL # 26
> ANTI-GEEKO The MUPPET # 1
>
> "In Heaven an angel is nobody in particular."
> George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
>
> http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~animal1
> http://newbie.darkridge.com
>
> SpamBots a total LAAmer for you to send some special offers
> st...@primenet.com
> stin...@hotmail.com
> fd...@hotmail.com
> add...@geocities.com

Regards,
SaGa

[SaGa]

I didn't say evolution isn't true (atleast I don't think I did). As I said in
another post, if we are cold, we grow hair on our arms (not right away), If
the sun is constantly shining on us, we tan, and eventually will turn black if
we lived in a country as bright as Africa, the sun rays there are extremely
powerfull.

Regards,
SaGa

[SaGa]

Mark A. Cochran wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> In article <357B4CB9...@phoenix.crossroads.com>,

> SaGa <sa...@phoenix.crossroads.com> wrote:
> >I don't like it when people post the way he did... But you are a fool to beleive there
> >is no such thing as god,
>

> Sez you. Support?
>

Sez? Spell properly and try to make sense!

> >or how we formed from monkeys (otherwise known as evolution).
>

> You know, I've read a great deal of Darwins writing, and *never* seen
> this claim.
>

You've never heard Darwins theory that we evolved from monkeys?

> >If we formed from apes (as they say) why are there still apes? That's the biggest
> >question.
>

> No, the biggest question is how you can swallow this nonsense without
> doing a tiny bit of research yourself.
>

Heh. When evolution occurs in mamals, the original mamal that evolved is no longer
exhistence. Instead, a more efficiant animal or an animal that can live easier in it's
climate appears. Sort of Out With The Old, In With The New.

> >when a species evolves, ALL of it evolves.
>

> Really? What tripe. Here's an example. The drug known on the market as
> Streptase (streptokinase) was developed after it was discovered that a
> few strep bacteria had evolved to secrete an enzyme which prevented blood
> from clotting, and disolved existing clots; this drug has saved
> countless lives when used following acute Myocardial Infarction. And
> yet, only a miniscule fraction of strep bacteria have evolved the
> ability to secrete this enzyme.
> So much for your ridiculous claim.
>

> >If you want to start another

> >flame war about this, I have facts about how untrue evolution really is.
> >
> Right. Let's see them, but only if they stand up to intelligent
> scrutiny better than what you've posted this time around.
>
> >By the way, not to be a jackass or anything, but....

> >Different occurences in the world

> >are happening just as the bible predicts.... Israel has been specified in the bible,
> >and even things such as El Nino have been predicted. If you think el nino is bad, just
> >wait and the weather will be dramatically worse. Or, even cosider the school
> >shootings, they were predicted by the bible too.
> >
> Really? Please cite chapter and verse wherein these events were
> predicted.
> BTW, since you're such a bible scholar, tell us; do you eat ham? Do
> you seek medical care when you're sick?
> After all, according to your bible, both are wrong.
>

Those were stated in Bible School. I forgot where they are.Ham tastes nasty... What
testimont are you talking about?

> >Sorry if I sound groggy, I just got back from California.
> >
> No, actually you sound more brainwashed than groggy.
>

brainwashed? Hmmm, so, now I'm a brainwashed 14 year old muppet?? Get a life!

[Voovid]

$"Mr. Foot Grenade" <eas...@proaxis.com>

$The issue has nothing to do with faith, but with ignorance. The Bible
$was pre-scientific in its worldview. One cannot expect it to hold,
$except by coincidence, scientific knowledge. The ignorance of the
$biblical authors was scientific ignorance; however, their knowledge was
$spiritual knowledge. Inasmuch as science is the investigation of
$matter, and inasmuch as religion is the investigation of spirit, the two
$fields do not, in actuality, conflict. The creation myth in Genesis has
$nothing whatsoever to do with creation theories in science - they are
$two completely separate perspectives, and should not be merged - nor
$should they be made to compete with each other.

Science is the search for truth. Religion is the mythological creation of
truth.

And I think I read in the bible that Jesus drove a 69 convertable Pace Car....
Maybe I read it wrong...

[SaGa]

There was a post sent out to all of this. I don't know why it was sent to
alt.2600.warez... ohwell.

Wôlfman wrote:

> >> >SaGa wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I don't like it when people post the way he did... But you are a fool
> to beleive there

> >> > is no such thing as god, or how we formed from monkeys (otherwise known
> as evolution).

> >> > If we formed from apes (as they say) why are there still apes? That's
> the biggest
>

> >> > question. when a species evolves, ALL of it evolves.
>
> You need to learn what the theory of evolution actualy says before you post
> about it.
>

> >> > If you want to start another flame war about this,
>

> To paraphrase Silicon Druid's post: Nobody wants a flame war, just
> intelligent discourse.
>

> >> >I have facts about how untrue evolution really is.
>

[broadcastb]

Uhm, JK, all I can say is, about that cut and paste thing? The weather seems
to think it's a good idea. I usually go on something like
that................................

Joskyn, aka, Death to Geeko the Muppet wrote in message
<357ce29d...@news.globalnet.co.uk>...

>Whilst thinking of how I can Flame Archangel for Fun/No reason, SaGa
><sa...@phoenix.crossroads.com> Dumped this Post on alt.2600. Thus comes
>my Reply/Flame.:
>
>>
>>
>>Adam Stouffer wrote:
>>
>>> SaGa wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > They don't specify things in the bible such as guns. Otherwise things
would have been given
>>> > names before their time.
>>>
>>> Personally I think the bible is pure bullshit
>>>
>>
>>Personally, I think you are pure bullshit...
>>
>>> >
>>> > One of the predictions...eh'? Well, in the 1980's, Barbera Walters
(How do you spell that?)
>>> > reported on utterly thousands of Jews moving to Israel. That was
predicted by the Bible.
>>> > Barbera Walters was fulfilling a prophecy without even knowing it.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Sure you are still only 14 years old?
>>>
>>
>>Of course I'm 14 dumbass. If you would goto church, you might learn stuff.
>>
>>> --
>>> ------------------------
>>> | Remove the NO-SPAM |
>>> ------------------------
>>
>>Regards,
>>SaGa
>
>Bawhahahahahaha Praise be to Lord SaGa..... Fucking hell SaGa, does

>"your" Church know that you swear like a Scum bag? Do they know you
>frequent a Evil Hacking NG...You are a hippocrite SaGa... climb down

>from your pious heights and remove your "Holy Ego" from this NG and
>post to alt.religious.zealots or something "worthy" of your presence.
>

>You have a very un-<place your religion here> attitude, unless the
>religion you belong is some form of Devil worship...BTW how is AA?
>

>A confirmed atheist

[Andrew Kerr]

SaGa (sa...@phoenix.crossroads.com) wrote:
: I didn't say evolution isn't true (atleast I don't think I did). As I said in

: another post, if we are cold, we grow hair on our arms (not right away), If
: the sun is constantly shining on us, we tan, and eventually will turn black if
: we lived in a country as bright as Africa, the sun rays there are extremely
: powerfull.

: Regards,
: SaGa

Okay, maybe you didn't say evolution wasn't true, but here's what you did
say:

"I don't like it when people post the way he did... But you are a fool to beleiv
e there
is no such thing as god, or how we formed from monkeys (otherwise known as evolu
tion)."

Sorry about the columns, but I didn't want to edit this direct quote. So
evolution may be true, but its foolish to think so? Then in your above post
you say that changing skin color due to enviromental differences is normal.
Well, that's evolution. So if you think that's true, and that is evolution,
then by your own post, your are a fool.

Saga, your posts are inconsistant, misinformed, and by enlarge, ridiculous.

If the bible is so great at predicting shoot outs in school, why do they
have to continually "reinterpret" the bible. It used to be common practice
to purify sinners by pain... if the bible told them to do it, why don't they
any more? Why was it right then, but not now?

It seems to me that most religious types will try to fit the bible to
present moral and social beliefs instead of denouncing the bible. Remember,
the simplist explanation is usually the correct one. Namely the bible is
a work of fiction.

Andrew
--
Andrew Kerr Technical Analyst / System Professional Phone# 777-8537
Check out Laugh it Up! Huge collection of Humour: http://tdi.uregina.ca/~kerr
Email: ke...@tdi.uregina.ca
Many are cold, but few are frozen.

[Wôlfman]

SaGa wrote in message <357C134C...@phoenix.crossroads.com>...

>I didn't say evolution isn't true (atleast I don't think I did). As I said
in
>another post, if we are cold, we grow hair on our arms (not right away), If
>the sun is constantly shining on us, we tan, and eventually will turn black
if
>we lived in a country as bright as Africa, the sun rays there are extremely
>powerfull.

None of which is true. We tan because a pigment in our skin, melanin (sp?),
reacts to ultraviolet light. How is it the African babies are born black?
Think before you post. :)

[Wôlfman]

<MAJOR SNIP>
(Please, SaGa, quote what you're responding to and not the entire post...
they'll get huge!)

>> A confirmed atheist
>>
>you can't be an athiest. Athiest means you don't beleive in anything and
that doesn't just go for
>religion.Do you beleive we're the only ones in the universe?
>Do you beleive we were created from evolution? And if we were, how were we
created from it?
>
>> Joskyn
>>

*cough* An athiest is somebody who believes that there is no such thing as a
deity of any kind. It does NOT mean that he or she "doesn't believe in
anything". BTW, most atheists DON'T believe that we're alone in the
universe... do you?

[Wôlfman]

>> >or how we formed from monkeys (otherwise known as evolution).
>>
>> You know, I've read a great deal of Darwins writing, and *never* seen
>> this claim.
>>
>
>You've never heard Darwins theory that we evolved from monkeys?

*sigh* Don't talk about Darwin until you read his work, as you obviously
haven't.

<SNIP>

>Heh. When evolution occurs in mamals, the original mamal that evolved is
no longer
>exhistence. Instead, a more efficiant animal or an animal that can live
easier in it's
>climate appears. Sort of Out With The Old, In With The New.

>When a species evolves, ALL of it evolves.

*sigh* Once you learn ANYTHING about evolutionary theory, come back and
chat.

>> Really? What tripe. Here's an example. The drug known on the market as
>> Streptase (streptokinase) was developed after it was discovered that a
>> few strep bacteria had evolved to secrete an enzyme which prevented blood
>> from clotting, and disolved existing clots; this drug has saved
>> countless lives when used following acute Myocardial Infarction. And
>> yet, only a miniscule fraction of strep bacteria have evolved the
>> ability to secrete this enzyme.
>> So much for your ridiculous claim.

I notice you had no response for this one. Does it make too much sense, or
are there just too many big words?

[Adam Stouffer]

SaGa wrote:
>
>
> you can't be an athiest. Athiest means you don't beleive in anything and that doesn't just go for
> religion.Do you beleive we're the only ones in the universe?

Judging from the sheer number of planets and galaxy, I would say there
HAS to be some
sort of life elsewhere.

> Do you beleive we were created from evolution?

yes

> And if we were, how were we created from it?

The half human/half ape skeletons found in africa and europe. Think
about what
they mean.

Adam

[Mark A. Cochran]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <357C12...@NO-SPAM.sgi.net>,

Adam Stouffer <te...@NO-SPAM.sgi.net> wrote:
>
>I think its funny how the vatican declared that the earth revolved
>around
>the sun like 400 years after it was proven.
>

The Vatican has done no such thing. A few years ago they admitted that
it was wrong to persecute Gallileo for his research into cosmology;
they did *not* change Official Church Doctrine which states that the
Sun orbits the Earth.

[This account protected by Spamgard(tm) - Mail without 'banana' in the
Subject: header will be bounced unseen.]
PGP and .sig file follows.


If the odds are a million to one against something occurring, chances
are 50-50 it will.

