Scientists urge evolution lessons
Budikka666
'The world's top scientists have joined forces to call for
"evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools.'
Budikka
Precision
"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1151152958.6...@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5098608.stm
>
> 'The world's top scientists have joined forces to call for
> "evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools.'
That's good if they practice what they preach, since modern-day evolution
theories lack scientific credibility, IMO.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Codeb...@bigsecret.com
This fellow made a good point. Read on.
"The theory of evolution is but one take on the story of our origins.
While I happen to agree with said theory, it is not fair and borders on
arrogance to force other people to teach something they may think to be
false, especially if the entire society is of the mind. It is not the
duty of one society to tell another how to function, exist, and teach.
When all societies become one in this globalised world, hopefully we
will not have such a problem, but for right now we are not the
intellectual police of the world."
Ian Kavanagh, New York, USA
wbarwell
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 09:48:02 -0700, "Precision"
> <prec...@usenet.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in
> message
> news:1151152958.6...@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5098608.stm
>>
>> 'The world's top scientists have joined forces
> to call for
>> "evidence-based" teaching of evolution in
> schools.'
>
>
> That's good if they practice what they preach,
> since modern-day evolution
> theories lack scientific credibility, IMO.
>
>
They have credibility religion has none.
--
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on
his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.
- HL Mencken
Cheerful Charlie
Frank Mayhar
> "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:1151152958.6...@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5098608.stm
>>
>> 'The world's top scientists have joined forces to call for
>> "evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools.'
> That's good if they practice what they preach, since modern-day evolution
> theories lack scientific credibility, IMO.
Well, sure, except for the fact of the overwhelming evidence that
evolution happened and that essentially the entire science of biology is
informed by it. Your opinion doesn't match reality.
--
Frank Mayhar fr...@exit.com http://www.exit.com/
Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/
http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/
Andrew P. Chung MD/Phd
"Precision" <prec...@usenet.com> wrote in message
news:11511806...@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
>
> "Richard Smol" <jazzcat@_NOSPAM_dds.nl> wrote in message
> news:c53f$449d9b2f$d55d44c2$15...@news.chello.nl...
> > codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> >> Budikka666 wrote:
> >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5098608.stm
> >>>
> >>> 'The world's top scientists have joined forces to call for
> >>> "evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools.'
> >>>
> >>> Budikka
> >>
> >> This fellow made a good point. Read on.
> >>
> >> "The theory of evolution is but one take on the story of our origins.
> >
>
>
> Can you trust the so-called "evidence" when its often based on the faulty
> assumption that God does not exist?
>
>
>
> got any proof?
Richard Smol
> Budikka666 wrote:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5098608.stm
>>
>> 'The world's top scientists have joined forces to call for
>> "evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools.'
>>
>> Budikka
>
> This fellow made a good point. Read on.
>
> "The theory of evolution is but one take on the story of our origins.
But it's the only story with evidence in its favor.
RS
Precision
"Richard Smol" <jazzcat@_NOSPAM_dds.nl> wrote in message
news:c53f$449d9b2f$d55d44c2$15...@news.chello.nl...
Can you trust the so-called "evidence" when its often based on the faulty
assumption that God does not exist?
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
Steven J.
codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> Budikka666 wrote:
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5098608.stm
> >
> > 'The world's top scientists have joined forces to call for
> > "evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools.'
> >
> > Budikka
>
> This fellow made a good point. Read on.
>
> "The theory of evolution is but one take on the story of our origins.
>
you will arrive at if you examine the evidence with no presuppositionis
except those necessary to do any sort of science at all.
>
> While I happen to agree with said theory, it is not fair and borders on
> arrogance to force other people to teach something they may think to be
> false, especially if the entire society is of the mind.
>
biology. It does not seem to me arrogant to insist that, in science
class, actual science be taught. Not distortions of evidence and
theory presented as "evidence against evolution," or arguments from
ignorance presented as "evidence of creation/design," or the
epistomological nihilism of "well, everybody has his own opinion, and
who are we to tell you that one and only one is right?" Teachers are
supposed to be the ones who present the actual evidence that shows that
one view (or one fairly narrow range of views) fits the facts far
better than rival accounts.
You speak of "the entire society" being "of the mind," as though ...
what? Majority rule is the test for truth? I thought creationists
were believers in absolute truth, which is not determined by polls,
prejudice, or personal preference. If everyone except those actually
familiar with the evidence thinks that common descent with modification
is false, then evolutionists have a very tough row to hoe, but that is
no reason to suppose either that they are mistaken or that they ought
not try to make their views -- and the evidence supporting them --
known.
>
> It is not the
> duty of one society to tell another how to function, exist, and teach.
> When all societies become one in this globalised world, hopefully we
> will not have such a problem, but for right now we are not the
> intellectual police of the world."
>
I think those scientists see themselves more as intellectual advisors,
rather than intellectual police. The question, really, is less whether
we are going to force Saudi Arabia to teach the evidence for evolution,
as whether we are going to do so in the United States and other western
countries where science isn't supposed to be subordinated to the state
religion.
>
> Ian Kavanagh, New York, USA
-- Steven J.
Codeb...@bigsecret.com
It is the only story that you know of. But who ever said you know
anything?
>
> RS
Codeb...@bigsecret.com
Steven J. wrote:
> codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> > Budikka666 wrote:
> > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5098608.stm
> > >
> > > 'The world's top scientists have joined forces to call for
> > > "evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools.'
> > >
> > > Budikka
> >
> > This fellow made a good point. Read on.
> >
> > "The theory of evolution is but one take on the story of our origins.
> >
> Yes, it is the take that is based on the evidence. It is the one that
> you will arrive at if you examine the evidence with no presuppositionis
> except those necessary to do any sort of science at all.
You will arrive at anything as long as that contradicts the Gospel of
God. We know
you very well, how biased and twisted your interpretation of the
so-called evidences are.
MAY YOU PERISH ALL
wbarwell
>
> You will arrive at anything as long as that contradicts the Gospel of
> God. We know
> you very well, how biased and twisted your interpretation of the
> so-called evidences are.
>
> MAY YOU PERISH ALL
>
Your god does not exist.
Ain't that a hoot?
GOD'S FREE WILL AND GOOD NATURE.
A DISPROOF OF GOD'S EXISTANCE
- W.C. Barwell 6-22-06
1. God has free will. There is nothing that can
stop him from doing what he wants, nothing that
constrains his will.
2. God is all good, supreme good. Ominbenevolent.
God has a good nature, god hates evil and does
no moral evil.
3. God cannot do moral evil, but that does not count
against his free will. He has potential to do evil but
in actuality, because of his good nature he does
no actual moral evil. This is a special case because he
has a good nature. This is his will, it is what he wishes.
4. God has to have some sort of nature and that nature
good, bad or indifferent would incline god to some
sort of action. To say god has no free will because
he has a nature of some sort is thus false. His
free will creates his nature. Not constrains itself.
5. Some people may insist though, that god's nature means
indeed his free will must be limited by having a good
nature, but then that merely shows free will is
an overated attribute. Free will is then not necessary
in its naive, open ended manner. Its merely a technical
limit caused by god having some nature, god having a nature
that inclines him to good moral behavior. If so,
then man needs no more naive, open-ended free will than
god needs that, and can still be morally good and limited
in exactly the same god is limited by likewise by having
a good nature.
6. If its a logical impossibility to have a nature and
free will not limited by that nature, then this
is only a technical limit that is meaningless
in the same sense not being able to make a married
batchelor does not means god lacks omnipotence.
7. Therefore, God has free will and a nature incapable of
of doing moral evil.
8. God created man and created the design of man. God
can create us to be what he wishes us to be.
God has given us free will.
9. (Note, in actuality, Islam and Christianity
in fact deny free will, all is predestinated
in Islam (qadar), and in Christianity numerous
verses, Romans 8 -11 for example, explicitly
claim god predetestinates all. Yet free will
defenses of the problem evil are common theological
arguments. Evil comes from our free will, not from
God. This argument is aimed at free will arguments,
Predestinarian arguments must be considered
seperately.)
10. God then can create us with a god-like free will
and a god-like good nature incapable of doing moral
evil.
11. Hating evil, and being totally good, God then has a
duty derived from his supreme goodness and his hate
of moral evil to actually give us a god-like free will,
and a god-like good nature such as he enjoys.
12. Man does moral evil, we do not have a god-like free
will and a god-like god nature incapable of doing evil.
13. If god existed and had free will, and was totally good
and created us and the design of us, we would not have
the ability to do moral evil, because of god's hate of
evil would obligate him to create us such that we had a
god-like good nature for to expressed purpose of
ending all moral evil from us, free willed beings,
the sole source of moral evil in this world.
14. If god is said to be all good, totally good, and yet
allowed evil to exist, this would be a contradiction.
A totally good god would destroy evil given its easy
to do so, by giving man a good nature, as this does not
infringe on man's free will any more than god's good
nature infringes on gods free will.
15. Nor would god have to be totally good or supremely good,
nor omnipotent to do this. Merely to be able to create man's
nature, his inclinations and to be good. To hate evil.
16. Therefore god does not exist.
17. The only way moral evil could exist is if god defined
as totally good and having a free will does not exist.
18. Free will objections have been a standard claim as to
why evil exists, evil comes from our free will. This is
obviously false. Our free will cannot excuse evil
with a God that has free will and a good nature.
This free will defense is no longer viable.
19. Any claimed class of gods that create all, is supposedly
good, and has free will cannot exist.
20. Any supposed individual god said to be a creator god
with free will implied or explicit and more or less good
is also impossible being a member of these classes. All
possible such gods, known or unknown, cannot exist.
21. This destroys all classes of god(s) that have free will,
good natures, goodness, hate evil, and create, more or less
man, and the world.
22. This especially destroys the class of omni-everything gods
who create all and are supremely good.
(End)
Kate
wrote:
>
>"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>news:1151152958.6...@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5098608.stm
>>
>> 'The world's top scientists have joined forces to call for
>> "evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools.'
>
>
>That's good if they practice what they preach, since modern-day evolution
>theories lack scientific credibility, IMO.
>
So much credibility that the entire field of medicine is based on it.
So tell me, are you honest enough to spurn hospitals and doctors too
or are you a hypocrit?
Steven J.
codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> Steven J. wrote:
> > codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> > > Budikka666 wrote:
> > > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5098608.stm
> > > >
> > > > 'The world's top scientists have joined forces to call for
> > > > "evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools.'
> > > >
> > > > Budikka
> > >
> > > This fellow made a good point. Read on.
> > >
> > > "The theory of evolution is but one take on the story of our origins.
> > >
> > Yes, it is the take that is based on the evidence. It is the one that
> > you will arrive at if you examine the evidence with no presuppositionis
> > except those necessary to do any sort of science at all.
>
>
> You will arrive at anything as long as that contradicts the Gospel of
> God.
>
the evidence were that it contradicts "the Gospel of God," why did,
e.g. Darwin and Wallace independently arrive at nearly identical
theories? After all, Aristotle's idea of an eternally existing world
and life, with endlessly repeating cycles of history, is just as
contradictory to creationism as is evolutionary theory, so why does the
former have virtually no support among scientists, and the latter
near-universal support? For that matter, why does "Darwinism" command
such wide assent, and the equally (if more mysteriously) mechanistic
Lamarckianism so little? Your contention, here, does not seem to fit
the facts.
>
> We know
> you very well, how biased and twisted your interpretation of the
> so-called evidences are.
>
>
> MAY YOU PERISH ALL
>
That retort becomes so much more compelling when you type in all in
capital letters that way.
>
-- [snip]
>
-- Steven J.
Milan
> news:c53f$449d9b2f$d55d44c2$15...@news.chello.nl...
> > codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> >> Budikka666 wrote:
> >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5098608.stm
> >>>
> >>> 'The world's top scientists have joined forces to call for
> >>> "evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools.'
> >>>
> >>> Budikka
> >>
> >> This fellow made a good point. Read on.
> >>
> >> "The theory of evolution is but one take on the story of our origins.
> >
> > But it's the only story with evidence in its favor.
>
>
> Can you trust the so-called "evidence" when its often based on the faulty
> assumption that God does not exist?
>
Do you know any scientific discipline or any field of knowledge at all that
works on the assumption that "God" exists?
regards
Milan
Adam H
Well, there's YEC, which is certainly a field of knowledge - but also
certainly *not a scientific discipline.
---
I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in
one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you reject all other gods,
you will understand why I reject yours as well.
- Stephen F. Roberts
Budikka666
> "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:1151152958.6...@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5098608.stm
> >
> > 'The world's top scientists have joined forces to call for
> > "evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools.'
>
>
> That's good if they practice what they preach, since modern-day evolution
> theories lack scientific credibility, IMO.
You mean the theory that has had 150 years of steadily mounting solid
scientific support? The theory that has never once failed any test to
which it has been put? The theory to which the massively overwhelming
majority of contemporary scientists subscribe? The theory about which
staunch Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote an essay titled: "Nothing
in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution."?
I'll be delighted to formally debate your positive scientific evidence
against evolution if you can do two things:
1. Find it
and
2. Find the guts to formally debate me in this forum.
Budikka
Budikka666
Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is the only scientific
theory that explains that fact. That's why it is, and should be,
taught in schools in any nation that calls itself civilized.
Budikka
Budikka666
> "Richard Smol" <jazzcat@_NOSPAM_dds.nl> wrote in message
> news:c53f$449d9b2f$d55d44c2$15...@news.chello.nl...
> > codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> >> Budikka666 wrote:
> >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5098608.stm
> >>>
> >>> 'The world's top scientists have joined forces to call for
> >>> "evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools.'
> >>>
> >>> Budikka
> >>
> >> This fellow made a good point. Read on.
> >>
> >> "The theory of evolution is but one take on the story of our origins.
> >
> > But it's the only story with evidence in its favor.
>
>
> Can you trust the so-called "evidence" when its often based on the faulty
> assumption that God does not exist?
First of all, it is based on no such thing, and you're a pathetic liar
to pretend that it is. Secondly, beyond blind belief, there is zero
evidence for the existence of any gods.
Of course, I'll be delighted to debate the existence of gods with you
if you can find:
1. Postive, useful, valid evidence for any gods existing outside of the
overly active imaginations of the gullible and ill-informed
and
2. The guts to formally debate me in this forum.
Budikka
Budikka666
> Steven J. wrote:
> > codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> > > Budikka666 wrote:
> > > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5098608.stm
> > > >
> > > > 'The world's top scientists have joined forces to call for
> > > > "evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools.'
> > > >
> > > > Budikka
> > >
> > > This fellow made a good point. Read on.
> > >
> > > "The theory of evolution is but one take on the story of our origins.
> > >
> > Yes, it is the take that is based on the evidence. It is the one that
> > you will arrive at if you examine the evidence with no presuppositionis
> > except those necessary to do any sort of science at all.
>
>
> You will arrive at anything as long as that contradicts the Gospel of
> God. We know
> you very well, how biased and twisted your interpretation of the
> so-called evidences are.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!
That was hilarious. Okay, let's you and me debate all your evidence
for this god of yours.
That will take about thirty seconds, then we'll figure something else
to do with the rest of the time. Most of us atheists will probably
spend it laughing our socks off and how hilariously you squirm.
Your turn first. Post your positive, useful, valid evidence here: -
evidence that's preferably scientific, or that is at least outside of
scripture and based on something other than blind faith. Post it right
here, and I'll take it down.
Budikka
Frank Mayhar
> [of codebreaker] Your contention, here, does not seem to fit
> the facts.
Well, see, that's the problem. You say "your contention doesn't seem to
fit the facts," and _they_ say . . . "BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!"
Not much ground for communication there.
Frank Mayhar
> Richard Smol wrote:
>> But it's the only story with evidence in its favor.
>
> It is the only story that you know of. But who ever said you know
> anything?
And a hearty BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA to you, too!
Budikka666
Which part of "The world's top scientists have joined forces to call
for "evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools." is it that you
didn't grasp? Did it say "The UK's top scientists"? Did it say "The
USA's top scientists"? Or did it in actual fact say "The world's top
scientists"? Which was it, huh?
And which part of "evidence based" is it you're not getting? Did it
say they wanted to teach mythology? Did it say they wanted to force
one culture on all people? Did it say they wanted to teach blind
belief? Or did it in actual fact say that they wanted to teach
"evidence based" science - that is material which can be and has been
independently tested and verified?
Budikka
Stephen Knight
wrote:
>
>"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>news:1151152958.6...@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5098608.stm
>>
>> 'The world's top scientists have joined forces to call for
>> "evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools.'
>
>
>That's good if they practice what they preach, since modern-day evolution
>theories lack scientific credibility, IMO.
And silicon implants make women's breasts ugly.
Huh!?
Never mind. (What was I thinking...?)
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
Olrik
Precision wrote:
> "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:1151152958.6...@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5098608.stm
> >
> > 'The world's top scientists have joined forces to call for
> > "evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools.'
>
>
> That's good if they practice what they preach, since modern-day evolution
> theories lack scientific credibility, IMO.
Your opinion is worthless. Science will continue its course whether you
like it or not. Feel free to reject any scientific benefits that could
be useful to you.
Olrik
Olrik
Precision wrote:
> "Richard Smol" <jazzcat@_NOSPAM_dds.nl> wrote in message
> news:c53f$449d9b2f$d55d44c2$15...@news.chello.nl...
> > codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> >> Budikka666 wrote:
> >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5098608.stm
> >>>
> >>> 'The world's top scientists have joined forces to call for
> >>> "evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools.'
> >>>
> >>> Budikka
> >>
> >> This fellow made a good point. Read on.
> >>
> >> "The theory of evolution is but one take on the story of our origins.
> >
> > But it's the only story with evidence in its favor.
>
>
> Can you trust the so-called "evidence" when its often based on the faulty
> assumption that God does not exist?
It's actually quite funny to see xian fundies like you pick & choose
what's science and what's not, based solely on old stories thousands of
years old.
Olrik
eyelessgame
Precision wrote:
> "Richard Smol" <jazzcat@_NOSPAM_dds.nl> wrote in message
> news:c53f$449d9b2f$d55d44c2$15...@news.chello.nl...
> > codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> >> Budikka666 wrote:
> >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5098608.stm
> >>>
> >>> 'The world's top scientists have joined forces to call for
> >>> "evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools.'
> >>>
> >>> Budikka
> >>
> >> This fellow made a good point. Read on.
> >>
> >> "The theory of evolution is but one take on the story of our origins.
> >
> > But it's the only story with evidence in its favor.
>
>
> Can you trust the so-called "evidence" when its often based on the faulty
> assumption that God does not exist?
Since a large number of people both accept the evidence for evolution
and also believe in the Christian God, it's pretty clear that evolution
doesn't require an assumption that God doesn't exist.
What evidence did you think was based on this assumption? And why
would you think evidence would ever be based on such an assumption?
Can you show your work?
eyelessgame
cactus
> "Richard Smol" <jazzcat@_NOSPAM_dds.nl> wrote in message
> news:c53f$449d9b2f$d55d44c2$15...@news.chello.nl...
>> codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
>>> Budikka666 wrote:
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5098608.stm
>>>>
>>>> 'The world's top scientists have joined forces to call for
>>>> "evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools.'
>>>>
>>>> Budikka
>>> This fellow made a good point. Read on.
>>>
>>> "The theory of evolution is but one take on the story of our origins.
>> But it's the only story with evidence in its favor.
>
>
> Can you trust the so-called "evidence" when its often based on the faulty
> assumption that God does not exist?
Show where there is any "assumption that God does not exist." I'll bet
you can't produce any valid evidence at all. It is not acceptable
evidence to cite pseudoscientists who advocate creationism or it's
running dog "intelligent design." Real scientists only, scientific
literature. Anything else is just polemics.
Pending your providing actual valid evidence I trust evidence that is
not rely on the assumption of the existence of a god or gods.
Precision
"Kate " <cob...@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:44c1c8c6....@news-west.newscene.com...
Why should I spurn hospitals and doctors whose expertise and use of
technologies have saved my life? What does that have to do with the
credibility of modern-day evolution theories?
Precision
I'm sure you would like a formal debate. I have been there, done that, and
learned that such debates continue endlessly. Life is too short for me to
commit to such a debate. If I started such a debate and decided to walk away
from it, I would be accused to running tail between legs and yada yada
yada...
If I didn't have a life and had abundant time to debate you then I might
take it on.
Doesn't a simple expressed opinion suffice without the need for formal
debates?
Precision
"Milan" <mtk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4g65qmF...@individual.net...
Not directly. However, scientists involved in the SETI project work on the
assumption there is extra-terrestrial life in the universe (otherwise they
would not bother listening for intelligent signals from the cosmos). The
belief of advanced civilizations in the universe is not far from the belief
of an advanced Intelligence that designed the universe we know. The
naysayers of SETI would say they are wasting their time because probability
is working against their assumptions that intelligent extra-terrestrial
civilizations exist and the same argument is used to write-off even the
possibility of intelligent design and the existence of a Creator.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>>>> 'The world's top scientists have joined forces to call for
>>>> "evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools.'
>>>
>>>That's good if they practice what they preach, since modern-day evolution
>>>theories lack scientific credibility, IMO.
>>
>> So much credibility that the entire field of medicine is based on it.
>>
>> So tell me, are you honest enough to spurn hospitals and doctors too
>> or are you a hypocrit?
>
>Why should I spurn hospitals and doctors whose expertise and use of
>technologies have saved my life? What does that have to do with the
>credibility of modern-day evolution theories?
Here's why:
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20051218
But in any case the technology is the application of the very science
creationists attack. Many of the technologies you mention simply
wouldn't even exist for the hypocrites to take for granted.
Precision
"eyelessgame" <aa...@oro.net> wrote in message
news:1151214356.6...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Precision wrote:
>> "Richard Smol" <jazzcat@_NOSPAM_dds.nl> wrote in message
>> news:c53f$449d9b2f$d55d44c2$15...@news.chello.nl...
>> > codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
>> >> Budikka666 wrote:
>> >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5098608.stm
>> >>>
>> >>> 'The world's top scientists have joined forces to call for
>> >>> "evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools.'
>> >>>
>> >>> Budikka
>> >>
>> >> This fellow made a good point. Read on.
>> >>
>> >> "The theory of evolution is but one take on the story of our origins.
>> >
>> > But it's the only story with evidence in its favor.
>>
>>
>> Can you trust the so-called "evidence" when its often based on the faulty
>> assumption that God does not exist?
>
> Since a large number of people both accept the evidence for evolution
> and also believe in the Christian God, it's pretty clear that evolution
> doesn't require an assumption that God doesn't exist.
That is why I said it is "often" (but not always) based on the faulty
assumption God does not exist. Of course you are correct that evolution
doesn't require an assumption that God doesn't exist. Perhaps you haven't
read other posts I have put up in this forum, where I have argued that it is
quite possible God used both evolutionary processes and direct creation
(i.e. placing humans directly on this planet even though other life on Earth
evolved over geologic timescales).
> What evidence did you think was based on this assumption? And why
> would you think evidence would ever be based on such an assumption?
> Can you show your work?
Again, I expressed an opinion that the so-called "evidence" is "often" based
on faulty assumptions that God doesn't exist. In other words, I believe that
scientists rule out the possibility that (a) God exists, (b) that such a God
would have the power to place fully formed humans on Earth while allowing
other forms of life to evolve, and therefore (c) all life must have evolved
because, ruling out God's existence, there's no way any part of the Bible's
creation account could be accurate.