[Finger coc...@netcom.com for PGP Public Key]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i

iQCVAgUBNXxFZto7GDsbn4ZNAQEj2gP/bHpPglVhcAmws3XJ+WSWu/vg6jp08WQQ
JZlLYNv6CV2VxJd+Zn/4bgISR140oZKk05nEk24ppzr804/CbFiJHD0KUFJgmItn
q8Ho44+hVhYDrSenIAk794ffy3HyrgqfP4hBOn7AR4Ce7H1AMMAkjd7tGT+nTfqi
Bn3l5vIwC+8=
=UN2E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Rob Hafernik]

In article <357C134C...@phoenix.crossroads.com>, SaGa
<sa...@phoenix.crossroads.com> wrote:

> I didn't say evolution isn't true (atleast I don't think I did). As I said in
> another post, if we are cold, we grow hair on our arms (not right away), If
> the sun is constantly shining on us, we tan, and eventually will turn black if
> we lived in a country as bright as Africa, the sun rays there are extremely
> powerfull.

None of which has anything to do with evolution unless your OFFSPRING
inherit the darkened skin. THAT is evolution (in a tiny way), tanning is
NOT.

As for the cold causing us to grow hair on our arms, I don't think this is
true. Anyone know for sure? I don't think a person's body hair will
change in response to cold.

[Mark A. Cochran]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <357C0C61...@phoenix.crossroads.com>,

SaGa <sa...@phoenix.crossroads.com> wrote:
>
>I simply replied to another post narcing on my religion and that's something people have no right to
>do!

Wrong. Just as you have been enjoying *your* right to slam other
people (calling them "fool" "dumbass" and "you are total bullshit")
they have the right to slam your religion. Especially when you
obviously don't even understand your own religion.

>They have a right to question it, not put it down because they think they're all big and bad.
>

And yet you do exactly what you claim others cannot. You're a
hypocrite. You're also committing a sin, according to your own
religion. "Judge not, least ye be judged."

>Ha! Devil worship... List the things wrong with my attitude...

You're a hypocrite, for one thing.

>I'm not cocky,

Yes, you are. Npot to mention ignorant.

>I only use Dumbass
>as a cuss word, though there have been times I used fuck, well, say anything else and don't be an
>faggot about it.
>

And a liar too. Are you trying to see how many sins you can commit in
one article?

>you can't be an athiest.

Why, because you (in your ignorance) proclaim that he cannot?
Or is it because it's actually spelled "atheist"?

>Athiest means you don't beleive in anything and that doesn't just go for
>religion.

And yet another display of willful ignorance. The word atheist is
derived from two words; "a" which means (in the original Greek and
Latin) "none" or "without" and "theist" which means (also in the
original "belief in (such) a God". In short, the word means "without
belief in (such) a God" and you are, once again, demonstrated
completely ignorant of the subject at hand.

>Do you beleive we're the only ones in the universe?

Irrelevent.

>Do you beleive we were created from evolution?

This sentence no sense makes. Mankind did (and continues to) evolve.
We were not "created from evolution."

>And if we were, how were we created from it?
>

You've done a fine job demonstrating that you haven't the wit to
understand.

[This account protected by Spamgard(tm) - Mail without 'banana' in the
Subject: header will be bounced unseen.]
PGP and .sig file follows.


Talkers are no good doers.
-- William Shakespeare, "Henry VI"

[Finger coc...@netcom.com for PGP Public Key]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i

iQCVAgUBNXxJCNo7GDsbn4ZNAQGJuQP/Q/M2J9wjafRqR8TBYxJu1Q2H9sOI+xRe
kgBz8tZMU/730W/oRi0QKMSfbpvKtgLR2430Dg4Mb7HgEMCXo6rUO3zskjNd4vFT
y7Dx7XxXAzrQ5H+6s04L4CcvTMDOxlgKYW4UuS8iLXxw6xcPdktOSzQJHmgrnm/e
yosnLcfvdNM=
=CV0e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Rob Hafernik]

In article <357C1185...@phoenix.crossroads.com>, SaGa
<sa...@phoenix.crossroads.com> wrote:

> Heh. When evolution occurs in mamals, the original mamal that evolved
is no longer
> exhistence. Instead, a more efficiant animal or an animal that can live
easier in it's
> climate appears. Sort of Out With The Old, In With The New.

No. No. No. When a new species evolves, the old species can easily still
be around. Many animals living today have had other species evolve from
them without dying off themselves. Often, new niches open up that allow
several speices to evolve from one parent species, one for each new
niche. Thus we see related species that share a common ancestor.

It doens't look as if you understand anything about evolution at all.
Sounds like everything you know about it came from the Bible.

[Mark A. Cochran]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <357C1185...@phoenix.crossroads.com>,
SaGa <sa...@phoenix.crossroads.com> wrote:

>Mark A. Cochran wrote:
>> In article <357B4CB9...@phoenix.crossroads.com>,

>> SaGa <sa...@phoenix.crossroads.com> wrote:
>> >I don't like it when people post the way he did... But you are a fool to beleive there
>> >is no such thing as god,
>>
>> Sez you. Support?
>
>Sez? Spell properly and try to make sense!
>

*chuckle* An ignorant 14 year old child is going to try to correct
*my* English? Look up the word "colloquialism" in a dictionary. Ask an
adult for help, if necessary.

>> >or how we formed from monkeys (otherwise known as evolution).
>>
>> You know, I've read a great deal of Darwins writing, and *never* seen
>> this claim.
>
>You've never heard Darwins theory that we evolved from monkeys?
>

Nope, and neither has anyone else, since Darwin never said any such
thing; that's merely a twisted propoganda ploy by relions to hide what
was actually said.
What Darwin actually *said* (and what ongoing investigations have
found tons of evidence to support) is that mankind and the various
other primates (that includes apes and monkeys, which are not the same
thing, despite your usage) share a common ancestor.

>> >If we formed from apes (as they say) why are there still apes? That's the biggest
>> >question.
>>

>> No, the biggest question is how you can swallow this nonsense without
>> doing a tiny bit of research yourself.
>

>Heh. When evolution occurs in mamals, the original mamal that evolved is no longer
>exhistence. Instead, a more efficiant animal or an animal that can live easier in it's
>climate appears. Sort of Out With The Old, In With The New.
>

>> >when a species evolves, ALL of it evolves.
>>
Wrong again. Humans evolving in southern areas (such as Africa or
South Amaerica) developed greater level of melanin in their skin to
deal with the high level of ultraviolet light. And yet, there are
gobs of people who do *not* have this level of melanin, and there are
gobs of people who have moved aware from these high-ultraviolet areas
who *still* have their natural tan.
Onceagain, you're shown to be completely wrong. Ignorance is *not* a
strong position to argue from...

>> Really? What tripe. Here's an example. The drug known on the market as
>> Streptase (streptokinase) was developed after it was discovered that a
>> few strep bacteria had evolved to secrete an enzyme which prevented blood
>> from clotting, and disolved existing clots; this drug has saved
>> countless lives when used following acute Myocardial Infarction. And
>> yet, only a miniscule fraction of strep bacteria have evolved the
>> ability to secrete this enzyme.
>> So much for your ridiculous claim.
>

I note, as do others I'm sure, that you did not address this proof
that your claims are false.

>> >If you want to start another

>> >flame war about this, I have facts about how untrue evolution really is.
>> >
>> Right. Let's see them, but only if they stand up to intelligent
>> scrutiny better than what you've posted this time around.
>>
>> >By the way, not to be a jackass or anything, but....
>
>> >Different occurences in the world
>> >are happening just as the bible predicts.... Israel has been specified in the bible,
>> >and even things such as El Nino have been predicted. If you think el nino is bad, just
>> >wait and the weather will be dramatically worse. Or, even cosider the school
>> >shootings, they were predicted by the bible too.
>> >
>> Really? Please cite chapter and verse wherein these events were
>> predicted.
>> BTW, since you're such a bible scholar, tell us; do you eat ham? Do
>> you seek medical care when you're sick?
>> After all, according to your bible, both are wrong.
>
>Those were stated in Bible School. I forgot where they are.Ham tastes nasty... What
>testimont are you talking about?
>

Irrelevent. You dodged the question, I note, which I suspect means
that you *do* commit these actions that your religion tells you are
sins.

>> >Sorry if I sound groggy, I just got back from California.
>> >
>> No, actually you sound more brainwashed than groggy.
>
>brainwashed? Hmmm, so, now I'm a brainwashed 14 year old muppet?? Get a life!
>

There's another of those things your religion terms a sin... bad boy.

[This account protected by Spamgard(tm) - Mail without 'banana' in the
Subject: header will be bounced unseen.]
PGP and .sig file follows.


Anything worth doing is worth overdoing

[Finger coc...@netcom.com for PGP Public Key]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i

iQCVAgUBNXxM8to7GDsbn4ZNAQEdrwP9GBM2Tjm7ZkA9jjKWd9RPcvdSwgNFLVfm
A1TXQCobUA2zzdalbAyezo3EBd+Bq7xdtnc9R0xqYr+XUvHA1NVML8S+Ok/9ZB47
A75SywW/qrUNT2LS8yll46Zo/jtEGyXACH3D5Z+37NzS3PsdFgXe/Tk6Hjroe0hS
xneD/rkTy0E=
=c6zn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mark A. Cochran]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <shokwave-080...@as5-dialup-02.wc-aus.io.com>,
Rob Hafernik <shok...@well.com> wrote:
>In article <357C134C...@phoenix.crossroads.com>, SaGa

><sa...@phoenix.crossroads.com> wrote:
>
>> I didn't say evolution isn't true (atleast I don't think I did). As I said in
>> another post, if we are cold, we grow hair on our arms (not right away), If
>> the sun is constantly shining on us, we tan, and eventually will turn black if
>> we lived in a country as bright as Africa, the sun rays there are extremely
>> powerfull.
>
>None of which has anything to do with evolution unless your OFFSPRING
>inherit the darkened skin. THAT is evolution (in a tiny way), tanning is
>NOT.
>
>As for the cold causing us to grow hair on our arms, I don't think this is
>true. Anyone know for sure? I don't think a person's body hair will
>change in response to cold.

Once again, he's woefully ignorant. People with ancestry from
Greenland, Norway, Sweden, and Alaska, according to his claims, should
be particularly hairy. They are not, especially when compared to latin
coutries such as Spain, or Italy, or many of the middle eastern
countries.

[This account protected by Spamgard(tm) - Mail without 'banana' in the
Subject: header will be bounced unseen.]
PGP and .sig file follows.


If you've done six impossible things before breakfast, why not round it
off with dinner at Milliway's, the restaurant at the end of the
universe?

[Finger coc...@netcom.com for PGP Public Key]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i

iQCVAgUBNXxPNto7GDsbn4ZNAQHKPAP/ULcO1FydcLIYFFeTkuq46t+iqGupD2/2
wZqp51/OL/UClWnFLvixDkBRNf29QAl4wV9RFdNAxoR2CGinT+qWTJDXFtF+G19u
iuUFTrmvvWtIHL3NlVnFq386HE8w5VJVCRlTtZ0m11cPUVnLGoPBDKh9aSru2r+3
Fp70Eavt3CU=
=7Ce8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[The Gryphon]

Actually African babies are born black because of hereditary means.
However, The first people to inhabit Africa were not Black as they are
today. Over time they adapted in order to properly protect themselves
from the Sun. However, Why are we talking about this? What does this
have to do with 2600?
--
The Gryphon
Anarchyrules.Com
http://www.anarchyrules.com

[Em8569]

>From: "Wôlfman" <wolf...@SPAMdesupernet.net>

>>> >SaGa wrote:
>>>>> when a species evolves, ALL of it evolves.
>

>You need to learn what the theory of evolution actualy says >before you post
>about it.

Nah, just look at some of the wonderful posts around here. Knowledge of
the subject matter being a requirement to post is constantly being disproven.
;)

Emily

'85 Cutlass 383, 700, 3.70 posi, Global West Suspension, NOS cheater
12.60's on the engine
11.34 on NOS
'69 Camaro 421sb, 1200 ATI @ 13 psi, intercooled, Big Shot plate, autocross
suspension

[Anastasis2]

voo...@aol.com (Voovid) wrote:

>Science is the search for truth. Religion is the mythological creation of
>truth.

I think the same can be said of either one. Religion may also be the search for
truth for someone who doesn`t believe atheism. A scientist who studies what he
sees may make false deductions, unknowingly creating "myths".

Dave
`94 Firehawk #203

[Anastasis2]

coc...@netcom.com (Mark A. Cochran) wrote:

>Really? What tripe. Here's an example. The drug known on the market as
>Streptase (streptokinase) was developed after it was discovered that a
>few strep bacteria had evolved to secrete an enzyme which prevented blood
>from clotting, and disolved existing clots; this drug has saved
>countless lives when used following acute Myocardial Infarction. And
>yet, only a miniscule fraction of strep bacteria have evolved the
>ability to secrete this enzyme.

I am not familiar with the drug, but could this in any way be more closely
related to adaptation, or similar to developing an immunity instead of an
evolutionary process?

>Really? Please cite chapter and verse wherein these events were
>predicted.
>BTW, since you're such a bible scholar, tell us; do you eat ham? Do
>you seek medical care when you're sick?
>After all, according to your bible, both are wrong.

I am not sure exactly what you are quoting here, but neither of these are
wrong, and these questions are addressed in the bible. The use of medicine is
encouraged. In the new testament, it was recommended that a certain church take
wine for their stomachs. The issue of eating meat that is "unclean" is also
addressed in Romans, and suggests to whom it is unclean, it is unclean. But it
also says the earth is the Lord`s and everything in it, and says it is the
decision of each person wether to eat meat or not. It was such misunderstanding
of the old testament writings by Jews(generally speaking) and stressing the
importance of customs over truth that lead to questions like these. Today, many
old testament verses are misinterpreted in much the same way, which leads to
questions like these.
By the way, I also havent been able to find prophecies of modern day shootings
either.
Dave
`94 Firehawk #203

[Anastasis2]

Adam Stouffer <te...@NO-SPAM.sgi.net> wrote:

>The half human/half ape skeletons found in africa and europe. Think
>about what
>they mean.

Not too say that these remains have been fabricated or misinterpreted, but they
could also be explained by arthritis, strange customs, culture, malnutrition
and deficiencies. Did you ever see the movie speed? Look at the driver on the
bus. His facial features (low hanging jaw, slanted forehead) suggest relation
closer to that of apes. I would bet if his remains were found 100 years from
now, he would be predated several hundred thousand years.
Dave
`94 Firehawk #203

[SaGa]

Rob Hafernik wrote:

> In article <357C134C...@phoenix.crossroads.com>, SaGa
> <sa...@phoenix.crossroads.com> wrote:
>
> > I didn't say evolution isn't true (atleast I don't think I did). As I said in
> > another post, if we are cold, we grow hair on our arms (not right away), If
> > the sun is constantly shining on us, we tan, and eventually will turn black if
> > we lived in a country as bright as Africa, the sun rays there are extremely
> > powerfull.
>
> None of which has anything to do with evolution unless your OFFSPRING
> inherit the darkened skin. THAT is evolution (in a tiny way), tanning is
> NOT.
>
> As for the cold causing us to grow hair on our arms, I don't think this is
> true. Anyone know for sure? I don't think a person's body hair will
> change in response to cold.

It's true. Body hair provides warmth like a jacket.

[SaGa]

Who knows. This got into a bunch of Evolution BS... I have no idea how
this stuff starts.

[Mr.Pink]

YAY! Let's all listen to what they tell you in church! If they say it in
church, it must be true, golly.

SaGa wrote in message <357B906C...@phoenix.crossroads.com>...

[Si_Druid]

coc...@netcom.com (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <357C1185...@phoenix.crossroads.com>,
>SaGa <sa...@phoenix.crossroads.com> wrote:
>>You've never heard Darwins theory that we evolved from monkeys?

>Nope, and neither has anyone else, since Darwin never said any such
>thing; that's merely a twisted propoganda ploy by relions to hide what
>was actually said.
>What Darwin actually *said* (and what ongoing investigations have
>found tons of evidence to support) is that mankind and the various
>other primates (that includes apes and monkeys, which are not the same
>thing, despite your usage) share a common ancestor.

From "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, Charles
Darwin, 1871.
"in the opinion of most competent judges, has conclusively shewn that in
every single visible character man differs less from the higher apes
than these [higher apes] do from the lower members of the same order of
primates."
"But the time will before long come when it will be thought wonderful,
that naturalists, who were well acquainted with the comparative
structure and development of man and other mammals, should have believed
that each was the work of a separate act of creation"

>>> >when a species evolves, ALL of it evolves.

>>Heh. When evolution occurs in mamals, the original mamal that evolved is no longer

>>exhistence. Instead, a more efficiant animal or an animal that can live easier in it's
>>climate appears. Sort of Out With The Old, In With The New.

Every organism on earth (with a handful of exceptions) has a UNIQUE set
of genes. Thus, no creature is identical. Similarly, the gene pool
within a population is unique amongst the species (animals with similar
enough genes/behavior/geography that they may interbreed and produce
fertile offspring). Evolution occurs to individuals but affects a
genepool. Usually an entire genepool slowly shifts in favor of a
particular set of genes. If and only if all individuals in that
species have a gene-set which makes them and their more immediate
descendants unable to interbreed with other members of the old species
are they classified as a new species. NOTE that the rest of the
populations of the old species MAY NOT HAVE CHANGED. This population
may have been trapped on an island, or the other side of a highway
thus causing isolation and genetic drift. In most areas exists the
original species. In this one area exists the new species. Similarly
it may have occured that some members of the genepool gained benefits
that enabled them to hunt in the trees, and those with the trait slowly
separated themselves from the rest of the population. Thus even the
population maintained some original species members and some new
species members.

>>> So much for your ridiculous claim.

I repeat, if this becomes a flame war, I'll dump the thread. And I'm
likely the only one here with a degree in the subject of Ecology &
Evolution...

>>brainwashed? Hmmm, so, now I'm a brainwashed 14 year old muppet?? Get a life!

regardless of who is flaming.

the Silicon Druid.

[Midnight Rider]

Ringworm wrote:
> How any otherwise perfectly sane and rational person can believe that
> there is some old guy w/ a beard that lives in this magical kingdom in
> the sky will never cease to amaze me.

There is no evidence to suggest that christians are either sane or
rational, much less both. ;-)

--
MR

-]011001100110[-

"...only stupid people are breeding..."

[Michael H.]

Googolplex wrote in message <6li125$90k$3...@gail.ripco.com>...

>Sure...and it only takes one of the contradictions to blow your position
out
>of the water; here's three:
>
>1) Isa. 11:8 "The weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den."
>2) Isa. 34:7 "And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks
> with the bulls."
>3) Isa. 13:19-22 "Babylon...satyrs shall dance there...and dragons."
>
>Just love those dragons...wonder what "faults" they "evolved" from?!
>
>
goog...@ripco.com
>p.s. I could quote 50 more!

Hi Googs, I'm curious what Bible you are using for those quotes? Neither of
the two translations I have here have anything close to "unicorns" or
"dragons" mentioned though they mention jackals, howling creatures, and wild
goats.. Also, how do you consider the first to be a conrtadiction, what is
it a contradiction of?

Thanks,

Mike :-)
----------------------------------------------
1987 Camaro Sport Coupe Convertible
"20th Anniversary Commemorative Edition"
http://www.mrwhsprs.chicagonet.net/cam87.htm

[Bottlebob]

SaGa wrote:
>
> Googolplex wrote:
>
> > SaGa (sa...@phoenix.crossroads.com) wrote:
> >
> > : Of course I'm 14 dumbass. If you would goto church, you might learn stuff.
> >
> > Well, YOU might learn a bit about evolution, BEFORE you make your wild (and
> > wrong) statements. As far as church goes...shall I bore you with dozens of
> > Old and New Testament prophecies that didn't come true/were contradicted in
> > their time? You don't read your bible very well, if you think it's a solid
> > platform from which to quote prophecies.
> >
>
> What's so wrong about them? I can remember several different faults in
> evolution. You learn that stuff in Sunday School, and Church. Please,
> enlighten me with these so called "false prophecies".
>
> SaGa

SaGa:

What's so wrong about your ideas of evolution? Well I already told you
about your error of thinking evolution said anything about humans
evolving from monkeys. We DID NOT evolve from monkeys and evolution
NEVER said we did. Another statement of yours stating that ALL of a
species evolves at once is TOTALLY WRONG and just shows a lack of
understanding about the subject. Then another statement of yours about
cold weather MAKING us grow more HAIRY is also in ERROR.
Evolution works by natural selection. All cat breeders, horse
breeders, in fact just about any breeders that try to breed animals for
certain traits use evolution in their day to day business. Some more
successful than others.
You don't actually think for a minute that Sunday school and church are
fountains of accurate scientific knowledge do you? Go to the library
and check out some books on evolution, if you depend on Sunday school to
teach you about the world you will be sadly lacking in knowledge. I
think you must be seeing a glimmer of that lack, since you posted the
Sunday school version of evolution.

Bottlebob

Bottlebob

[Bottlebob]

Si_Druid wrote:

Si_Druid:

I am quite science oriented, and it wouldn't bother me too much to be
flamed by some ignorant person. If I can't withstand a little heat then
I have no business entering into the discussion in the first place.
That's my personal point of view.
You have twice stated that any flaming and you will bow out. It almost
sounds like you are daring someone to flame you so you won't have to
continue. I'm sure what you say can enlighten others, flames or no
flames. If you know what you are talking about, people reading what you
write will learn in spite of some ignorant flaming goof that may be
threatened by knowledge. You would be doing others a disservice by
folding up at the first sign of someone's stupidity. NEVER be
intimidated by stupidity or ignorance! That just let's them win,
without even a fight.

Bottlebob

[SaGa]

Wyrdrune wrote:

> > [-snip-] a bunch of stuff we don't need to read anymore [-snip-]
>
> Not true I'm afraid.
> Atheism is the disbelief in God or gods although it also used to
> represent attitudes regarded as evil (Good old Collins).
> The idea is not that we were created FROM evolution, evolution is the
> process whereby a species or sub-species of organism mutates to take
> advantage of (or better defend itself in) it's environment. as a
> previous poster has already stated, Mankind evolved through several
> stages from an arboreal primate to a creature able to live in any
> environment. We are not the end product, there is no end product, we are
> still evolving to this day. Witness the vestigial organ that is the
> Appendix, palaeoanthropologists have unearthed mummies dating from only
> a few thousand years ago containing an appendix which was then much
> larger than it is Today.
> So far we are the only creature the Earth has produced which is in
> danger of halting it's own evolution. This may cause many of you to
> laugh but it's true. We no longer need to adapt to new environments, we
> actively change our environment to suit ourselves. There will be no
> human based creature evolved to live on the surface of Mars. Why?
> Because we will eventually adapt the surface of Mars to suit our needs.
> Naturally I do not believe that our evolution will halt, but it will
> certainly take place at a far slower rate.
> Wyrdrune.
>

Good points. I got evolution mixed up with a few thing (OOOPS!). Oh well, mistakes happen.

Regards,
SaGa

> --
> If you don't 'mail it, I won't see it.

[Wôlfman]

>> Heh. When evolution occurs in mamals, the original mamal that evolved
>is no longer
>> exhistence. Instead, a more efficiant animal or an animal that can live
>easier in it's
>> climate appears. Sort of Out With The Old, In With The New.
>

>No. No. No. When a new species evolves, the old species can easily still
>be around. Many animals living today have had other species evolve from
>them without dying off themselves. Often, new niches open up that allow
>several speices to evolve from one parent species, one for each new
>niche. Thus we see related species that share a common ancestor.
>

>It doesn't look as if you understand anything about evolution at all.