Kate
wrote:
>
Because medicine directly benefits from it. So now you admit.
Evolution theory has saved your life.
Live with it.
Josh Miles
> "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:1151152958.6...@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5098608.stm
>>
>> 'The world's top scientists have joined forces to call for
>> "evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools.'
>
>
> That's good if they practice what they preach, since modern-day evolution
> theories lack scientific credibility, IMO.
Wow, it's a good thing your uninformed opinion doesn't matter.
Josh Miles
> "Richard Smol" <jazzcat@_NOSPAM_dds.nl> wrote in message
> news:c53f$449d9b2f$d55d44c2$15...@news.chello.nl...
>> codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
>>> Budikka666 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 'The world's top scientists have joined forces to call for
>>>> "evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools.'
>>>>
>>> This fellow made a good point. Read on.
>>>
>>> "The theory of evolution is but one take on the story of our origins.
>> But it's the only story with evidence in its favor.
>
>
> Can you trust the so-called "evidence" when its often based on the faulty
> assumption that God does not exist?
Actually, science has nothing to say either way about the existence of
God. Science deals with natural phenomena only.
Milan
So, that would be a "No", then. Fine.
So, if there is no field of knowledge that is based on the assumption that
"God" exists, why do you think evolution is not valid because it does not
assume the existence of "God"?
regards
Milan
Tim K.
> Why should I spurn hospitals and doctors whose expertise and use of
> technologies have saved my life? What does that have to do with the
> credibility of modern-day evolution theories?
Nothing pal, nothing at all.
<makes little circles by ear>
Tim K.
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:79gs925ms99p859tp...@4ax.com...
> http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20051218
Thanks for sharing that!
Kilmir
Precision schreef:
> "Milan" <mtk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4g65qmF...@individual.net...
<snip>
> > Do you know any scientific discipline or any field of knowledge at all
> > that
> > works on the assumption that "God" exists?
>
>
> Not directly. However, scientists involved in the SETI project work on the
> assumption there is extra-terrestrial life in the universe (otherwise they
> would not bother listening for intelligent signals from the cosmos). The
> belief of advanced civilizations in the universe is not far from the belief
> of an advanced Intelligence that designed the universe we know. The
> naysayers of SETI would say they are wasting their time because probability
> is working against their assumptions that intelligent extra-terrestrial
> civilizations exist and the same argument is used to write-off even the
> possibility of intelligent design and the existence of a Creator.
Ah but there is a fundamental difference between SETI and religions.
SETI has the base assumption "There are no intelligent lifeforms
outside earth" (not a direct quote, but close enough). What the SETI
program is designed to do is try to falsify that hypothesis. They will
try to anticipate what intelligent lifeforms might be doing if they
existed that could be observed and try to observe that.
Basically they first try establish proof of any existance before any
actions are taken to work with that knowledge.
Religion on the other hand simply skips the whole proving and evidence
thing, makes "(a) god exists" as their base assumption, build an entire
belief system on that assumption (and other assumptions as for instance
what the god approves of) and makes their members live to worship
something that possible doesn't exist in the first place.
It's a whole other ballpark really.
Kilmir
raven1
wrote:
Which is what you're doing now.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
Tim K.
"Kilmir" <Kil...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151251405....@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> Ah but there is a fundamental difference between SETI and religions.
> SETI has the base assumption "There are no intelligent lifeforms
> outside earth" (not a direct quote, but close enough). What the SETI
> program is designed to do is try to falsify that hypothesis.
Exactly, which is what research is all about - can I reject the null.
Good post.
Frank Mayhar
> I'm sure you would like a formal debate. I have been there, done that, and
> learned that such debates continue endlessly. Life is too short for me to
> commit to such a debate. If I started such a debate and decided to walk away
> from it, I would be accused to running tail between legs and yada yada
> yada...
>
> If I didn't have a life and had abundant time to debate you then I might
> take it on.
>
> Doesn't a simple expressed opinion suffice without the need for formal
> debates?
No. All opinions aren't equal; those that contradict reality are not
valid. In less than five minutes I can find online a truly _huge_ amount
of evidence that supports the fact that evolution happened. You can't
find even a little. It's that simple: The "scientific credibility" of
evolution isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of _fact_.
Oh, and it's not a "debate" when all of your arguments consist of flat
assertions, appeals to authority and denials of the evidence. Which is,
in fact, what all "debates" involving creationists consist of.
Matt Silberstein
<prec...@usenet.com> in <11511672...@sp6iad.superfeed.net>
wrote:
>
>"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>news:1151152958.6...@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5098608.stm
>>
>> 'The world's top scientists have joined forces to call for
>> "evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools.'
>
>
>That's good if they practice what they preach, since modern-day evolution
>theories lack scientific credibility, IMO.
Is your opinion based on knowledge of the science? If so, how about
you give a quick summary of the modern theory of evolution, briefly
describe the major line of evidence supporting that theory, and
explain the difference between the fact and theory of evolution. When
you have shown you know what you are talking about you can say where
the problems lie.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Matt Silberstein
<prec...@usenet.com> in <11511806...@sp6iad.superfeed.net>
wrote:
>
>"Richard Smol" <jazzcat@_NOSPAM_dds.nl> wrote in message
>news:c53f$449d9b2f$d55d44c2$15...@news.chello.nl...
>> codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
>>> Budikka666 wrote:
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5098608.stm
>>>>
>>>> 'The world's top scientists have joined forces to call for
>>>> "evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools.'
>>>>
>>>> Budikka
>>>
>>> This fellow made a good point. Read on.
>>>
>>> "The theory of evolution is but one take on the story of our origins.
>>
>> But it's the only story with evidence in its favor.
>
>
>Can you trust the so-called "evidence" when its often based on the faulty
>assumption that God does not exist?
Perhaps you can tell us which specific papers are based on the
assumption that God does not exist. If this is often then certainly
you can give examples. If you have no examples you might consider that
some religions consider bearing false witness a sin.
Matt Silberstein
<prec...@usenet.com> in <11512223...@sp6iad.superfeed.net>
wrote:
What does SETI have to do with biology?
Budikka666
> "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:1151203224....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Precision wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> >> news:1151152958.6...@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5098608.stm
> >> >
> >> > 'The world's top scientists have joined forces to call for
> >> > "evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools.'
> >>
> >>
> >> That's good if they practice what they preach, since modern-day evolution
> >> theories lack scientific credibility, IMO.
> >
> > You mean the theory that has had 150 years of steadily mounting solid
> > scientific support? The theory that has never once failed any test to
> > which it has been put? The theory to which the massively overwhelming
> > majority of contemporary scientists subscribe? The theory about which
> > staunch Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote an essay titled: "Nothing
> > in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution."?
> >
> > I'll be delighted to formally debate your positive scientific evidence
> > against evolution if you can do two things:
> > 1. Find it
> > and
> > 2. Find the guts to formally debate me in this forum.
>
>
> I'm sure you would like a formal debate. I have been there, done that, and
> learned that such debates continue endlessly.
That's why I said formal debate. The debate would have a limit on the
number and length of postings, but go ahead and be the pathetic little
blowhard coward that you are. Post your unsupported LIES and then run
away. Don't even pretend for a split second that you can actually put
some science, some evidence or some reason behind any of your bullshit
messages. It's blind faith after all, and now we have an open de facto
admission of it. That's all I expect from your ilk.
> Life is too short for me to
> commit to such a debate.
No, what's too short is your evidence and logic.
>If I started such a debate and decided to walk away
> from it, I would be accused to running tail between legs and yada yada
> yada...
Precision wrote:
> "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:1151203224....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Precision wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> >> news:1151152958.6...@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5098608.stm
> >> >
> >> > 'The world's top scientists have joined forces to call for
> >> > "evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools.'
> >>
> >>
> >> That's good if they practice what they preach, since modern-day evolution
> >> theories lack scientific credibility, IMO.
> >
> > You mean the theory that has had 150 years of steadily mounting solid
> > scientific support? The theory that has never once failed any test to
> > which it has been put? The theory to which the massively overwhelming
> > majority of contemporary scientists subscribe? The theory about which
> > staunch Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote an essay titled: "Nothing
> > in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution."?
> >
> > I'll be delighted to formally debate your positive scientific evidence
> > against evolution if you can do two things:
> > 1. Find it
> > and
> > 2. Find the guts to formally debate me in this forum.
>
>
> I'm sure you would like a formal debate. I have been there, done that, and
> learned that such debates continue endlessly.
That's why I said formal debate. The debate would have a limit on the
number and length of postings, but go ahead and be the pathetic little
blowhard coward that you are. Post your unsupported LIES and then run
away. Don't even pretend for a split second that you can actually put
some science, some evidence or some reason behind any of your bullshit
messages. It's blind faith after all, and now we have an open de facto
admission of it. That's all I expect from your ilk.
> If I didn't have a life and had abundant time to debate you then I might
> take it on.
You don't have a life. Get the 'f' out of it. That's what you have.
A Lie.
> Doesn't a simple expressed opinion suffice without the need for formal
> debates?
Simple is what you are. As Clint Eastwood once said in a movie,
opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one and most of them stink.
No one cares about your assinine opinion, especially now you have
openly admitted that's it's completely devoid of science, fact, reason
and logic. Come back when you can post some support for your
"opinion".
Budikka
Budikka666
He's parroting William Dembski who made this same clueless claim:
http://www.family.org/cforum/citizenmag/webonly/a0031659.cfm
Budikka
William T. Goat
Precision wrote:
>
> I'm sure you would like a formal debate. I have been there, done that, and
> learned that such debates continue endlessly. Life is too short for me to
> commit to such a debate. If I started such a debate and decided to walk away
> from it, I would be accused to running tail between legs and yada yada
> yada...
>
> If I didn't have a life and had abundant time to debate you then I might
> take it on.
>
> Doesn't a simple expressed opinion suffice without the need for formal
> debates?
Not if your intent is to change minds and save souls.
--Billy
stoney
wrote in alt.atheism
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5098608.stm
>
>'The world's top scientists have joined forces to call for
>"evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools.'
That would be the reasonable thing to do, but christians are anything
but reasonable.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
stoney
>
>"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>news:1151152958.6...@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5098608.stm
>>
>> 'The world's top scientists have joined forces to call for
>> "evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools.'
>
>
>That's good if they practice what they preach, since modern-day evolution
>theories lack scientific credibility, IMO.
So drools the terminally ignorant one. Your uninformed opinion isn't
worth the electrons to display your vaunted ignorance.
stoney
in alt.atheism
>On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 10:48:02 -0700, Precision wrote:
>> "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>> news:1151152958.6...@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5098608.stm
>>>
>>> 'The world's top scientists have joined forces to call for
>>> "evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools.'
>> That's good if they practice what they preach, since modern-day evolution
>> theories lack scientific credibility, IMO.
>
>Well, sure, except for the fact of the overwhelming evidence that
>evolution happened and that essentially the entire science of biology is
>informed by it. Your opinion doesn't match reality.
Evolution happens with the birth of every child.
stoney
alt.atheism
>On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 09:48:02 -0700, "Precision" <prec...@usenet.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>>news:1151152958.6...@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5098608.stm
>>>
>>> 'The world's top scientists have joined forces to call for
>>> "evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools.'
>>
>>
>>That's good if they practice what they preach, since modern-day evolution
>>theories lack scientific credibility, IMO.
>>
>
>So much credibility that the entire field of medicine is based on it.
>
>So tell me, are you honest enough to spurn hospitals and doctors too
>or are you a hypocrit?
It's both dishonest and a hypocrite.
stoney
wrote in alt.atheism
>
Congratulations on the demonstration you don't read the posts you're
responding to.
stoney
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism
I remember the seething outrage and demonstrations Christian had towards
Barney Clark's breaking ground as the first heart transplant patient.
There's been many advances in heart care since then and cretins like
Precision have deem the utilization of those advances a 'right.'