>Sounds like everything you know about it came from the Bible.

And he doesn't seem to understand very well that either. :)

[Bottlebob]

Dave:

The thing about science is that it is pretty much self-correcting.
Even if one scientist makes false deductions, if another scientist can't
reproduce the same findings with the same experiment, the whole
hypothesis is thrown into question until it can be resolved
satisfactorily.
Religion on the other hand tells you that you MUST take many things on
faith. There is no chance for any type of self-correcting at all, so
the same errors are propagated over and over.

Bottlebob

[Bottlebob]

Anastasis2 wrote:
>
> coc...@netcom.com (Mark A. Cochran) wrote:
>

> >>could also be explained by arthritis, strange customs, culture, malnutrition
> >>and deficiencies.
> >

> >I'm sorry, but this is simply not true. How do you imagine that
> >culture can lead to a skull without provisions for the frontal lobe of
> >the brain? How do you imagine that artheritis can alter the shape of
> >the teeth?
>
> I`m sorry, but it is. I said that it could be explained, not that I believed it
> to be true. A skull that did not have provisions for a frontal lobe would
> suggest the remains of an ape, regardless of other physical features, even with
> abnormally small teeth. What I am suggesting is that is possible to use a
> slightly deformed ape or human skull and claim it is a transitional form, not
> to say that it would be a reputable artifact to a true evolutionist. It could
> be used to brainwash uneducated millions, much like religious hypocrites.

Dave:

What are you trying to say here, that ALL the finds that point to there
being beings (like Neanderthals) that were not quite human but were
obviously much more advanced than other primates existing then or now
were the result of deformities? There is just much too much evidence to
the contrary for that opinion to stand even a cursory examination. Too
much evidence of cave wall drawings, too much evidence of tool use, too
much evidence of fire use, on and on and on.
Scientists are all the time picking apart each other's theories. What
you suggest would entail a collusion of many scientists that just would
be too implausible to happen.

>
> >>Did you ever see the movie speed? Look at the driver on the
> >>bus. His facial features (low hanging jaw, slanted forehead) suggest
> >relation
> >>closer to that of apes.
> >

> >To a layman, perhaps; certainly nto to someone trained in human
> >anatomy.
>
> I agree. Just stating that he had similar features.

>
> >>I would bet if his remains were found 100 years from
> >>now, he would be predated several hundred thousand years.
> >

> >Not a chance.
>
> Yeah, probably not. But always a chance.

You've got to realize that when the probabilities of something existing
are so infinitesimally small that is the equivalent of not existing at
all, even though you can SAY there is a chance.

> Dave
> `94 Firehawk #203

Bottlebob

[John Guzobad]

Get this shit out of AACF !!!!

[Mark A. Cochran]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <357C615A...@phoenix.crossroads.com>,

SaGa <sa...@phoenix.crossroads.com> wrote:
>Who knows. This got into a bunch of Evolution BS... I have no idea how
>this stuff starts.
>

It started because sa...@phoenix.crossroads.com (that would be you)
posted an article displaying massive ignorance and blind superstition.
You don't recall? Perhaps you need to evolve further until you develop
a memory.

[This account protected by Spamgard(tm) - Mail without 'banana' in the
Subject: header will be bounced unseen.]
PGP and .sig file follows.


"I must have a prodigious quantity of mind; it takes me as much as a
week sometimes to make it up."
-- Mark Twain, "The Innocents Abroad"

[Finger coc...@netcom.com for PGP Public Key]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i

iQCVAgUBNXyACdo7GDsbn4ZNAQHXMwP/Y+Fr0V6kgOJwGMtlXDu1waNfQavTJwvj
jCyeYzdpY9KeaFU0dninbyILncIXZjlKl6fZrb/hK2s6ynfP3NZUD8qPuzyA1C0a
pplHQjqJTzJ5quUy4oM6HhLOe3c6ZfJQ0NTdvyh/iPVFf0No1Gp7fVUKymUwHX1k
fs6P1ZdIU4A=
=yyRs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mark A. Cochran]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <199806082150...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,

Anastasis2 <anast...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Not too say that these remains have been fabricated or misinterpreted, but they

>could also be explained by arthritis, strange customs, culture, malnutrition
>and deficiencies.

I'm sorry, but this is simply not true. How do you imagine that
culture can lead to a skull without provisions for the frontal lobe of
the brain? How do you imagine that artheritis can alter the shape of
the teeth?

>Did you ever see the movie speed? Look at the driver on the

>bus. His facial features (low hanging jaw, slanted forehead) suggest relation
>closer to that of apes.

To a layman, perhaps; certainly nto to someone trained in human
anatomy.

>I would bet if his remains were found 100 years from

>now, he would be predated several hundred thousand years.

Not a chance.

[This account protected by Spamgard(tm) - Mail without 'banana' in the

Subject: header will be bounced unseen.]
PGP and .sig file follows.


If you've done six impossible things before breakfast, why not round it
off with dinner at Milliway's, the restaurant at the end of the
universe?

[Finger coc...@netcom.com for PGP Public Key]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i

iQCVAgUBNXx/dto7GDsbn4ZNAQEBmwP/RjV61MkVWl8ghSdViENannsdYccuBrXp
nfbzLzGyRnmpG1hRSewHBVafBBRYh5xWWF7iIxT7OidfdgcpaxuVYxeDvIWQH4Dx
UulmD8KNedfbilBvD8fJLecvMPYATGUmsTQA0QhYpVg1AqVqgomSbBreZEowbD9x
+8jz8I/8jYc=
=WzxH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mark A. Cochran]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <199806082133...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,

Anastasis2 <anast...@aol.com> wrote:
>coc...@netcom.com (Mark A. Cochran) wrote:
>

>>Really? What tripe. Here's an example. The drug known on the market as
>>Streptase (streptokinase) was developed after it was discovered that a
>>few strep bacteria had evolved to secrete an enzyme which prevented blood
>>from clotting, and disolved existing clots; this drug has saved
>>countless lives when used following acute Myocardial Infarction. And
>>yet, only a miniscule fraction of strep bacteria have evolved the
>>ability to secrete this enzyme.
>
>I am not familiar with the drug, but could this in any way be more closely
>related to adaptation, or similar to developing an immunity instead of an
>evolutionary process?
>

That *IS* evolution.

>
>>Really? Please cite chapter and verse wherein these events were
>>predicted.
>>BTW, since you're such a bible scholar, tell us; do you eat ham? Do
>>you seek medical care when you're sick?
>>After all, according to your bible, both are wrong.
>
>I am not sure exactly what you are quoting here, but neither of these are
>wrong,

According to the bible, all you need is faith, not medicine.

[This account protected by Spamgard(tm) - Mail without 'banana' in the
Subject: header will be bounced unseen.]
PGP and .sig file follows.


Brook's Law:
Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later

[Finger coc...@netcom.com for PGP Public Key]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i

iQCVAgUBNXyA8to7GDsbn4ZNAQE3FQP7BX8ktD2l5cOzAn4xI6BDTKSA3RbUd1MQ
pmZX/c2xXJNXL6qFH9B1Z6Wt2QeJzed0tjDgvmblyFo+1SUdSeUB9HxsFhzXlvR0
p+QFTSmylfGcLj24GqbsHfY8quO0wsE+RWXxyzktV6QgAL/GA1uqkzffPJTG+6zE
n7k4V0CHW1U=
=VFpR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Anastasis2]

coc...@netcom.com (Mark A. Cochran) wrote:

>>could also be explained by arthritis, strange customs, culture, malnutrition
>>and deficiencies.
>
>I'm sorry, but this is simply not true. How do you imagine that
>culture can lead to a skull without provisions for the frontal lobe of
>the brain? How do you imagine that artheritis can alter the shape of
>the teeth?

I`m sorry, but it is. I said that it could be explained, not that I believed it

to be true. A skull that did not have provisions for a frontal lobe would
suggest the remains of an ape, regardless of other physical features, even with
abnormally small teeth. What I am suggesting is that is possible to use a
slightly deformed ape or human skull and claim it is a transitional form, not
to say that it would be a reputable artifact to a true evolutionist. It could
be used to brainwash uneducated millions, much like religious hypocrites.

>>Did you ever see the movie speed? Look at the driver on the

>>bus. His facial features (low hanging jaw, slanted forehead) suggest
>relation
>>closer to that of apes.
>
>To a layman, perhaps; certainly nto to someone trained in human
>anatomy.

I agree. Just stating that he had similar features.

>>I would bet if his remains were found 100 years from

>>now, he would be predated several hundred thousand years.
>
>Not a chance.

Yeah, probably not. But always a chance.
Dave
`94 Firehawk #203

[Anastasis2]

coc...@netcom.com (Mark A. Cochran) wrote:

>>related to adaptation, or similar to developing an immunity instead of an
>>evolutionary process?
>>
>That *IS* evolution.

I want to make sure I understand you. Is adaption a progressive movement or a
change in direction?

>According to the bible, all you need is faith, not medicine.

This is totally false! The bible definitely suggests the use of medicines!

Dave
`94 Firehawk #203

[RahatMan]

Actually the concept of Jesus as God is a relatively new concept; the
"Church" invented it. Infact the Church as it is today is actually the
Roman Empire with different names for their Gods. Anyone notice how
Christmas coincides with the birthdate of the Roman sun-god? Or even
that the Cross is a symbol of the Roman Sun-God? Or that their is
virtually no difference between Mary and the Roman God "Venus" ?
Problems with Gospels:
Mark : Mark he was the son of St. Barnabas sister. He rarely traveled
with Jesus, what would he know?
Matthew : He was just a tax collector. A minor official. He did not
travel around with Jesus much at all.
Luke: Luke was Paul's physician, and Paul never met Jesus.

Any one else notice how the "Bible" was written 100 years after Jesus'
time? Any one else notice how Jesus is usually shown as a blond haired
man with blue eyes, when in fact everyone knows he was a Hebrew? Also
Constantine was just a little bit too eager to accept Christianity,
the fact is he never did accept it, he simply modified Roman mythology
and molded it into what is now Christianity.
P.S.
Did Jesus ever pray to himself? NEVER, He always prayed to God. Did he
ever pray to his mother? NEVER, He always prayed to God. God being a
seperate entity than Jesus.

These were just some Muslim views on "Jesus Christ" To us he was
simply a messenger of God.
Sources : Jesus: A Prophet of Islam
-Muhammad Ata ur-Rahim

I've also got some more about how Jesus was never crucified: it was
jut a mix-up in the darkness.

On 9 Jun 1998 00:53:25 GMT, goog...@ripco.com (Googolplex) wrote:

|SaGa (sa...@phoenix.crossroads.com) wrote:
|: Googolplex wrote:
|
|: > SaGa (sa...@phoenix.crossroads.com) wrote:
|: >
|: > : Of course I'm 14 dumbass. If you would goto church, you might learn stuff.
|: >
|: > Well, YOU might learn a bit about evolution, BEFORE you make your wild (and
|: > wrong) statements. As far as church goes...shall I bore you with dozens of
|: > Old and New Testament prophecies that didn't come true/were contradicted in
|: > their time? You don't read your bible very well, if you think it's a solid
|: > platform from which to quote prophecies.
|: >
|
|: What's so wrong about them? I can remember several different faults in
|: evolution.
|: You learn that stuff in Sunday School, and Church. Please,
|: enlighten me with these so called "false prophecies".
|

[Wyrdrune]

Si_Druid wrote:
>
> SaGa <sa...@phoenix.crossroads.com> writes:
>
> >I don't like it when people post the way he did... But you are a fool to beleive there
> >is no such thing as god, or how we formed from monkeys (otherwise known as evolution).
> >If we formed from apes (as they say) why are there still apes? That's the biggest
> >question. when a species evolves, ALL of it evolves. If you want to start another
> >flame war about this, I have facts about how untrue evolution really is.
>
> I don't mean to take on the whole christian science community (again) but I'm going to be
> blunt about this...
>
> Evolution exists. An entire species does not evolve all at once and in the same direction
> (example: squirrels on either side of the grand canyon). Creatures evolve because one
> set of genes allows them to better fit into a particular ecological niche. So what if
> there are TWO niches? there may be two sets of genes that better enable that creature to
> fit into the niche. Why are there humans and monkeys? Humans have adapted for ground walk
> in dry areas while most apes are designed for moist (jungle) climates, and to move in trees
> or amongst heavy understory cover. So much for the biggest question. The difficulty with
> the christian science view is that it presumes god exists. Thus it acts on faith. Faith
> can never be proven because of its nature - unprovable things are taken as truth.
>
> I am not placing myself in the heretic/atheist catagory, but 150 years of good science work
> stands behind every last thing we believe about evolution. Thousands of years worth of faith
> do not a proof make.
>
> the Silicon Druid
>
> (note about flame wars.... first flame i see in this topic and i stop posting on it, as will
> saga, i believe. Thus, if people care to carry on an intellectual convo, im all for it. If
> people want to vent agression, go post in alt.archangel)

Nicely said Druid.
Good to see you still posting sense.
Wyrdrune.

[Wyrdrune]

Wôlfman wrote:

>
> >> >SaGa wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I don't like it when people post the way he did... But you are a fool
> to beleive there
> >> > is no such thing as god, or how we formed from monkeys (otherwise known
> as evolution).
> >> > If we formed from apes (as they say) why are there still apes? That's
> the biggest
>
> >> > question. when a species evolves, ALL of it evolves.
>

> You need to learn what the theory of evolution actualy says before you post
> about it.
>

> >> > If you want to start another flame war about this,
>

> To paraphrase Silicon Druid's post: Nobody wants a flame war, just
> intelligent discourse.

>
> >> >I have facts about how untrue evolution really is.
>

> There are just as many so-called facts disproving YOUR belief system too.
> The problem is, nobody who was THERE is HERE,

Sez you <grin>

>and all we have now are
> stories distorted by generations of retellings.
>
> BTW, why the hell did this thread get crossposted to alt.2600.warez? :)

Well, readers of alt.2600.warez are usually trying to get something
cheaply, so here they have an opportunity for intelligent conversation
for the price of 'net access while they download "Mechanized Death
Roller Blade Hell Four". Who said value for money didn't exist?
=)

[Wyrdrune]

Adam Stouffer wrote:

>
> Googolplex wrote:
> >
> >
> > Well, YOU might learn a bit about evolution, BEFORE you make your wild (and
> > wrong) statements. As far as church goes...shall I bore you with dozens of
> > Old and New Testament prophecies that didn't come true/were contradicted in
> > their time? You don't read your bible very well, if you think it's a solid
> > platform from which to quote prophecies.
> >

> > goog...@ripco.com
>
> I think its funny how the vatican declared that the earth revolved
> around
> the sun like 400 years after it was proven.
>
> Adam

Religion is a funny thing my son =)

They were spending that time waiting for a scientist with religious
ideals to arrive so they could trust him, they didn't like all these
scientists saying "...and here we have the essence of God captured
within this jam jar.." <grin>.

(I did! I did kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!") =)

[Wyrdrune]

SaGa wrote:
>
> Joskyn, aka, Death to Geeko the Muppet wrote:
>
> > Whilst thinking of how I can Flame Archangel for Fun/No reason, SaGa
> > <sa...@phoenix.crossroads.com> Dumped this Post on alt.2600. Thus comes
> > my Reply/Flame.:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Adam Stouffer wrote:
> > >
> > >> SaGa wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > They don't specify things in the bible such as guns. Otherwise things would have been given
> > >> > names before their time.
> > >>
> > >> Personally I think the bible is pure bullshit
> > >>
> > >
> > >Personally, I think you are pure bullshit...
> > >
> > >> >
> > >> > One of the predictions...eh'? Well, in the 1980's, Barbera Walters (How do you spell that?)
> > >> > reported on utterly thousands of Jews moving to Israel. That was predicted by the Bible.
> > >> > Barbera Walters was fulfilling a prophecy without even knowing it.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Sure you are still only 14 years old?

> > >>
> > >
> > >Of course I'm 14 dumbass. If you would goto church, you might learn stuff.
> > >

> > >> --
> > >> ------------------------
> > >> | Remove the NO-SPAM |
> > >> ------------------------
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >SaGa
> >
> > Bawhahahahahaha Praise be to Lord SaGa..... Fucking hell SaGa, does
> > "your" Church know that you swear like a Scum bag?
>
> All I use is Dumbass. It means Ignorant Fool. Ass is merely a donkey. That's the way I see things.
>
> > Do they know you
> > frequent a Evil Hacking NG...You are a hippocrite SaGa...
>
> I would hardly call this evil.
>
> > climb down
> > from your pious heights and remove your "Holy Ego" from this NG and
> > post to alt.religious.zealots or something "worthy" of your presence.
> >
>
> I simply replied to another post narcing on my religion and that's something people have no right to
> do! They have a right to question it, not put it down because they think they're all big and bad.
>
> > You have a very un-<place your religion here> attitude, unless the
> > religion you belong is some form of Devil worship...BTW how is AA?
> >
>
> Ha! Devil worship... List the things wrong with my attitude... I'm not cocky, I only use Dumbass
> as a cuss word, though there have been times I used fuck, well, say anything else and don't be an
> faggot about it.
>
> > A confirmed atheist
> >
>
> you can't be an athiest. Athiest means you don't beleive in anything and that doesn't just go for
> religion.Do you beleive we're the only ones in the universe?
> Do you beleive we were created from evolution? And if we were, how were we created from it?
>
> Regards,
> SaGa

Not true I'm afraid.
Atheism is the disbelief in God or gods although it also used to
represent attitudes regarded as evil (Good old Collins).
The idea is not that we were created FROM evolution, evolution is the
process whereby a species or sub-species of organism mutates to take
advantage of (or better defend itself in) it's environment. as a
previous poster has already stated, Mankind evolved through several
stages from an arboreal primate to a creature able to live in any
environment. We are not the end product, there is no end product, we are
still evolving to this day. Witness the vestigial organ that is the
Appendix, palaeoanthropologists have unearthed mummies dating from only
a few thousand years ago containing an appendix which was then much
larger than it is Today.
So far we are the only creature the Earth has produced which is in
danger of halting it's own evolution. This may cause many of you to
laugh but it's true. We no longer need to adapt to new environments, we
actively change our environment to suit ourselves. There will be no
human based creature evolved to live on the surface of Mars. Why?
Because we will eventually adapt the surface of Mars to suit our needs.
Naturally I do not believe that our evolution will halt, but it will
certainly take place at a far slower rate.

[Wyrdrune]

Rob Hafernik wrote:
>
> You can argue that man didn't evolve from apes if you want (although the
> evidence is overwhelming), but there isn't the slightest doubt that
> evolution happens. We know this because scientists have observed it with
> their bare eyes on many occasions. If you want a list of cites to dozens
> of scientific papers on the subject (although I'm absolutely certain,
> SaGa, that scientific facts are the last thing you are interested in), you
> can get them at the Talk Origins archive at
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org
>

An interesting site indeed. They even have a search facility.

> Reading the Bible is a good thing, I recommend it for everyone, even
> confirmed atheists. Considering how much of our society and culture comes
> from it, a familiarity with it is essential.
>
> Interestingly, evolution isn't mentioned EITHER way.

Possibly because the authors weren't scientists or even philosophers.

[RahatMan]

I have to agree with this guy about us evolving from monkeys. And
although it has been scientifically proven that we are only .3%
different, genetically, that monkeys, I will not believe that we
evolved from monkeys. I will however believe that the human race has
evolved of it's own accord, from dumb caveman or whatever term they
used, into smarter faster and generally better humans.

|SaGa:
|
| What's so wrong about your ideas of evolution? Well I already told you
|about your error of thinking evolution said anything about humans
|evolving from monkeys. We DID NOT evolve from monkeys and evolution
|NEVER said we did. Another statement of yours stating that ALL of a
|species evolves at once is TOTALLY WRONG and just shows a lack of
|understanding about the subject. Then another statement of yours about
|cold weather MAKING us grow more HAIRY is also in ERROR.
| Evolution works by natural selection. All cat breeders, horse
|breeders, in fact just about any breeders that try to breed animals for
|certain traits use evolution in their day to day business. Some more
|successful than others.

Right again: If evolution means that nature "upgrades" a species why
did monkeys who could live of off basically bananas and lift tree
trunks with their bare hands evolve into people who need 5 sets of
foods groups a day and can barely lift the damnded remote?

| You don't actually think for a minute that Sunday school and church are
|fountains of accurate scientific knowledge do you? Go to the library
|and check out some books on evolution, if you depend on Sunday school to
|teach you about the world you will be sadly lacking in knowledge. I
|think you must be seeing a glimmer of that lack, since you posted the
|Sunday school version of evolution.
|
| Bottlebob
|

Christian Science - LOL!

[Mark A. Cochran]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <199806090045...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,

Anastasis2 <anast...@aol.com> wrote:
>coc...@netcom.com (Mark A. Cochran) wrote:
>

>>I'm sorry, but this is simply not true. How do you imagine that
>>culture can lead to a skull without provisions for the frontal lobe of
>>the brain? How do you imagine that artheritis can alter the shape of
>>the teeth?
>
>I`m sorry, but it is. I said that it could be explained, not that I believed it
>to be true. A skull that did not have provisions for a frontal lobe would
>suggest the remains of an ape, regardless of other physical features, even with
>abnormally small teeth. What I am suggesting is that is possible to use a
>slightly deformed ape or human skull and claim it is a transitional form, not
>to say that it would be a reputable artifact to a true evolutionist. It could
>be used to brainwash uneducated millions, much like religious hypocrites.
>

Um, apes have a frontal lobe, albeit a smaller one than humans...

>>>Did you ever see the movie speed? Look at the driver on the
>>>bus. His facial features (low hanging jaw, slanted forehead) suggest
>>relation
>>>closer to that of apes.
>>
>>To a layman, perhaps; certainly nto to someone trained in human
>>anatomy.
>
>I agree. Just stating that he had similar features.
>

So we're agreed that no trained scientist would make these errors.

>>>I would bet if his remains were found 100 years from
>>>now, he would be predated several hundred thousand years.
>>
>>Not a chance.
>
>Yeah, probably not. But always a chance.

There's a chance that you'll win the lotteries in California,
Colorado, Texas and New York next week. All of them at once.

[This account protected by Spamgard(tm) - Mail without 'banana' in the
Subject: header will be bounced unseen.]
PGP and .sig file follows.


Hacker's Law:
The belief that enhanced understanding will necessarily stir
a nation to action is one of mankind's oldest illusions.

[Finger coc...@netcom.com for PGP Public Key]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i

iQCVAgUBNXytYNo7GDsbn4ZNAQGElAQAogYlGc+6FM82AugEULjV2HUywTfsn05c
xAdw1QLnoDVsK9O+rHNFJVCGEsQswHZduV+bWk8tNo7cJ8LPqXrHgmzct2a25Xz2
9inkBc2rmi7NHJCiDPg6y2B3hCEsTqolLqTKFm9PYfkVVFly+CkkIgLetjVaRkXw
CQ0m0CeUIeM=
=xFpE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mark A. Cochran]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <199806090048...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,

Anastasis2 <anast...@aol.com> wrote:
>coc...@netcom.com (Mark A. Cochran) wrote:

[Anastasis2 wrote - please do not delete the attributions...]