Christians are pulling the same crap on cervical cancer vaccine and stem
cell research. Give it ten years and they'll be yowling about the same
'right' to those procedures. Damned hypocrites! {PISS BE UNTO THEM}
stoney
alt.atheism
>On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 00:53:23 -0700, "Precision" <prec...@usenet.com>
It will, and still rail it's abject ignorance in a world-wide forum.
And so many residents of the former USA *still* can't figure out why the
world points at them and guffaws.
stoney
alt.atheism
>
>Precision wrote:
>> "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>> news:1151152958.6...@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5098608.stm
>> >
>> > 'The world's top scientists have joined forces to call for
>> > "evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools.'
>>
>>
>> That's good if they practice what they preach, since modern-day evolution
>> theories lack scientific credibility, IMO.
>
>Your opinion is worthless. Science will continue its course whether you
>like it or not. Feel free to reject any scientific benefits that could
>be useful to you.
The Christian Cretins® won't do that.
stoney
wrote in alt.atheism
>
>"Richard Smol" <jazzcat@_NOSPAM_dds.nl> wrote in message
>news:c53f$449d9b2f$d55d44c2$15...@news.chello.nl...
>> codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
>>> Budikka666 wrote:
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5098608.stm
>>>>
>>>> 'The world's top scientists have joined forces to call for
>>>> "evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools.'
>>>>
>>>> Budikka
>>>
>>> This fellow made a good point. Read on.
>>>
>>> "The theory of evolution is but one take on the story of our origins.
>>
>> But it's the only story with evidence in its favor.
>
>
>Can you trust the so-called "evidence" when its often based on the faulty
>assumption that God does not exist?
'Faulty assumption.' Cool. Then you'll be providing;
1] a clear and concise definition of the g-o-d letter string. One that
doesn't beg myraid questions, doesn't handwave furiously, doesn't lead
to broken logic, and one that *does* provide data so there's something
to look for or consider.
2] objective supporting evidence the universe was manufactured.
3] objective supporting evidence your celestial delusions exist outside
of the fevered minds of bronze age minded mental toddlers.
4] that the 'credit' belongs to your imaginary celestial incompetant
that makes GWB look like a nuclear engineer.
If not, THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP, GO TO SCHOOL AND LISTEN IN CLASS THIS
TIME! Fucking drooling ass ignoramous hypocritical christians who can't
fucking find their fucking ass using both hands, flashlight, map,
compass, and all the rest of the rank ass dumb fuck sheep as backup.
People like you should be banned from all medical and technological
advances. You fuckwits are free to crawl into your caves, pick fleas
off each other for sustenance, and swiftly go to your eternal fucking
reward while you thank your 'god' for it's loving and righteous
malevolence. Fuck you and all the cretinists you rode in on.
People like you make me fucking sick. No brain. No backbone, No
gonads. Terminally worthless fucks other than as cannon fodder. Get
off my fucking planet you pathetic sacks of horse shit!
stoney
alt.atheism
>
>"Precision" <prec...@usenet.com> wrote in message
>news:11511806...@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
>>
>> "Richard Smol" <jazzcat@_NOSPAM_dds.nl> wrote in message
>> news:c53f$449d9b2f$d55d44c2$15...@news.chello.nl...
>> > codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
>> >> Budikka666 wrote:
>> >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5098608.stm
>> >>>
>> >>> 'The world's top scientists have joined forces to call for
>> >>> "evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools.'
>> >>>
>> >>> Budikka
>> >>
>> >> This fellow made a good point. Read on.
>> >>
>> >> "The theory of evolution is but one take on the story of our origins.
>> >
>> > But it's the only story with evidence in its favor.
>>
>>
>> Can you trust the so-called "evidence" when its often based on the faulty
>> assumption that God does not exist?
>>
>
>Do you know any scientific discipline or any field of knowledge at all that
>works on the assumption that "God" exists?
/precision
slack jawed vapid copious drooling.
cactus
> "Kate " <cob...@newscene.com> wrote in message
> news:44c1c8c6....@news-west.newscene.com...
>> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 09:48:02 -0700, "Precision" <prec...@usenet.com>
>>
>>> "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>>> news:1151152958.6...@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> 'The world's top scientists have joined forces to call for
>>>> "evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools.'
>>>
>>> theories lack scientific credibility, IMO.
>>>
>>
>> So tell me, are you honest enough to spurn hospitals and doctors too
>> or are you a hypocrit?
>
>
> Why should I spurn hospitals and doctors whose expertise and use of
> technologies have saved my life? What does that have to do with the
> credibility of modern-day evolution theories?
>
for modern medical science. New drugs are often developed using testing
and selection processes that would not have developed without
evolutionary theory.
In addition, most medical practitioners accept evolutionary theory as
being the best available explanation. Do you want to be treated by
someone that theologically corrupted?
Tabula Rasa
"stoney" <sto...@the.net> wrote in message
news:fp7u92h64r3muuf3r...@4ax.com...
> People like you should be banned from all medical and technological
> advances. You fuckwits are free to crawl into your caves, pick fleas
> off each other for sustenance, and swiftly go to your eternal fucking
> reward while you thank your 'god' for it's loving and righteous
> malevolence. Fuck you and all the cretinists you rode in on.
>
> People like you make me fucking sick. No brain. No backbone, No
> gonads. Terminally worthless fucks other than as cannon fodder. Get
> off my fucking planet you pathetic sacks of horse shit!
Spoken like a true atheist - what is your preferred plan for the 'final
solution of the creationist problem'? - Zyklon B gas chambers and cremetoria
(Proven effective already)? Madame le guillotine (messy and labour
intensive, but proven entertainment value)? - firing squad and mass grave
(moderately labour intensive but environmentally sound)?
Free Lunch
"Tabula Rasa" <tab...@rasa.com> wrote in <e7ng00$79o$1...@nntp.aioe.org>:
light of knowledge. Of course that will make a lot of Christians who
have been conned by creationism very embarrassed and upset.
Tabula Rasa
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:hlku92hiv7pv2n0f5...@4ax.com...
Metaphorical 'bright lights' don't seem to fit the tone of the previous
posters words, wherein he described them as fit for nothing other than
cannon fodder, who should 'get off his planet' (ignoring the fact that it's
their planet just as much) by 'swiftly going to their eternal fucking
reward'.
How do your metaphorical 'bright lights' achieve the sentiments expressed in
the original posters words? Surely the suggestions I provided are more
fitting for the original posters clear intention; though it is equally clear
that precedent shows that such measures are not altogether effective - the
enlightenment failed to eradicate religion, as did communism and fascism.
If creationists truly believe what they are saying is true, how can they be
lying? Maybe they are mistaken, but surely to tell a lie you must be
stating that something that you know to be false is true?
What the original poster is saying is that because people have a different
world view than him, and he doesn't like it, those people have no value and
should either be eradicated or at least 'hurry up and die'. Demonstrating
his 'ubermensch vs untermensch' mentality. Religion has existed for
millennia. It has exhibited its evolutionary credentials as a successful
societal paradigm and that will change only when and if a different societal
paradigm becomes more successful and outlives it.
Free Lunch
"Tabula Rasa" <tab...@rasa.com> wrote in <e7nlpc$bm6$1...@nntp.aioe.org>:
The creationists are telling lies whether they have deluded themselves
that creationism is true or not. I don't expect these people to recover.
I just expect that a long, slow process of education will make
creationism an embarrassment for everyone but the looniest religious
zealot and that even conservative Christians will roundly condemn the
lies told by folks like Ken Ham and Carl Baugh.
AZ Nomad
It was christians who invented all those tools for eliminating
nonconforming elements of the population.
Precision
"Tabula Rasa" <tab...@rasa.com> wrote in message
news:e7nlpc$bm6$1...@nntp.aioe.org...
Exactly, you hit the nail on the head. Hypothetically speaking, let us
suppose that Armageddon does not come for the next few centuries. Christians
will examine the scriptures to try and understand "why?" Who knows? In this
hypothetical scenario it is possible the church will transform with the
bombardment of "new light" that challenges the very premises we hold as
theologically correct. In that possible future we may look back and see
Christianity as having gone through a "stage" of its development just as we
look back to the church in Luther's times in the 1500's. Luther's
reformation made a major paradigm shift in Christianity and yet various
teachings of Luther are admittedly antiquated in the present day.
I wouldn't be surprise if, again hypothetically speaking, the world
continues another millennium or more (much as former empires continued for
as many centuries). In that scenario all of "this" -- our combustion engine
'chariots' propelled by ancient fossil fuels and what the 30th century will
surely consider 'primitive' medical technology; ancient 21st century steel
"skyscrapers" jutting out of the planet's surface and antique-looking
vacuum-sealed space vehicles launched on tanks of explosive fuel -- is
viewed outdated as we today view the Roman chariots, architecturally
beautiful but pointless pyramids and impressive ancient civilizations.
In this possible future will recorded history show the church of the 25th
century 'canonized' the ancient 21st century Watchtower Society's library
into a new 'Holy Bible' that will be quoted in Kingdom Temples in the 30th
century? Will scientists of the 30th century shake their heads in disbelief
when reading considering how primitive medical technology actually
transfused real human blood long before the invention of synthetic blood
that is the perfect substitute? Will the church view the creation days in
Genesis as each being a billion years? After all, if God lives forever, then
any amount of time that transpires -- even a trillion years -- is a blip on
geologic timescales compared to infinity.
That is why I believe that the Christian ministry should focus on bringing
people the Bible's message of spiritual hope and salvation through Jesus
Christ, and not attempt to second guess matters best left to science. Over
the past millenniums the church has changed position on trying to speculate
how long the creative days were, as a case in point, and was forced to
revise its view that the universe rotated around the Earth because of
science. The result has been non-believers being stumbled by what I call
intellectual 'red herrings' in debates about science when religion should
stick to the overall message of the Bible and the salvation brought to
humans through Jesus Christ.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Tabula Rasa
Only by your redefinition of the word 'lie'. Maybe you are not very bright
and don't actually know what the word 'lie' actually means - either that, or
you yourself are lying!
>I don't expect these people to recover.
I don't expect they have anything to recover from. I suppose by this
comment you are asserting your own ubermensch mentality - you assume your
judgement to be clearly superior to that of the
'ignorant-and-worthless-brain-diseased fundy', despite the fact that your
synapses work in exactly the same way theirs do, and despite the fact that
if you had experienced the same things they have and experienced it through
the same perceptual filters that they have, you would think the same way
they do?
> I just expect that a long, slow process of education will make
> creationism an embarrassment for everyone but the looniest religious
> zealot and that even conservative Christians will roundly condemn the
> lies told by folks like Ken Ham and Carl Baugh.
I expect that they will continue to think whatever it is that it suits them
to think. I expect that you will do the same as well. I also expect that
you will deny being a zealot yourself despite the continuing accumulation of
evidence to the contrary.
>>What the original poster is saying is that because people have a different
>>world view than him, and he doesn't like it, those people have no value
>>and
>>should either be eradicated or at least 'hurry up and die'. Demonstrating
>>his 'ubermensch vs untermensch' mentality. Religion has existed for
>>millennia. It has exhibited its evolutionary credentials as a successful
>>societal paradigm and that will change only when and if a different
>>societal
>>paradigm becomes more successful and outlives it.
You conveniently ignore this part of the argument (yet have confirmed your
own ubermensch mentality)?
Tabula Rasa
"AZ Nomad" <azn...@PmunOgeBOX.com> wrote in message
news:slrne9uo18....@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
I would like to see your sources - Regardless, it took atheists to perfect
them and industrialise their use.