>>>related to adaptation, or similar to developing an immunity instead of an
>>>evolutionary process?
>>>
>>That *IS* evolution.
>
>I want to make sure I understand you. Is adaption a progressive movement or a
>change in direction?
>

Yes.

>>According to the bible, all you need is faith, not medicine.
>
>This is totally false! The bible definitely suggests the use of medicines!
>

Yes, it does. It also says that all you need is faith, not medicine.
The bible is riddled with this sort of self-contradiction. Not to
mention utter nonsense such as claiming that bats are birds.

[This account protected by Spamgard(tm) - Mail without 'banana' in the
Subject: header will be bounced unseen.]
PGP and .sig file follows.


Mosher's Law of Software Engineering:
Don't worry if it doesn't work right. If everything did, you'd
be out of a job.

[Finger coc...@netcom.com for PGP Public Key]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i

iQCVAgUBNXyv9to7GDsbn4ZNAQHRHAQAhAZujKRa1P9X2wcLQSdE7IzDEPtCdYbE
cnzkpuOAP+XAW0O8ilLKKkP1OYuCeto2O/6rB+yfanvjSmJYWIpseza8FSMDcKEc
t3cy3zq3Wuy8Pq+C1EP3jEAbM6ARq82I4EkTt/5/RTlWH76tVzFeaSjJJYSLh6et
TMPbK+5UzeY=
=blJ+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Phibit 100]

"We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us really
love each other."

Jonathan Swift is a smart man.

Lev
---------
`91 z28
`87 Grand National
`87 McLaren Mercury Topaz =^)

phib...@aol.com

[Wôlfman]

RahatMan wrote in message <357cafe5...@news.erols.com>...

>I have to agree with this guy about us evolving from monkeys. And
>although it has been scientifically proven that we are only .3%
>different, genetically, that monkeys, I will not believe that we
>evolved from monkeys. I will however believe that the human race has

Correct. Nor does it mean that since we are so genetically similar to
monkeys (chimanzees specifically) that we are descended from monkeys.

[Wolf_Grrrrl]

On 8 Jun 1998 15:08:00 -0700, SaGa <sa...@phoenix.crossroads.com>
wrote:

>Rob Hafernik wrote:
>
>> In article <357C134C...@phoenix.crossroads.com>, SaGa
>> <sa...@phoenix.crossroads.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I didn't say evolution isn't true (atleast I don't think I did). As I said in
>> > another post, if we are cold, we grow hair on our arms (not right away), If
>> > the sun is constantly shining on us, we tan, and eventually will turn black if
>> > we lived in a country as bright as Africa, the sun rays there are extremely
>> > powerfull.
>>
>> None of which has anything to do with evolution unless your OFFSPRING
>> inherit the darkened skin. THAT is evolution (in a tiny way), tanning is
>> NOT.
>>
>> As for the cold causing us to grow hair on our arms, I don't think this is
>> true. Anyone know for sure? I don't think a person's body hair will
>> change in response to cold.
>
>It's true. Body hair provides warmth like a jacket.
>

Saga, when you go to college take some anthropology and human science
classes please.

Body hair has never been effective in providing warmth. Even in
modern man, the warmth factor is a layer of fat located just under
your skin. This fat layer provides protection against heat loss of
the inner body.

When the weather starts turning cold, man's metabolism changes and
his/her body starts storing extra fat reserves... why? Well fat is
not a great way to store nutrition, but it is a great way to keep the
body warm. Man and animals both continue this long tradition of the
seasonal storing of extra fat reserves even to this day.

Early man did have more hair than modern man has today. The purpose
of body hair is protect your organ called skin. When man figured out
he could make clothes from animal skins that provided addtional
protection from the elements and allowed him to travel greater ranges
during winter time... his body hair started reducing because it was no
longer needed. Evolution dude.

-- Wolf_Grrrrl

[Wolf_Grrrrl]

On Tue, 09 Jun 1998 03:21:19 +0100, Wyrdrune <wyrd...@geocities.com>
wrote:

>The idea is not that we were created FROM evolution, evolution is the
>process whereby a species or sub-species of organism mutates to take
>advantage of (or better defend itself in) it's environment. as a
>previous poster has already stated, Mankind evolved through several
>stages from an arboreal primate to a creature able to live in any
>environment. We are not the end product, there is no end product, we are
>still evolving to this day.

I'm a christian that believes in evolution.

In the bible it is stated that God formed mankind and all the animals
and living things from the mud (or clay depending on which bible you
are reading).

I just don't believe that God, or that omnipotent being, made little
clay figures and did some mumbo jumbo over them to bring them to life.

Can not the mud referred to in the bible mean the chemical soup that
did create that first one celled creature we call our Great, great,
great, great, ad infinitium.... Grandma?

I agree that all living creatures evolved from those first living
cells... but after the beginning we evolved into separate species. I
also believe this was God's plan, set forth and executed just as he
willed.

Gene studies show that all living creatures on the earth share 70% of
their genes with each other. So you could probably call the next
jelly fish you see Auntie and there may be some validity to it from
eons ago.

But to say we evolved from monkeys? No. How can you answer the
question... why did some monkeys stay monkeys and other monkeys evolve
into humans? Just can't be.

I do agree with you that all living things need to continue to evolve,
stagnation results in extinction. Thats been proved many times over.

-- Wolf_Grrrrl

[Wolf_Grrrrl]

On Tue, 09 Jun 1998 02:02:47 GMT, Rahs...@erols.kom (RahatMan) wrote:

>Actually the concept of Jesus as God is a relatively new concept; the
>"Church" invented it. Infact the Church as it is today is actually the
>Roman Empire with different names for their Gods. Anyone notice how
>Christmas coincides with the birthdate of the Roman sun-god? Or even
>that the Cross is a symbol of the Roman Sun-God? Or that their is
>virtually no difference between Mary and the Roman God "Venus" ?
>Problems with Gospels:
>Mark : Mark he was the son of St. Barnabas sister. He rarely traveled
>with Jesus, what would he know?
>Matthew : He was just a tax collector. A minor official. He did not
>travel around with Jesus much at all.
>Luke: Luke was Paul's physician, and Paul never met Jesus.
>
>Any one else notice how the "Bible" was written 100 years after Jesus'
>time?

This is a favorite argument of many to dispute the validity of the New
Testament.

How do you explain the letters from the Apostles to the "churches"
they formed? Or the writings by Peter while he was imprisioned? That
fact happens to have been documented by the Romans themselves. The
writings of the Apostles never where a collabrated work. They made
their writings separately.

After the Christian movement became more organizated those writings
were collected and compiled into what we know today as the New
Testament.

>Any one else notice how Jesus is usually shown as a blond haired
>man with blue eyes, when in fact everyone knows he was a Hebrew?

The depictions of Christ are not always blond and blue eyed. There
are many that also depict him with a darker complexion.

Truth is, we all know he was of Hebrew descent and that he probably
had black or brown hair, dark eyes, and a dark complexion. Don't
discredit our religion because a few people out there took artistic
license and portrayed him in a manner that he probably did not
resemble at all.

> Also
>Constantine was just a little bit too eager to accept Christianity,
>the fact is he never did accept it, he simply modified Roman mythology
>and molded it into what is now Christianity.

Constantine was Roman Catholic, I think you need to check your facts
on this one. You are confusing Roman with Roman Catholic.

>P.S.
>Did Jesus ever pray to himself? NEVER, He always prayed to God.

The normal routine for praying is to pray to God and to ask the divine
to speak directly to God on your behalf.

When a christian prays... they would usually include something along
the lines of:

In Jesus name I pray this. Or, in <a saints name> I pray this. You
see, they are praying to God and also asking Jesus or a saint to
intervene, or appeal to the father, on their behalf.

>Did he
>ever pray to his mother? NEVER,

Jesus did not pray to his Mother, but Jesus kept her close to him his
entire life. If you read the christain bible you will find that all
the Apostles writing mention Mary the Mother of Jesus.

I'm convinced that Jesus was very close to his Mother during his life
on earth and still is.

I occasionally pray the rosary because I believe that Mary the Mother
of Jesus is deserving of my admiration, my respect, and most of my all
boundless adoration for bringing the son of God into our world.

A question for you - Do you disrespect the Mother of Mohammed?

>He always prayed to God. God being a
>seperate entity than Jesus.

Correct, God is the father of Jesus.

The concept of the trinity can be a bit confusing even to Christians.
God the father, God the son, and God the holy ghost. Three separate,
yet united entities.

>
>These were just some Muslim views on "Jesus Christ" To us he was
>simply a messenger of God.
>Sources : Jesus: A Prophet of Islam
>-Muhammad Ata ur-Rahim
>
>I've also got some more about how Jesus was never crucified: it was
>jut a mix-up in the darkness.
>
>
>On 9 Jun 1998 00:53:25 GMT, goog...@ripco.com (Googolplex) wrote:
>
>|SaGa (sa...@phoenix.crossroads.com) wrote:
>|: Googolplex wrote:
>|
>|: > SaGa (sa...@phoenix.crossroads.com) wrote:
>|: >

>|: > : Of course I'm 14 dumbass. If you would goto church, you might learn stuff.
>|: >
>|: > Well, YOU might learn a bit about evolution, BEFORE you make your wild (and

>|: > wrong) statements. As far as church goes...shall I bore you with dozens of
>|: > Old and New Testament prophecies that didn't come true/were contradicted in
>|: > their time? You don't read your bible very well, if you think it's a solid
>|: > platform from which to quote prophecies.

>|: >
>|
>|: What's so wrong about them? I can remember several different faults in
>|: evolution.
>|: You learn that stuff in Sunday School, and Church. Please,
>|: enlighten me with these so called "false prophecies".
>|
>|Sure...and it only takes one of the contradictions to blow your position out
>|of the water; here's three:
>|
>|1) Isa. 11:8 "The weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den."
>|2) Isa. 34:7 "And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks
>| with the bulls."
>|3) Isa. 13:19-22 "Babylon...satyrs shall dance there...and dragons."
>|
>|Just love those dragons...wonder what "faults" they "evolved" from?!
>|
>| goog...@ripco.com
>|p.s. I could quote 50 more!
>|
>|
>

-- Wolf_Grrrrl

[Ad...@my-dejanews.com]

In article <shokwave-080...@as5-dialup-02.wc-aus.io.com>,

shok...@well.com (Rob Hafernik) wrote:
>
> In article <357C134C...@phoenix.crossroads.com>, SaGa
> <sa...@phoenix.crossroads.com> wrote:
>
> > I didn't say evolution isn't true (atleast I don't think I did). As I said
in
> > another post, if we are cold, we grow hair on our arms (not right away), If
> > the sun is constantly shining on us, we tan, and eventually will turn black
if
> > we lived in a country as bright as Africa, the sun rays there are extremely
> > powerfull.
>
> None of which has anything to do with evolution unless your OFFSPRING
> inherit the darkened skin. THAT is evolution (in a tiny way), tanning is
> NOT.

Dark skin may not have been an evolutionary trait. Light skin may have been.
Since the oldest human remains found so far came from Africa it has been
suggested that light skin was a result of moving to the colder climates!
However look at how long the Arabs have been living in the bright climates and
they haven't yet turned black.

>
> As for the cold causing us to grow hair on our arms, I don't think this is
> true. Anyone know for sure? I don't think a person's body hair will
> change in response to cold.
>

If that were true eskimos would look like apes.

Interesting note is evolutionary changes can take place in a matter of only a
generation or two. I saw something fairly recently where some lizards started
growing longer legs possibly in response to taller vegetation. This wasn't a
multi-million year change either. Just a matter of months! Taller veggies and
babies instantly had longer legs! Maybe the longer legged of the lizards were
better fed and thus reproduced more rapidly.
Another interesting note is that evolutionary changes don't seem to happen in
many species that reproduce asexually. You just get clones over and over. BUT
if their environment changes some of these species will SWITCH to sexual
reproduction and then begin changing! Thus the whole reason behind sex is NOT
just reproduction but to bring about change in the species!!!
I just love the Discovery channel!!!!