Free Lunch
"Tabula Rasa" <tab...@rasa.com> wrote in <e7o6t5$7lg$1...@nntp.aioe.org>:
>
>"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>news:evmu92123dmfogr94...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 04:58:39 +0100, in alt.atheism
>> "Tabula Rasa" <tab...@rasa.com> wrote in <e7nlpc$bm6$1...@nntp.aioe.org>:
>>>Metaphorical 'bright lights' don't seem to fit the tone of the previous
>>>posters words, wherein he described them as fit for nothing other than
>>>cannon fodder, who should 'get off his planet' (ignoring the fact that
>>>it's
>>>their planet just as much) by 'swiftly going to their eternal fucking
>>>reward'.
>>>
>>>How do your metaphorical 'bright lights' achieve the sentiments expressed
>>>in
>>>the original posters words? Surely the suggestions I provided are more
>>>fitting for the original posters clear intention; though it is equally
>>>clear
>>>that precedent shows that such measures are not altogether effective - the
>>>enlightenment failed to eradicate religion, as did communism and fascism.
>>>
>>>If creationists truly believe what they are saying is true, how can they
>>>be
>>>lying? Maybe they are mistaken, but surely to tell a lie you must be
>>>stating that something that you know to be false is true?
>>
>> The creationists are telling lies whether they have deluded themselves
>> that creationism is true or not.
>
>Only by your redefinition of the word 'lie'. Maybe you are not very bright
>and don't actually know what the word 'lie' actually means - either that, or
>you yourself are lying!
If a person repeats a lie while making an effort to ignore all of the
evidence that it is a lie, they are lying as well. Anti-science
creationism is such a lie and the folks at these anti-science
organizations like Answers in Genesis, ICR and the Discovery Institute
know that they have chosen to be paid to lie.
>>I don't expect these people to recover.
>
>I don't expect they have anything to recover from. I suppose by this
>comment you are asserting your own ubermensch mentality - you assume your
>judgement to be clearly superior to that of the
>'ignorant-and-worthless-brain-diseased fundy', despite the fact that your
>synapses work in exactly the same way theirs do, and despite the fact that
>if you had experienced the same things they have and experienced it through
>the same perceptual filters that they have, you would think the same way
>they do?
There is objective evidence that anti-science creationism is false.
Those who have bought into this false teaching aren't likely to change
their mind because they were taught it as a religious doctrine, not
because they have learned about science. Religions might teach truth,
but they certainly can teach things that are identifiably false.
Anti-science creationism is one such false teaching.
>> I just expect that a long, slow process of education will make
>> creationism an embarrassment for everyone but the looniest religious
>> zealot and that even conservative Christians will roundly condemn the
>> lies told by folks like Ken Ham and Carl Baugh.
>
>I expect that they will continue to think whatever it is that it suits them
>to think. I expect that you will do the same as well. I also expect that
>you will deny being a zealot yourself despite the continuing accumulation of
>evidence to the contrary.
Yes, it does suit them, but it is still a false doctrine and they know
they are lying. Of course they know that they have suckers who will pay
them to continue the lies, so they do.
>>>What the original poster is saying is that because people have a different
>>>world view than him, and he doesn't like it, those people have no value
>>>and
>>>should either be eradicated or at least 'hurry up and die'. Demonstrating
>>>his 'ubermensch vs untermensch' mentality. Religion has existed for
>>>millennia. It has exhibited its evolutionary credentials as a successful
>>>societal paradigm and that will change only when and if a different
>>>societal
>>>paradigm becomes more successful and outlives it.
>
>You conveniently ignore this part of the argument (yet have confirmed your
>own ubermensch mentality)?
Yes, I ignored this because it had nothing to do with the point I was
trying to make. I disagree with your claims about my attitude, but that
won't change your own hubris, so I don't see any point in following it
up.
Matt Silberstein
<budi...@netscape.net> in
<1151271507.8...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
I think it is parroting, but no more accurate than a parrot.
Comparatively Dembski had an argument. Not a good one, but it has
somewhat a logical structure. He tried to make some claims regarding
scientific standards. This fellow lost all that and just has a change
of topic.
AZ Nomad
So you assert. Name one instance where atheistism was the motivation.
You do yourself a disservice when you lie so freely.
Precision
"AZ Nomad" <azn...@PmunOgeBOX.com> wrote in message
Not to change the subject but it seems some of you people are obsessed with
calling "liars" anyone whom you deem is making an inaccurate statement.
Lying implies deliberate intent to deceive. Merriam-Webster's Unabridged
Dictionary starts the definition of "lie" as follows: "to make an untrue
statement with intent to deceive".
I have observed that every time anyone states something on these newsgroups
someone like you surfaces to claim they "lie" as if to imply that any view
contradictory to your own is a deliberate intent to deceive others. It's as
if you believe that if everyone told the truth and didn't lie they would
hold the exact same views as yours, as if to say that your views are the
only correct views.
Robibnikoff
"codeb...@bigsecret.com" <Codeb...@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
snip
>
> It is the only story that you know of. But who ever said you know
> anything?
Don't take the brown acid.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist Bastard Extraordinaire
#1557
curtj...@webtv.net
> codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> > Budikka666 wrote:
> > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5098608.stm
> > >
> > > 'The world's top scientists have joined forces to call for
> > > "evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools.'
> > >
> > > Budikka
> >
> > This fellow made a good point. Read on.
> >
> > "The theory of evolution is but one take on the story of our origins.
> > arrogance to force other people to teach something they may think to be
> > false, especially if the entire society is of the mind. It is not the
> > duty of one society to tell another how to function, exist, and teach.
> > When all societies become one in this globalised world, hopefully we
> > will not have such a problem, but for right now we are not the
> > intellectual police of the world."
> > Ian Kavanagh, New York, USA
>
> Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is the only scientific
> theory that explains that fact. That's why it is, and should be,
> taught in schools in any nation that calls itself civilized.
>
> Budikka
But many evolutionists believe Creation to be a fact too. Evolutions
usually, conveniently, tries to divorce itself from 'origins'. They
want to talk about the variations and some of the environmental
influences, but do they want to talk about the origin of the parts that
need some type of explanation, like the eyball, the brain, the feet,
the hands, the digestive and breathing processes, wings, and the
seeming uncanny ability to instinctually do the right thing to survive?
And why teach it in schools? Why not have it available for an after
school club, where people tend to have everything that suits them?
IOW, why is Creation or Evolution, necessary to be a functioning member
of society?
CJ
Christopher A. Lee
>Budikka666 wrote:
>> codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
>> > Budikka666 wrote:
>> > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5098608.stm
>> > >
>> > > 'The world's top scientists have joined forces to call for
>> > > "evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools.'
>> > >
>> > > Budikka
>> >
>> > This fellow made a good point. Read on.
>> >
>> > "The theory of evolution is but one take on the story of our origins.
>> > While I happen to agree with said theory, it is not fair and borders on
>> > arrogance to force other people to teach something they may think to be
>> > false, especially if the entire society is of the mind. It is not the
>> > duty of one society to tell another how to function, exist, and teach.
>> > When all societies become one in this globalised world, hopefully we
>> > will not have such a problem, but for right now we are not the
>> > intellectual police of the world."
>> > Ian Kavanagh, New York, USA
>>
>> Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is the only scientific
>> theory that explains that fact. That's why it is, and should be,
>> taught in schools in any nation that calls itself civilized.
>>
>> Budikka
>
>But many evolutionists believe Creation to be a fact too. Evolutions
What's an "evolutionist" apart from a dishonest label applied by
creationists to those who accept reality for what it is?
>usually, conveniently, tries to divorce itself from 'origins'. They
Because it has nothing to wit origins. Not for any imagined
"convenience" lying creationists pretend.
>want to talk about the variations and some of the environmental
>influences, but do they want to talk about the origin of the parts that
>need some type of explanation, like the eyball, the brain, the feet,
>the hands, the digestive and breathing processes, wings, and the
>seeming uncanny ability to instinctually do the right thing to survive?
What is so uncanny? That which survives to pass on its genes, passes
on its genes. That which doesn't, doesn't. But that is only part of
the story - it is the filter though which genetic mutations are
passed.
>And why teach it in schools? Why not have it available for an after
>school club, where people tend to have everything that suits them?
>IOW, why is Creation or Evolution, necessary to be a functioning member
>of society?
Because so many gullible, ignorant Americans pass on the lies they
have been told, and this is seriously impacting science education.
>CJ
Matt Silberstein
<tab...@rasa.com> in <e7ng00$79o$1...@nntp.aioe.org> wrote:
>
>"stoney" <sto...@the.net> wrote in message
>news:fp7u92h64r3muuf3r...@4ax.com...
>
>> People like you should be banned from all medical and technological
>> advances. You fuckwits are free to crawl into your caves, pick fleas
>> off each other for sustenance, and swiftly go to your eternal fucking
>> reward while you thank your 'god' for it's loving and righteous
>> malevolence. Fuck you and all the cretinists you rode in on.
>>
>> People like you make me fucking sick. No brain. No backbone, No
>> gonads. Terminally worthless fucks other than as cannon fodder. Get
>> off my fucking planet you pathetic sacks of horse shit!
>
>Spoken like a true atheist - what is your preferred plan for the 'final
>solution of the creationist problem'? - Zyklon B gas chambers and cremetoria
>(Proven effective already)?
Germany was overwhelmingly Christian, the people planning the Shoah
were overwhelmingly Christian, the people running the camps were
overwhelmingly Christian.
> Madame le guillotine (messy and labour
>intensive, but proven entertainment value)? - firing squad and mass grave
>(moderately labour intensive but environmentally sound)?
>
Tabula Rasa
"AZ Nomad" <azn...@PmunOgeBOX.com> wrote in message
https://www.wsu.edu/~brians/hum_303/enlightenment.html
You do yourself a greater disservice when you mis-spell your chosen
religion, and show how little you know of atheism throughout history.
Tabula Rasa
> Not to change the subject but it seems some of you people are obsessed
> with calling "liars" anyone whom you deem is making an inaccurate
> statement.
>
> Lying implies deliberate intent to deceive. Merriam-Webster's Unabridged
> Dictionary starts the definition of "lie" as follows: "to make an untrue
> statement with intent to deceive".
>
> I have observed that every time anyone states something on these
> newsgroups someone like you surfaces to claim they "lie" as if to imply
> that any view contradictory to your own is a deliberate intent to deceive
> others. It's as if you believe that if everyone told the truth and didn't
> lie they would hold the exact same views as yours, as if to say that your
> views are the only correct views.
Correct.
stoney
alt.atheism
>
>"Kilmir" <Kil...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1151251405....@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Ah but there is a fundamental difference between SETI and religions.
>> SETI has the base assumption "There are no intelligent lifeforms
>> outside earth" (not a direct quote, but close enough). What the SETI
>> program is designed to do is try to falsify that hypothesis.
>
>Exactly, which is what research is all about - can I reject the null.
>Good post.
The Precision cretin lacks the opposible thumbs to grasp the point.
stoney
Ah, yes, the usual cretinist strawstorms. That's nice toddler. Now run
along and play with your imaginary friend and leave the adults be.
Wëndãlen
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 16:23:00 GMT, "Tim K." <tim...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in
> alt.atheism
>
>>
>>"Kilmir" <Kil...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1151251405....@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Ah but there is a fundamental difference between SETI and religions.
>>> SETI has the base assumption "There are no intelligent lifeforms
>>> outside earth" (not a direct quote, but close enough). What the SETI
>>> program is designed to do is try to falsify that hypothesis.
>>
>>Exactly, which is what research is all about - can I reject the null.
>>Good post.
>
> The Precision cretin lacks the opposible thumbs to grasp the point.
I think he's starting to realize the WTS BS'ed him about Armageddon (and a
lot of other things) and he trying to salvage something of his religion.....
he's grasping at straws.
--
Alice in Watchtowerland....
Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971 ed., p. 1061
"While malicious lying is definitely condemned in
the Bible, this does not mean that a person is under
obligation to divulge truthful information to people
who are not entitled to it." *WHO DECIDES?*
~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~
http://www.intrex.net/talley/list7_13.html
So many sheep, so much fleecing.
eyelessgame
Precision wrote:
> "eyelessgame" <aa...@oro.net> wrote in message
> news:1151214356.6...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Precision wrote:
> >> "Richard Smol" <jazzcat@_NOSPAM_dds.nl> wrote in message
> >> news:c53f$449d9b2f$d55d44c2$15...@news.chello.nl...
> >> >> Budikka666 wrote:
> >> >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5098608.stm
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 'The world's top scientists have joined forces to call for
> >> >>> "evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools.'
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Budikka
> >> >>
> >> >> This fellow made a good point. Read on.
> >> >>
> >> >> "The theory of evolution is but one take on the story of our origins.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Can you trust the so-called "evidence" when its often based on the faulty
> >> assumption that God does not exist?
> >
> > and also believe in the Christian God, it's pretty clear that evolution
> > doesn't require an assumption that God doesn't exist.
>
>
> That is why I said it is "often" (but not always) based on the faulty
> assumption God does not exist. Of course you are correct that evolution
> doesn't require an assumption that God doesn't exist. Perhaps you haven't
> read other posts I have put up in this forum, where I have argued that it is
> quite possible God used both evolutionary processes and direct creation
> (i.e. placing humans directly on this planet even though other life on Earth
> evolved over geologic timescales).
It's not 'quite possible' -- the same evidence that shows evolution in
the rest of the planet's life shows that it is also the process
responsible for the development of humans. That's where your problem
lies. You are equating 'the existence of God' with 'the truth of the
origin story in Genesis 2'. They are not equivalent propositions at
all.
> > What evidence did you think was based on this assumption? And why
> > would you think evidence would ever be based on such an assumption?
> > Can you show your work?
>
> Again, I expressed an opinion that the so-called "evidence" is "often" based
> on faulty assumptions that God doesn't exist.
I am asserting your opinion is incoherent. Evidence is that which is
evident. It is not based on assumption (other than the assumption that
information is preserved in measurement). There *is* no evolutionary
scientific evidence, 'so-called' or otherwise, that is based on
assumptions (faulty or not) that God doesn't exist.
But I see, reading your whole post, that you equate 'God exists' with
'God is constrained to have done what I think God did'. I think that's
an arrogant position.
> In other words, I believe that
> scientists rule out the possibility that (a) God exists,
How many scientists do you know? I know many. *None* of them, including
atheists, rule out the *possibility*. Many do reject the proposition
that God exists, based on lack of evidence for the proposition. But
virtually no one "rules out the possibility that God exists". They do,
however, discount as irrelevant the possibility that event A could have
occurred, left absolutely no evidence of having occurred, and instead
leaving flawless faked evidence that event B occurred instead.
Which is the same assumption we all make, every day, every time we make
any decision about the real world.
> (b) that such a God
> would have the power to place fully formed humans on Earth while allowing
> other forms of life to evolve
The problem with accepting this proposition is that there is no
evidence whatsoever in its favor. Accepting this proposition as true
would be equivalent to accepting the proposition that the Easter Bunny
did it. It's simply not what happened. Humans are related to the great
apes, and thereby to the rest of the primates, and thereby eventually
to everything else.
That is, assuming information is preserved in measurement, which is one
way of stating the fundamental assumption of all science (as well as
being a fundamental assumption of most other human endeavor).
> , and therefore (c) all life must have evolved
> because, ruling out God's existence, there's no way any part of the Bible's
> creation account could be accurate.
I don't pretend that I can educate you where everyone else on the list
has repeatedly failed. But THE REASON THE CREATION ACCOUNT IS NOT
CONSIDERED ACCURATE IS THAT IT DOES NOT MATCH THE DATA. It has nothing
to do with 'ruling out God's existence', which very few scientists do.
It has everything to do with what the data shows -- one or more gods
could exist; there is no way to disprove them, and therefore no
justification for 'ruling them out" in a philosophical sense. But the
data -- what science must be based on -- does not support a special
creation of humans, and gives no reason to conclude the direct
intervention of a supernatural or intelligent force in evolution.
That's what the *data* says. Yet again, once again, it is what we see
when we go and look. Science is not privileged to operate under rules
of revelation. If we want to learn about something, we actually have to
go look at it, not receive divine instruction of what the truth is.
When we look at human beings, we see their physical and genetic
relationship to the great apes. That's how we got here. Period. God may
exist; God may have purposely arranged things so that the evolutionary
path producing great apes would eventually produce humans. Science
cannot say that God was not involved with the process. Science can,
however, determine the process. The process of human appearance on the
planet was evolution. There is no 'ruling out' of a deity, there is
only identification of a process. If the identified process does
violence to your religious beliefs, tough titties.
God doesn't create thunderstorms out of falling stars. Thunderstorms
happen because of the interaction of hot and cold, moist and dry air
masses. That doesn't prove God doesn't make thunderstorms. But if he
does so, he's doing so through the natural interactions of air.
Evolution is no more atheistic than meteorology is. Just because
someone wrote down a story about how God made man out of dirt, or about
how God makes thunderstorms out of shooting stars, doesn't force anyone
to 'rule out' God, only to point out that the story is a story and the
actual process is the actual process.
eyelessgame
curtj...@webtv.net
it up instead of making up a stupid and incorrect 'party line'.
> >usually, conveniently, tries to divorce itself from 'origins'. They
>
> Because it has nothing to wit origins. Not for any imagined
> "convenience" lying creationists pretend.
>
Then by your definition, Creation was responsible for the origin and
evolution takes care of the rest.
> >want to talk about the variations and some of the environmental
> >influences, but do they want to talk about the origin of the parts that
> >need some type of explanation, like the eyball, the brain, the feet,
> >the hands, the digestive and breathing processes, wings, and the
> >seeming uncanny ability to instinctually do the right thing to survive?
>
> What is so uncanny? That which survives to pass on its genes, passes
> on its genes. That which doesn't, doesn't. But that is only part of
> the story - it is the filter though which genetic mutations are
> passed.
>
genes and mutations? That's only a small part of the picture. How
come mutations are negative and not positive? Obviously a creator
could have made genes. Try dealing with that.
> >And why teach it in schools? Why not have it available for an after
> >school club, where people tend to have everything that suits them?
> >IOW, why is Creation or Evolution, necessary to be a functioning member
> >of society?
>
> Because so many gullible, ignorant Americans pass on the lies they
> have been told, and this is seriously impacting science education.
>
LOL. Why do you care about evolution in the classroom anyway? Science
gets on in the classroom without people trying to draw cartoons in
their books on what they think 'man' looked like. Try the Periodic
Chart for a real challenge.
CJ
> >CJ
Tabula Rasa
It is a lie if the speaker knows what he is saying is untrue - if he
doesn't, he is simply mistaken or deluded. If the folks at anti-science
organizations believe that what they are saying is true then they are not
lying.
>>>I don't expect these people to recover.
>>
>>I don't expect they have anything to recover from. I suppose by this
>>comment you are asserting your own ubermensch mentality - you assume your
>>judgement to be clearly superior to that of the
>>'ignorant-and-worthless-brain-diseased fundy', despite the fact that your
>>synapses work in exactly the same way theirs do, and despite the fact that
>>if you had experienced the same things they have and experienced it
>>through
>>the same perceptual filters that they have, you would think the same way
>>they do?
>
> There is objective evidence that anti-science creationism is false.
> Those who have bought into this false teaching aren't likely to change
> their mind because they were taught it as a religious doctrine, not
> because they have learned about science. Religions might teach truth,
> but they certainly can teach things that are identifiably false.
> Anti-science creationism is one such false teaching.
Objectivity is a myth. Anyone who lays claim to objectivity is deluding
themselves just as much as you believe creationists delude themselves.
Scientists are humans - they necessarily perceive the world from a
species-centric viewpoint. They have ethnicity - they necessarily perceive
the world from an ethnocentric viewpoint. They have political views that
influence them; ego issues; financial influences - they may aspire to
objectivity, achieving it is another matter.
>>> I just expect that a long, slow process of education will make
>>> creationism an embarrassment for everyone but the looniest religious
>>> zealot and that even conservative Christians will roundly condemn the
>>> lies told by folks like Ken Ham and Carl Baugh.
>>
>>I expect that they will continue to think whatever it is that it suits
>>them
>>to think. I expect that you will do the same as well. I also expect that
>>you will deny being a zealot yourself despite the continuing accumulation
>>of
>>evidence to the contrary.
>
> Yes, it does suit them, but it is still a false doctrine and they know
> they are lying. Of course they know that they have suckers who will pay
> them to continue the lies, so they do.
It may well be a false doctrine, whether they actually know it is and are
therefore lying is another matter entirely.
>>>>What the original poster is saying is that because people have a
>>>>different
>>>>world view than him, and he doesn't like it, those people have no value
>>>>and
>>>>should either be eradicated or at least 'hurry up and die'.
>>>>Demonstrating
>>>>his 'ubermensch vs untermensch' mentality. Religion has existed for
>>>>millennia. It has exhibited its evolutionary credentials as a
>>>>successful
>>>>societal paradigm and that will change only when and if a different
>>>>societal
>>>>paradigm becomes more successful and outlives it.
>>
>>You conveniently ignore this part of the argument (yet have confirmed your
>>own ubermensch mentality)?
>
> Yes, I ignored this because it had nothing to do with the point I was
> trying to make. I disagree with your claims about my attitude, but that
> won't change your own hubris, so I don't see any point in following it
> up.
Your 'point' was that creationists are liars. It's not a point so much as
it is a highly generalized slur on a wide group of people who simply have
different beliefs to your own.
Tabula Rasa
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:8j50a2l623h1fbk9l...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 03:19:37 +0100, in alt.atheism , "Tabula Rasa"
> <tab...@rasa.com> in <e7ng00$79o$1...@nntp.aioe.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>"stoney" <sto...@the.net> wrote in message
>>news:fp7u92h64r3muuf3r...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> People like you should be banned from all medical and technological
>>> advances. You fuckwits are free to crawl into your caves, pick fleas
>>> off each other for sustenance, and swiftly go to your eternal fucking
>>> reward while you thank your 'god' for it's loving and righteous
>>> malevolence. Fuck you and all the cretinists you rode in on.
>>>
>>> People like you make me fucking sick. No brain. No backbone, No
>>> gonads. Terminally worthless fucks other than as cannon fodder. Get
>>> off my fucking planet you pathetic sacks of horse shit!
>>
>>Spoken like a true atheist - what is your preferred plan for the 'final
>>solution of the creationist problem'? - Zyklon B gas chambers and
>>cremetoria
>>(Proven effective already)?
>
> Germany was overwhelmingly Christian, the people planning the Shoah
> were overwhelmingly Christian, the people running the camps were
> overwhelmingly Christian.
The Donovan Nuremberg Trials collection says otherwise:
http://www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/nuremberg/nurinst1.htm
Tabula Rasa
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 03:19:37 +0100, "Tabula Rasa" <tab...@rasa.com>
> wrote in alt.atheism
>
>>
>>"stoney" <sto...@the.net> wrote in message
>>news:fp7u92h64r3muuf3r...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> People like you should be banned from all medical and technological
>>> advances. You fuckwits are free to crawl into your caves, pick fleas
>>> off each other for sustenance, and swiftly go to your eternal fucking
>>> reward while you thank your 'god' for it's loving and righteous
>>> malevolence. Fuck you and all the cretinists you rode in on.
>>>
>>> People like you make me fucking sick. No brain. No backbone, No
>>> gonads. Terminally worthless fucks other than as cannon fodder. Get
>>> off my fucking planet you pathetic sacks of horse shit!
>>
>>Spoken like a true atheist - what is your preferred plan for the 'final
>>solution of the creationist problem'? - Zyklon B gas chambers and
>>cremetoria
>>(Proven effective already)? Madame le guillotine (messy and labour
>>intensive, but proven entertainment value)? - firing squad and mass grave
>>(moderately labour intensive but environmentally sound)?
>
> Ah, yes, the usual cretinist strawstorms. That's nice toddler. Now run
> along and play with your imaginary friend and leave the adults be.