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

[Ad...@my-dejanews.com]

In article <357d076d...@news.ricochet.net>,
wolf_...@efferlumpsandwoozles.com (Wolf_Grrrrl) wrote:

> Saga, when you go to college take some anthropology and human science
> classes please.
>
> Body hair has never been effective in providing warmth. Even in
> modern man, the warmth factor is a layer of fat located just under
> your skin. This fat layer provides protection against heat loss of
> the inner body.
>
> When the weather starts turning cold, man's metabolism changes and
> his/her body starts storing extra fat reserves... why? Well fat is
> not a great way to store nutrition, but it is a great way to keep the
> body warm. Man and animals both continue this long tradition of the
> seasonal storing of extra fat reserves even to this day.
>
> Early man did have more hair than modern man has today. The purpose
> of body hair is protect your organ called skin. When man figured out
> he could make clothes from animal skins that provided addtional
> protection from the elements and allowed him to travel greater ranges
> during winter time... his body hair started reducing because it was no
> longer needed. Evolution dude.
>
> -- Wolf_Grrrrl
>
>

Yes that's why Eskimos have more body fat than people in warm climates but
don't have massive amounts of hair!!! Their diet is also high in fat as that
helps provide energy to keep warm.

Side note: I had an anthropology instructor who was a Neanderthal body type.
His theory was that the early body types never vanished they just kinda got
absorbed. Apparently people tend to overexaggerate the ape look of our distant
ancestors as most of the early ones if dressed in modern clothing with modern
hairstyles etc. would fit right in!!! Even Australopithecene (sp?) with a
haircut, shave, and in a suit wouldn't look too out of place in the conference
room - might look a little like Ross Perot though...

[David Lyons]

Bottlebob wrote:
>
> The thing about science is that it is pretty
> much self-correcting. Even if one scientist makes
> false deductions, if another scientist can't reproduce
> the same findings with the same experiment, the whole
> hypothesis is thrown into question until it can be
> resolved satisfactorily.
> Religion on the other hand tells you that you MUST
> take many things on faith. There is no chance for any
> type of self-correcting at all, so the same errors are
> propagated over and over.

Science deals with "How"; religion deals with "Why". Science deals
with the physical; religion deals with the spiritual.

There is an absolute Truth, but religions are man-made and attept to
exploit this truth into scare tactics.

Dave

[Ad...@my-dejanews.com]

In article <357cc...@news.redrose.net>,

However we ARE genetically VERY closely related to pigs.

[John Craker]

SaGa wrote:
> > As for the cold causing us to grow hair on our arms, I don't think this is
> > true. Anyone know for sure? I don't think a person's body hair will
> > change in response to cold.
>

> It's true. Body hair provides warmth like a jacket.

Ah! So that's why my back's always warm, and my heads always cold....

(eewwwww....)

[Bottlebob]

Wolf:

What you have just described is the intelligent person's attempt to
deal with the inconsistencies and non scientific views of the Bible.
Most educated people do this as a matter of course, if they wish to
believe in a God and are bothered by passages that conflict with common
sense or provable scientific truth.
Creationists, however, seem to want to take a literal interpretation of
Biblical events and are willing to force that viewpoint on the rest of
us to the extent of giving it equal time (beside evolution) in some
schools. To me, that is the height of ignorant arrogance.

Bottlebob

[Bottlebob]

David Lyons wrote:
>
> Bottlebob wrote:
> >
> > The thing about science is that it is pretty
> > much self-correcting. Even if one scientist makes
> > false deductions, if another scientist can't reproduce
> > the same findings with the same experiment, the whole
> > hypothesis is thrown into question until it can be
> > resolved satisfactorily.
> > Religion on the other hand tells you that you MUST
> > take many things on faith. There is no chance for any
> > type of self-correcting at all, so the same errors are
> > propagated over and over.
>
> Science deals with "How"; religion deals with "Why". Science deals
> with the physical; religion deals with the spiritual.

David:

That's a little simplistic since science deals with "Why's" all the
time, but you are correct in that science doesn't usually deal with
"Why" the universe came into being, or the "purpose" of life. The
search for purpose and meaning in life can be characterized as people's
weakness in accepting the cold unfeeling universe as it is, and are
searching for some reason to believe it all has "Meaning". Which it
doesn't of course, so all the searching is futile and just ends by
believing or making up pretty stories that are comforting, but are of
such low probability as to be the same as impossible.

> There is an absolute Truth, but religions are man-made and attept to
> exploit this truth into scare tactics.

Absolute Truth, with a capital "T"? Your absolute truth can be
summarized as "The universe exists" or "There is change", just about
everything else is made up in the mind of man.

>
> Dave

Bottlebob

[Lizard]

>> You can argue that man didn't evolve from apes if you want (although the
>> evidence is overwhelming), but there isn't the slightest doubt that

Actually, there is no evidence what so ever that we evolved from apes. That
is line used over and over again by persons on both sides of the argument
who don't understand what evolutionary theory tells us about human origins.
We evolved from a "Common Ancestor". Meaning, once, many years ago, there
was some dude hanging around. Dude evolved into homo erectus, while some of
his kids evolved into gorrillis ass pickus.

>> evolution happens. We know this because scientists have observed it with
>> their bare eyes on many occasions.

I don't think micheal jackson turning white counts as evolution. Maybe you
are talking fruit flies or something.

--
Lizard
Are we hacking the human genome here?

[Compuserve]

[-snip-]

>Luke: Luke was Paul's physician, and Paul never met Jesus.

[-snip-]
Stating that Paul never met Jesus is a lie. If you are using the Bible as
your source and assuming that the Bible is true, In Acts Chapter 9 verses
3-9:

"And as he (Saul, Before he was renamed Paul) journeyed, he came near
Damascus: and suddenly there shined around him a great light from heaven:
And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why
persecutest me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am
Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
And he trembling and astonished said, Lord what wilt thou have me to do?
And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be
told thee what thou must do. And the men which journeyed with him stood
speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. And Soul arose from the
Earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the
hand, and brought him into Damascus. And he was three days without sight,
and neither did he eat nor drink."

Maybe you should actually know something about what you are talking about
before you go posting this crap.

[Lizard]

>>Actually the concept of Jesus as God is a relatively new concept; the
>>"Church" invented it. Infact the Church as it is today is actually the
>>Roman Empire with different names for their Gods. Anyone notice how
>>Christmas coincides with the birthdate of the Roman sun-god? Or even
>>that the Cross is a symbol of the Roman Sun-God? Or that their is
>>virtually no difference between Mary and the Roman God "Venus" ?

I don't think so. The pagan polytheism of the Roman Empire, indeed, much of
the greco roman world at that time, was indifferent to christianity. Modern
christianity evolved out of Judism.

The birthdate set for Christ, while three years and a few months off, was a
near abritrary date that has nothing but coincidence (if anything) to do
with the "Roman Sun God" (Sol) . It was actually set to coincide with the
Celtic celebrations of the winter solstice (Dec 21). Roughly, about that
time, the sun was at it's lowest point, which represented (at least as far
as the Roman missionaries were concerned) the birth, or starting point of
the son of god.

Sol was relatively unimportant. More or less, the church would have chosen
to repackage Jupiter. The cross, however, became a symbol of Christianity
because it was the chosen punishment of the Roman Empire at that time. When
the Pharisees, Scribes, and the rest of the merry gang decided to knock
Jesus off, they did it basically by making him to be a criminal. Although
claiming to be the son of god was not a crime, blasphemy was. Capital crimes
such as blasphemy resevered you 3 days and 2 nights on your own personal
cross atop scenic mount Golgatha.

Finally, there is a huge difference between the roman god Venus, and Mary.
Venus was a sexually potent representation of love. To put it succinctly,
she was a madam. Banging her was to be every mans desire. Mary, on the other
hand, is the banged only by Joseph (and he really did'nt wanna do that for a
while, either). Again, a more appropriate comparison would have been
Jupiter's mother, which was actually his father, since what's his name
reproduced asexually.

>>Problems with Gospels:
>>Mark : Mark he was the son of St. Barnabas sister. He rarely traveled
>>with Jesus, what would he know?

Well, the Mark who wrote Mark was'nt born for several years after Jesus hung
around.

>>Matthew : He was just a tax collector. A minor official. He did not
>>travel around with Jesus much at all.

Again, at all.

>>Luke: Luke was Paul's physician, and Paul never met Jesus.

Not entirely accurate. Jesus appeared to Paul (Saul of Tarsis) in a vision
while he was on a business trip.

>>Any one else notice how the "Bible" was written 100 years after Jesus'
>>time?

The "Bible" was never written. The bible is a collection of books. The first
part of bible was written several years before Jesus was a gleam in anyones
eye. The new testament was a collection of christian writings, includeing
Greco-Roman biographies of Jesus's life, and other cannonized scriptures of
the time. The earliest book was first written approximately 80 years after
Jesus gave up the ghost. Besides that, there are many books which did not
make it into the bible.

>>Any one else notice how Jesus is usually shown as a blond haired
>>man with blue eyes, when in fact everyone knows he was a Hebrew?

Well, the italians like that imagery. The bible described Jesus as pretty
much being a brother. He had "hair like lambs wool", yadda yadda yadda.

>>He always prayed to God. God being a
>>seperate entity than Jesus.

Separate, and the same. It's a complicated concept to accept, but Jesus was
both a mortal, and having recieved the holy spirit after his baptism, was a
part of God.

>>I've also got some more about how Jesus was never crucified: it was
>>jut a mix-up in the darkness.

No, I dont' think so. It was still pretty light out when they put him up for
the night. Besides, the powers that were wanted Jesus REAL BAD.

--
Lizard
Every hacker has prayed to get something solved quickly....

[David Lyons]

Bottlebob wrote:
>
> Which it doesn't of course, so all the searching is
> futile and just ends by believing or making up pretty
> stories that are comforting, but are of such low
> probability as to be the same as impossible.

Like the one about all matter & energy in the Universe suddenly popped
out of an infinitesimal point without any kind of outside stimulus?
And then it formed into a well-oiled machine and produced heat, light
and life? Yeah, I've heard that one before. It's a good one!

>
> > There is an absolute Truth, but religions are
> > man-made and attept to exploit this truth into scare
> > tactics.
>
> Absolute Truth, with a capital "T"? Your
> absolute truth can be summarized as "The universe
> exists" or "There is change", just about everything
> else is made up in the mind of man.

Sure, if you *only* consider the physical. But that can nowhere near
explain the spiritual of even life itself. If only the physical
existed, then there is no good or evil. It's OK to kill people for no
reason. We have no "rights". Our "rights" are nothing more than
priviledges granted by other people. People which have no authority
to give out "rights", because there's no standard upon which they can
fall back on.

But the fact is there's a higher Truth. Something supernatural -
"unphysical", that gives us life, gives us rights, and makes it wrong
(or evil) to kill another without just cause.

Dave

[TFrog93]

In article <357D6A59...@atl.hp.com>, David Lyons <lyo...@atl.hp.com>
writes:

>But the fact is there's a higher Truth. Something supernatural -
>"unphysical", that gives us life, gives us rights, and makes it wrong
>(or evil) to kill another without just cause.

That, then, would be my mother, the US Constitution and the legacy of British
law, in that order.

dwight

[Mark A. Cochran]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <357D6A59...@atl.hp.com>,
David Lyons <lyo...@atl.hp.com> wrote:

>Sure, if you *only* consider the physical. But that can nowhere near
>explain the spiritual of even life itself. If only the physical
>existed, then there is no good or evil. It's OK to kill people for no
>reason.

Utter nonsense. It's 'wrong' to kill people without adequate cause
because doing so destabilizes a society. Society prefers not to be
destabilized, and if we hope to continue progressing as a society we
cannot afford to allow such actions.