I'm an atheist, not a creationist. Not a dogmatic, totalitarian zealot
atheist like yourself, but an atheist all the same.
I see you are unable to contribute anything other than ad hominem.
Well done. You must be proud of yourself.
Budikka666
> Budikka666 wrote:
> > codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> > > Budikka666 wrote:
> > > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5098608.stm
> > > >
> > > > 'The world's top scientists have joined forces to call for
> > > > "evidence-based" teaching of evolution in schools.'
> > > >
> > > > Budikka
> > >
> > > This fellow made a good point. Read on.
> > >
> > > "The theory of evolution is but one take on the story of our origins.
> > > While I happen to agree with said theory, it is not fair and borders on
> > > arrogance to force other people to teach something they may think to be
> > > false, especially if the entire society is of the mind. It is not the
> > > duty of one society to tell another how to function, exist, and teach.
> > > When all societies become one in this globalised world, hopefully we
> > > will not have such a problem, but for right now we are not the
> > > intellectual police of the world."
> > > Ian Kavanagh, New York, USA
> >
> > Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is the only scientific
> > theory that explains that fact. That's why it is, and should be,
> > taught in schools in any nation that calls itself civilized.
> >
> > Budikka
>
> But many evolutionists believe Creation to be a fact too. Evolutions
> usually, conveniently, tries to divorce itself from 'origins'.
Evolution is about the diversity and distribution of life. it is not
the science of "origins" - that science is called abiogenesis - unlerss
the origin you refer to is the origin of species..
> They
> want to talk about the variations and some of the environmental
> influences, but do they want to talk about the origin of the parts that
> need some type of explanation, like the eyball, the brain, the feet,
> the hands, the digestive and breathing processes, wings, and the
> seeming uncanny ability to instinctually do the right thing to survive?
Evolution explains all of those as any reading of decent literature on
the topic willd demonstrate to you. Do the reading them come back here
if you still have issues.
> And why teach it in schools?
Because it is science and belongs in the science classroom. The Theory
of Evolution is the only scientific theory which explains the *fact* of
evolution.
> Why not have it available for an after
> school club, where people tend to have everything that suits them?
> IOW, why is Creation or Evolution, necessary to be a functioning member
> of society?
Ask your doctor that the next time you find that prayer has failed to
help you and you desperately need a cure for your disease.
Budikka
Budikka666
There is only *one* deifnition of evolution. It's the change in allele
frequency in a given population. Every other aspect of evolution
arises from that. *YOU* look it up before you pretend you have a clue
what you're talking about because right now you're making a public
idiot of yourself in a global forum.
> > >usually, conveniently, tries to divorce itself from 'origins'. They
> >
> > Because it has nothing to wit origins. Not for any imagined
> > "convenience" lying creationists pretend.
> >
> Then by your definition, Creation was responsible for the origin and
> evolution takes care of the rest.
There was no creation, unelss you ahve valid and useful evidence to
suggest otherwise. Do you? No, you don't. Science explains
everything we know about the natural world, and we're getting closer to
an understanding even of origins.
> > >want to talk about the variations and some of the environmental
> > >influences, but do they want to talk about the origin of the parts that
> > >need some type of explanation, like the eyball, the brain, the feet,
> > >the hands, the digestive and breathing processes, wings, and the
> > >seeming uncanny ability to instinctually do the right thing to survive?
> >
> > What is so uncanny? That which survives to pass on its genes, passes
> > on its genes. That which doesn't, doesn't. But that is only part of
> > the story - it is the filter though which genetic mutations are
> > passed.
> >
> genes and mutations? That's only a small part of the picture. How
> come mutations are negative and not positive?
Mutations are usually neutral. There are some negative and some
positive. The positive ones are preserved by natural selection.
That's how evolution works. This much is fact. Read about the topic
before you embarrass yourself further.
> Obviously a creator
> could have made genes. Try dealing with that.
We'll deal with that as soon as you offer some evidence for it. Do you
have any? No! Meanwhile the Theory of Evolution has 150 years of
solid science behind it. It has **NEVER** failed any test to which it
has been put.
> > >And why teach it in schools? Why not have it available for an after
> > >school club, where people tend to have everything that suits them?
> > >IOW, why is Creation or Evolution, necessary to be a functioning member
> > >of society?
> >
> > Because so many gullible, ignorant Americans pass on the lies they
> > have been told, and this is seriously impacting science education.
> >
> LOL. Why do you care about evolution in the classroom anyway?
We care about teaching children what we know to be fact. Not what we
know to be lies and mythology. It really is that simple. As,
evidently, are you, sad to say.
> Science
> gets on in the classroom without people trying to draw cartoons in
> their books on what they think 'man' looked like. Try the Periodic
> Chart for a real challenge.
Try reading some good text books on evolution instead of hiding like a
coward behind your convenient mythology. Then if you still don't grasp
it, get medical help.
Budikka
Free Lunch
"Tabula Rasa" <tab...@rasa.com> wrote in <e7ps6v$pkv$1...@nntp.aioe.org>:
>
>"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>news:fhhv92tmerctj2i6o...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 09:50:48 +0100, in alt.atheism
>> "Tabula Rasa" <tab...@rasa.com> wrote in <e7o6t5$7lg$1...@nntp.aioe.org>:
>>>
>>>"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>>>news:evmu92123dmfogr94...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 04:58:39 +0100, in alt.atheism
>>>> "Tabula Rasa" <tab...@rasa.com> wrote in <e7nlpc$bm6$1...@nntp.aioe.org>:
...
>>>>>If creationists truly believe what they are saying is true, how can they
>>>>>be
>>>>>lying? Maybe they are mistaken, but surely to tell a lie you must be
>>>>>stating that something that you know to be false is true?
>>>>
>>>> The creationists are telling lies whether they have deluded themselves
>>>> that creationism is true or not.
>>>
>>>Only by your redefinition of the word 'lie'. Maybe you are not very
>>>bright
>>>and don't actually know what the word 'lie' actually means - either that,
>>>or
>>>you yourself are lying!
>>
>> If a person repeats a lie while making an effort to ignore all of the
>> evidence that it is a lie, they are lying as well. Anti-science
>> creationism is such a lie and the folks at these anti-science
>> organizations like Answers in Genesis, ICR and the Discovery Institute
>> know that they have chosen to be paid to lie.
>
>It is a lie if the speaker knows what he is saying is untrue - if he
>doesn't, he is simply mistaken or deluded. If the folks at anti-science
>organizations believe that what they are saying is true then they are not
>lying.
If you persuade yourself that you own the Brooklyn Bridge it isn't a lie
for you to tell people that you own it? Sorry, but you are letting too
many dishonest people off the hook just because they refused to admit to
themselves how dishonest they were being. Not that it matters, everyone
teaching anti-science creationism knows that scientific evidence has
shown that their doctrines are false. They know they are lying, they
just refuse to admit it.
>>>>I don't expect these people to recover.
>>>
>>>I don't expect they have anything to recover from. I suppose by this
>>>comment you are asserting your own ubermensch mentality - you assume your
>>>judgement to be clearly superior to that of the
>>>'ignorant-and-worthless-brain-diseased fundy', despite the fact that your
>>>synapses work in exactly the same way theirs do, and despite the fact that
>>>if you had experienced the same things they have and experienced it
>>>through
>>>the same perceptual filters that they have, you would think the same way
>>>they do?
>>
>> There is objective evidence that anti-science creationism is false.
>> Those who have bought into this false teaching aren't likely to change
>> their mind because they were taught it as a religious doctrine, not
>> because they have learned about science. Religions might teach truth,
>> but they certainly can teach things that are identifiably false.
>> Anti-science creationism is one such false teaching.
>
>Objectivity is a myth. Anyone who lays claim to objectivity is deluding
>themselves just as much as you believe creationists delude themselves.
>Scientists are humans - they necessarily perceive the world from a
>species-centric viewpoint. They have ethnicity - they necessarily perceive
>the world from an ethnocentric viewpoint. They have political views that
>influence them; ego issues; financial influences - they may aspire to
>objectivity, achieving it is another matter.
What postmodern nonsense.
>>>> I just expect that a long, slow process of education will make
>>>> creationism an embarrassment for everyone but the looniest religious
>>>> zealot and that even conservative Christians will roundly condemn the
>>>> lies told by folks like Ken Ham and Carl Baugh.
>>>
>>>I expect that they will continue to think whatever it is that it suits
>>>them
>>>to think. I expect that you will do the same as well. I also expect that
>>>you will deny being a zealot yourself despite the continuing accumulation
>>>of
>>>evidence to the contrary.
>>
>> Yes, it does suit them, but it is still a false doctrine and they know
>> they are lying. Of course they know that they have suckers who will pay
>> them to continue the lies, so they do.
>
>It may well be a false doctrine, whether they actually know it is and are
>therefore lying is another matter entirely.
It is lying. If they don't know, they intentionally don't know. The
leadership absolutely knows that they are lying.
>>>>>What the original poster is saying is that because people have a
>>>>>different
>>>>>world view than him, and he doesn't like it, those people have no value
>>>>>and
>>>>>should either be eradicated or at least 'hurry up and die'.
>>>>>Demonstrating
>>>>>his 'ubermensch vs untermensch' mentality. Religion has existed for
>>>>>millennia. It has exhibited its evolutionary credentials as a
>>>>>successful
>>>>>societal paradigm and that will change only when and if a different
>>>>>societal
>>>>>paradigm becomes more successful and outlives it.
>>>
>>>You conveniently ignore this part of the argument (yet have confirmed your
>>>own ubermensch mentality)?
>>
>> Yes, I ignored this because it had nothing to do with the point I was
>> trying to make. I disagree with your claims about my attitude, but that
>> won't change your own hubris, so I don't see any point in following it
>> up.
>
>Your 'point' was that creationists are liars. It's not a point so much as
>it is a highly generalized slur on a wide group of people who simply have
>different beliefs to your own.
>
This isn't about belief. It's about making false claims in spite of the
evidence and anti-science creationists are making those false claims.
They have no excuses.
Michael Gray
- Refer: <44a03e3b$0$8848$834e...@reader.greatnowhere.com>
>
>"stoney" <sto...@the.net> wrote in message
>news:m0e0a2l4td7ih99ac...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 16:23:00 GMT, "Tim K." <tim...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in
>> alt.atheism
>>
>>>
>>>"Kilmir" <Kil...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1151251405....@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> Ah but there is a fundamental difference between SETI and religions.
>>>> SETI has the base assumption "There are no intelligent lifeforms
>>>> outside earth" (not a direct quote, but close enough). What the SETI
>>>> program is designed to do is try to falsify that hypothesis.
>>>
>>>Exactly, which is what research is all about - can I reject the null.
>>>Good post.
>>
>> The Precision cretin lacks the opposible thumbs to grasp the point.
>
>I think he's starting to realize the WTS BS'ed him about Armageddon (and a
>lot of other things) and he trying to salvage something of his religion.....
>he's grasping at straws.
That hypotheseis implicitly relies on the assumption that he/she/it is
capable of some form of intellectual realisation.
That is where it falls down completely.
--
curtj...@webtv.net
can be used as loosely as people having offspring and saying that there
is now a brand new, never before seen individual. That is not
evolution for any kind of proof. A global forum with a handful of
people. You must think of yourself on the stage ready to accept the
Oscar...LOL.
> > > >usually, conveniently, tries to divorce itself from 'origins'. They
> > >
> > > Because it has nothing to wit origins. Not for any imagined
> > > "convenience" lying creationists pretend.
> > >
> > Then by your definition, Creation was responsible for the origin and
> > evolution takes care of the rest.
>
> There was no creation, unelss you ahve valid and useful evidence to
> suggest otherwise. Do you? No, you don't. Science explains
> everything we know about the natural world, and we're getting closer to
> an understanding even of origins.