>We have no "rights". Our "rights" are nothing more than
>priviledges granted by other people.

That's what your rights *are*, in point of fact. Unless you can name
one that you got elsewhere?

>People which have no authority
>to give out "rights", because there's no standard upon which they can
>fall back on.
>

This makes no sense at all. Care to try againg?

>But the fact is there's a higher Truth.

Wrong. Your *opinion* is that such exists; it's hardly a fact.

>Something supernatural -
>"unphysical", that gives us life, gives us rights, and makes it wrong
>(or evil) to kill another without just cause.
>

Documentation? Without it, it's pure unsupported (and unsupportable)
opinion.

[This account protected by Spamgard(tm) - Mail without 'banana' in the
Subject: header will be bounced unseen.]
PGP and .sig file follows.


When I was in school, I cheated on my metaphysics exam: I looked into
the soul of the boy sitting next to me.
-- Woody Allen

[Finger coc...@netcom.com for PGP Public Key]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i

iQCVAgUBNX2Kp9o7GDsbn4ZNAQHALgP/YQFFT26tli12bwwXMg4Ih+qcvWcZKEaZ
mJoVV18c5p4nKwzi73iShg5jBrWn/DWlBHcR/t+vT1Tto+WCcniHfL6iK/Psa9Vm
uiW5bkkA69L2vqe6yClHNEDW6lOuDflY9u9pI0hNY2MG2zxXIO3H5ESumFWDGroL
oNpT+vmP3xY=
=QFUM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[dungb...@hotmail.com]

In article <6ljfng$k14$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

Ad...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> In article <shokwave-080...@as5-dialup-02.wc-aus.io.com>,
> shok...@well.com (Rob Hafernik) wrote:
> Dark skin may not have been an evolutionary trait. Light skin may have been.
> Since the oldest human remains found so far came from Africa it has been
> suggested that light skin was a result of moving to the colder climates!
> However look at how long the Arabs have been living in the bright climates and
> they haven't yet turned black.

Huh? Arabs are darker than caucasions.

>
> >
> > As for the cold causing us to grow hair on our arms, I don't think this is
> > true. Anyone know for sure? I don't think a person's body hair will
> > change in response to cold.
> >
>

> If that were true eskimos would look like apes.
>
> Interesting note is evolutionary changes can take place in a matter of only a
> generation or two. I saw something fairly recently where some lizards started
> growing longer legs possibly in response to taller vegetation. This wasn't a
> multi-million year change either. Just a matter of months! Taller veggies and
> babies instantly had longer legs! Maybe the longer legged of the lizards were
> better fed and thus reproduced more rapidly.
> Another interesting note is that evolutionary changes don't seem to happen in
> many species that reproduce asexually. You just get clones over and over. BUT
> if their environment changes some of these species will SWITCH to sexual
> reproduction and then begin changing! Thus the whole reason behind sex is NOT
> just reproduction but to bring about change in the species!!!
> I just love the Discovery channel!!!!

You guys act like evolution is something that automatically occurs when your
environment changes. It takes a mutation that, in turn, changes the genetic
architecture of that animal. It also must be a characteristic which will
survive. That characteristic must be favorable to one or more methods of
survival including competition for food, water, and shelter, reproduction and
the attraction of opposite sex (which could very well explain the hairy arm
thing :), etc.

DungBeetle

[Bottlebob]

David Lyons wrote:
>
> Bottlebob wrote:
> >
> > Which it doesn't of course, so all the searching is
> > futile and just ends by believing or making up pretty
> > stories that are comforting, but are of such low
> > probability as to be the same as impossible.
>
> Like the one about all matter & energy in the Universe suddenly popped
> out of an infinitesimal point without any kind of outside stimulus?
> And then it formed into a well-oiled machine and produced heat, light
> and life? Yeah, I've heard that one before. It's a good one!
>

David:

I personally subscribe to the universe one day coming together due to
gravitational forces in a massive Big Crunch, which will be the Big Bang
beginning of another universe. This oscillating universe having done
this for all time is more palatable that some never born or created, all
knowing, all seeing, all powerful 'God' creating everything out of
nothing. That smacks of fairy tales to me, especially since no one has
produced any objective evidence of such a being and they have had all
the time since people began to do so, and can't.
It kind of comes down to either believe the universe, or past
universes, were always here in one form or another (and we can see it's
here now) or believing that some extraterrestrial being (the we can't
see, hear, smell, taste, touch or tell by any experiment) has always
existed and popped everything into existence on a whim. Sorry, but that
is just too big a leap on too little evidence and is totally unnecessary
and unneeded to explain the world and everything in it.

> >
> > > There is an absolute Truth, but religions are
> > > man-made and attept to exploit this truth into scare
> > > tactics.
> >
> > Absolute Truth, with a capital "T"? Your
> > absolute truth can be summarized as "The universe
> > exists" or "There is change", just about everything
> > else is made up in the mind of man.
>

> Sure, if you *only* consider the physical. But that can nowhere near
> explain the spiritual of even life itself.

Just what spiritual is that? Are you saying people are spiritual
beings and animals aren't? If animals got as far as they have without
being spiritual what makes you think WE have to be. We've just go
bigger brains, is all. Brains, that I might add, that like to create
all these gods and superstitious beliefs to help explain things we don't
understand. Well, that job has been taken over by science, and it's
doing a mighty fine job, if you ask me. Better than the alternative.

> If only the physical
> existed, then there is no good or evil.

There ISN'T any objective good or evil. Good and evil are relative
terms, that's why there are so many wars and strife in the world. One
person's good is another person's evil and vice versa.

> It's OK to kill people for no
> reason.

We've been killing people for reasons of property acquisition and
protection plus differing religious faiths since day one.

> We have no "rights". Our "rights" are nothing more than

> priviledges granted by other people. People which have no authority

> to give out "rights", because there's no standard upon which they can
> fall back on.

Of course there are NO objective "rights". Your "rights" are given by
the people that have the power to give and enforce them. Just look at
some foreign countries and the "rights" women possess, a pretty abysmal
situation there.

>
> But the fact is there's a higher Truth. Something supernatural -

> "unphysical", that gives us life, gives us rights, and makes it wrong
> (or evil) to kill another without just cause.

Sorry to disillusion you, but there IS NO SUCH ANIMAL. Life is just a
chemical process, rights are given by whoever/whatever is in charge,
just cause is whatever the legal system was voted to approve of. Gee
Dave, you're politically conscious and ex-military, you should know all
this stuff.

>
> Dave

Bottlebob

[Bottlebob]

Mark A. Cochran wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>

> In article <357C1185...@phoenix.crossroads.com>,
> SaGa <sa...@phoenix.crossroads.com> wrote:
> >Mark A. Cochran wrote:
> >> In article <357B4CB9...@phoenix.crossroads.com>,
> >> SaGa <sa...@phoenix.crossroads.com> wrote:
> >> >I don't like it when people post the way he did... But you are a fool to beleive there
> >> >is no such thing as god,
> >>
> >> Sez you. Support?
> >
> >Sez? Spell properly and try to make sense!
> >
> *chuckle* An ignorant 14 year old child is going to try to correct
> *my* English? Look up the word "colloquialism" in a dictionary. Ask an
> adult for help, if necessary.

Mark:

Colloquialism? Like in BikeDude's "u", "r", "waz" etc.? Yes, an
ignorant 14 year old DID correct YOUR English. Don't think that just
because people are intimidated by you and don't bother to correct you,
that your English is perfect, not just typos either. So don't get upset
when someone DOES correct you, their age doesn't matter. We ALL
sometimes make poor word choices and mistakes in grammar. He was just
there to catch one of yours.

Bottlebob

PS I cut out all the crossposted groups for this internal a.a.c.f.
response. Maybe I should have skipped this post, but I'm on a
confrontational roll today. :)

[Bottlebob]

John Guzobad wrote:
>
> Get this shit out of AACF !!!!

John:

Now John, what you have done just isn't going to work. You posted this
in a.a.c.f. and most of these responders are from the warez and UFO
groups. They won't even SEE your response. The way to stop it if you
really wanted to, would be to remove a.a.c.f. from the crossposted list
of groups and THEN post something really inflamatory that everyone in
those groups would reply to and start responses that no longer have
a.a.c.f. in the crossposted list of newsgroups. That way a.a.c.f. would
no longer see the responses. But you don't want to do that YET, I'm
having too much fun. :)

Bottlebob

[Ad...@my-dejanews.com]

In article <6lk6pt$ltc$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

dungb...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> In article <6ljfng$k14$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> Ad...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <shokwave-080...@as5-dialup-02.wc-aus.io.com>,
> > shok...@well.com (Rob Hafernik) wrote:
> > Dark skin may not have been an evolutionary trait. Light skin may have been.
> > Since the oldest human remains found so far came from Africa it has been
> > suggested that light skin was a result of moving to the colder climates!
> > However look at how long the Arabs have been living in the bright climates
and
> > they haven't yet turned black.
>
> Huh? Arabs are darker than caucasions.
>

Not always and I've never seen any that were black. Actually I've seen a lot
of Arabs that are quite fair skinned. On the other hand I've seen Eskimos
that were darker than you would expect. Another thing to consider is that
last I heard the Aboriginal Australians and similar peoples are caucasians
that have very dark skin!!! So you can't really say that anybody is darker
than caucasian!!!

It's amazing how difficult it can be to classify people! I just don't see how
racists draw the border!

How come filling out a form on personal information in the section titled
"Race" there isn't a box for "All of the above"???

[Wyrdrune]

Bottlebob wrote:
>
> Si_Druid wrote:
>
> > Every organism on earth (with a handful of exceptions) has a UNIQUE set
> > of genes. Thus, no creature is identical. Similarly, the gene pool
> > within a population is unique amongst the species (animals with similar
> > enough genes/behavior/geography that they may interbreed and produce
> > fertile offspring). Evolution occurs to individuals but affects a
> > genepool. Usually an entire genepool slowly shifts in favor of a
> > particular set of genes. If and only if all individuals in that
> > species have a gene-set which makes them and their more immediate
> > descendants unable to interbreed with other members of the old species
> > are they classified as a new species. NOTE that the rest of the
> > populations of the old species MAY NOT HAVE CHANGED. This population
> > may have been trapped on an island, or the other side of a highway
> > thus causing isolation and genetic drift. In most areas exists the
> > original species. In this one area exists the new species. Similarly
> > it may have occured that some members of the genepool gained benefits
> > that enabled them to hunt in the trees, and those with the trait slowly
> > separated themselves from the rest of the population. Thus even the
> > population maintained some original species members and some new
> > species members.
> >
> > >>> So much for your ridiculous claim.
> >
> > I repeat, if this becomes a flame war, I'll dump the thread. And I'm
> > likely the only one here with a degree in the subject of Ecology &
> > Evolution...
> >
> > >>brainwashed? Hmmm, so, now I'm a brainwashed 14 year old muppet?? Get a life!
> >
> > regardless of who is flaming.
> >
> > the Silicon Druid.
>
> Si_Druid:
>
> I am quite science oriented, and it wouldn't bother me too much to be
> flamed by some ignorant person. If I can't withstand a little heat then
> I have no business entering into the discussion in the first place.
> That's my personal point of view.
> You have twice stated that any flaming and you will bow out. It almost
> sounds like you are daring someone to flame you so you won't have to
> continue. I'm sure what you say can enlighten others, flames or no
> flames. If you know what you are talking about, people reading what you
> write will learn in spite of some ignorant flaming goof that may be
> threatened by knowledge. You would be doing others a disservice by
> folding up at the first sign of someone's stupidity. NEVER be
> intimidated by stupidity or ignorance! That just let's them win,
> without even a fight.
>
> Bottlebob

The Druid has a groupie <Grin>
Ehehe
Wyrdrune.
--
If you don't 'mail it, I won't see it.