>
You have no evolution at the beginning unless you have valid evidence
otherwise. See how that works, when you word it different? If your
getting so close, talk about the development of the eyeball, the brain,
wings, instinct, cooperating body systems.
> > > >want to talk about the variations and some of the environmental
> > > >influences, but do they want to talk about the origin of the parts that
> > > >need some type of explanation, like the eyball, the brain, the feet,
> > > >the hands, the digestive and breathing processes, wings, and the
> > > >seeming uncanny ability to instinctually do the right thing to survive?
> > >
> > > What is so uncanny? That which survives to pass on its genes, passes
> > > on its genes. That which doesn't, doesn't. But that is only part of
> > > the story - it is the filter though which genetic mutations are
> > > passed.
> > >
> > genes and mutations? That's only a small part of the picture. How
> > come mutations are negative and not positive?
>
> Mutations are usually neutral. There are some negative and some
> positive. The positive ones are preserved by natural selection.
> That's how evolution works. This much is fact. Read about the topic
> before you embarrass yourself further.
>
Tell us how an eyeball was manufactured because of mutations. Tell us
how things got tired of bumping into one another. Tell us how holes
were opened up for relief in digestion when we were critters were too
full and kept growing til they burst and died. Evolution without a
Creator just doesn't make sense.
> > Obviously a creator
> > could have made genes. Try dealing with that.
>
> We'll deal with that as soon as you offer some evidence for it. Do you
> have any? No! Meanwhile the Theory of Evolution has 150 years of
> solid science behind it. It has **NEVER** failed any test to which it
> has been put.
>
Evolution deals with variations. It doesn't deal with common sense
engineering.
> > > >And why teach it in schools? Why not have it available for an after
> > > >school club, where people tend to have everything that suits them?
> > > >IOW, why is Creation or Evolution, necessary to be a functioning member
> > > >of society?
> > >
> > > Because so many gullible, ignorant Americans pass on the lies they
> > > have been told, and this is seriously impacting science education.
> > >
> > LOL. Why do you care about evolution in the classroom anyway?
>
> We care about teaching children what we know to be fact. Not what we
> know to be lies and mythology. It really is that simple. As,
> evidently, are you, sad to say.
>
You are the determiner of mythology? If you care about teaching
children, why don't they offer courses in Parenting, something that
would help society?
> > Science
> > gets on in the classroom without people trying to draw cartoons in
> > their books on what they think 'man' looked like. Try the Periodic
> > Chart for a real challenge.
>
> Try reading some good text books on evolution instead of hiding like a
> coward behind your convenient mythology. Then if you still don't grasp
> it, get medical help.
>
I am not hiding, you are the one to come up with a viable solution to
original 'evolution'
CJ
> Budikka
ark@home.com ranDoM ark
>>
> Tell us how an eyeball was manufactured because of mutations.
Easy:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
Next?
Mark D.
ark@home.com ranDoM ark
news:1151418552.370016.282440@y41g2000cwy.
>>
> Tell us how an eyeball was manufactured because of mutations.
And there's more:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html
Mark D.
Matt Silberstein
No, that does not. That the Nazis had a political plan for attacking
established Churches is irrelevant to the religion of various people
around. Martin Luther had a plan for attacking the established Church.
Was he an atheist?
Tabula Rasa
>>>>> The creationists are telling lies whether they have deluded themselves
>>>>> that creationism is true or not.
>>>>
>>>>Only by your redefinition of the word 'lie'. Maybe you are not very
>>>>bright
>>>>and don't actually know what the word 'lie' actually means - either
>>>>that,
>>>>or
>>>>you yourself are lying!
>>>
>>> If a person repeats a lie while making an effort to ignore all of the
>>> evidence that it is a lie, they are lying as well. Anti-science
>>> creationism is such a lie and the folks at these anti-science
>>> organizations like Answers in Genesis, ICR and the Discovery Institute
>>> know that they have chosen to be paid to lie.
>>
>>It is a lie if the speaker knows what he is saying is untrue - if he
>>doesn't, he is simply mistaken or deluded. If the folks at anti-science
>>organizations believe that what they are saying is true then they are not
>>lying.
>
> If you persuade yourself that you own the Brooklyn Bridge it isn't a lie
> for you to tell people that you own it?
No. It isn't. It is the expression of a belief - in this case an incorrect
belief.
If, on the other hand, you are fully aware that you do not own the Brooklyn
Bridge and tell people that you own it you have lied.
See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie
And contrast that with 'mistake'
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mistake
and error: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/error
Liars intend to deceive. If there is no intention of deceiving there is no
lie. By your own logic your inability to understand what 'lie' means and
subsequent misuse of the word to describe people who express a personal
belief that you disagree with makes you a liar. By my logic you are simply
mistaken. Which are you; a liar or simply mistaken?
Sorry, but you are letting too
> many dishonest people off the hook just because they refused to admit to
> themselves how dishonest they were being. Not that it matters, everyone
> teaching anti-science creationism knows that scientific evidence has
> shown that their doctrines are false. They know they are lying, they
> just refuse to admit it.
No. You would like to portray them as dishonest because it suits your own
prejudices. That is because you are a bigot who cannot accept that other
people have different evidence procedures to your own and consequently have
different beliefs to your own. Many, many scientists have different beliefs
about a whole range of issues because they select and interpret evidence
differently. Some of them may be right; others may be mistaken. That does
not make them liars.
I see you have no argument as to why it is nonsense - just a bland assertion
that it is. An entirely predictable response.
>>>>> I just expect that a long, slow process of education will make
>>>>> creationism an embarrassment for everyone but the looniest religious
>>>>> zealot and that even conservative Christians will roundly condemn the
>>>>> lies told by folks like Ken Ham and Carl Baugh.
>>>>
>>>>I expect that they will continue to think whatever it is that it suits
>>>>them
>>>>to think. I expect that you will do the same as well. I also expect
>>>>that
>>>>you will deny being a zealot yourself despite the continuing
>>>>accumulation
>>>>of
>>>>evidence to the contrary.
>>>
>>> Yes, it does suit them, but it is still a false doctrine and they know
>>> they are lying. Of course they know that they have suckers who will pay
>>> them to continue the lies, so they do.
>>
>>It may well be a false doctrine, whether they actually know it is and are
>>therefore lying is another matter entirely.
>
> It is lying. If they don't know, they intentionally don't know. The
> leadership absolutely knows that they are lying.
I assume you intentionally didn't know what 'lie' meant? Maybe you
absolutely knew you were lying?
Yes, it is about belief. Your belief that anyone who thinks differently to
you and expresses those beliefs is automatically dishonest, and that belief
is predicated on the assumption that everyone should study the 'evidence'
that you have studied and come to the conclusions that you have, and that if
they don't that is evidence of dishonesty. You have a clear excuse: you are
a bigot.
Tabula Rasa
No. They were overwhelmingly Nazi. The Nazis 'associated' themselves with
religion when it suited them, and disassociated themselves from it on a
similar basis. You make the assumption that because Germany was
predominantly Christian, the Nazis were Christian? You might as well
suggest that Concentration Camps were Jewish on the basis that most of the
Kapos and Zonderkommando that had to work there were Jewish. The Nazis were
a political party for whom religion was at times a useful propaganda tool
and at other times an irrelevance.
Matt Silberstein
Which does not mean they were not Christian.
> The Nazis 'associated' themselves with
>religion when it suited them, and disassociated themselves from it on a
>similar basis.
Please show that the people running the camps and the people running
the trains and the people doing mass killing in the field were not
Christian.
>You make the assumption that because Germany was
>predominantly Christian, the Nazis were Christian? You might as well
>suggest that Concentration Camps were Jewish on the basis that most of the
>Kapos and Zonderkommando that had to work there were Jewish.
If you can't see the problem with that I can't help you.
>The Nazis were
>a political party for whom religion was at times a useful propaganda tool
>and at other times an irrelevance.
And they built upon centuries of deadly anti-Semitism.
It is funny, but this last weekend I was at the Jewish museum in NYC.
They have an exhibit of Max Lieberman's paintings. One of them, _The
Twelve-Year-Old Jesus in the Temple_ (1879) caused him major trouble.
The Bavarian Parliament strongly objected because Lieberman made
Christ look like a Jew. Lieberman changed the painting to make him
look Aryan. (Still a magnificent painting with amazing narrative
ability.) Do you think that they were actually Nazis or were they
Christians?
Budikka666
That's why I told you to look it up, so you could use the scientific
method and verify it for yourself.. Then you can see that it's the
official definition, but if you're too stupid or lazy or arrogant to do
that, then there's no educating you whatsoever, and you'll continue to
go through life as dumb as you are now.
> Evolution
> can be used as loosely as people having offspring and saying that there
> is now a brand new, never before seen individual. That is not
> evolution for any kind of proof. A global forum with a handful of
> people. You must think of yourself on the stage ready to accept the
> Oscar...LOL.
Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is the *only* scientific
theory which explains that fact. It has 150 years of solid science
backing it up. It has *never* failed any test to which it has been
put. People from every nation and every religion accept evolution.
Without the Theory of Evolution, you would not be able to get the
medical treatment you so desperately need.
Any time you want to formally debate it, I'm right here. Let's see you
put up your **POSTIIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE** which refutes evolution or
which establishes an alternative explanation for the diversity and
distribution of life. Let's see it right here, right now.
I'll bet you have *nothing*.
> > > > >usually, conveniently, tries to divorce itself from 'origins'. They
> > > >
> > > > Because it has nothing to wit origins. Not for any imagined
> > > > "convenience" lying creationists pretend.
> > > >
> > > Then by your definition, Creation was responsible for the origin and
> > > evolution takes care of the rest.
> >
> > There was no creation, unelss you ahve valid and useful evidence to
> > suggest otherwise. Do you? No, you don't. Science explains
> > everything we know about the natural world, and we're getting closer to
> > an understanding even of origins.
> >
> You have no evolution at the beginning unless you have valid evidence
> otherwise.
150 years of it is in the sicence journals. Go read it, numbnuts.
> See how that works, when you word it different?
I see how you don;t work - how you have nothing but childish whining
born of shronic ignorance. **WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE THAT SOME GOD
CREATED US?** Put up or shut up.
Right now the score is:
Evolution 150 (years of evidence)
You: NOTHING
Free Lunch
"Tabula Rasa" <tab...@rasa.com> wrote in <e7s6hc$rdj$1...@nntp.aioe.org>:
Fine, your defense of creationists is that they are profoundly deluded.
>See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie
>
>And contrast that with 'mistake'
>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mistake
>
>and error: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/error
>
>Liars intend to deceive. If there is no intention of deceiving there is no
>lie. By your own logic your inability to understand what 'lie' means and
>subsequent misuse of the word to describe people who express a personal
>belief that you disagree with makes you a liar. By my logic you are simply
>mistaken. Which are you; a liar or simply mistaken?
The creationists do intend to sell their religious doctrine. They don't
care whether they deceive or not. If you are a witness in court and you
make a statement about something and tell a falsehood while not caring
whether you are telling a falsehood or not, you are engaging in a crime.
Here, you decide to use the tightest possible definition of lie, but
certainly not the only possible definition, to excuse the repetition of
lies by creationists. Why bother?
>Sorry, but you are letting too
>> many dishonest people off the hook just because they refused to admit to
>> themselves how dishonest they were being. Not that it matters, everyone
>> teaching anti-science creationism knows that scientific evidence has
>> shown that their doctrines are false. They know they are lying, they
>> just refuse to admit it.
>
>No. You would like to portray them as dishonest because it suits your own
>prejudices. That is because you are a bigot who cannot accept that other
>people have different evidence procedures to your own and consequently have
>different beliefs to your own. Many, many scientists have different beliefs
>about a whole range of issues because they select and interpret evidence
>differently. Some of them may be right; others may be mistaken. That does
>not make them liars.
I have a strong commitment to the evidence. You, falsely, call that
prejudice. Of course you cannot point to any biologists who reject all
of the evidence for evolution or cosmologists who reject the ancient age
of the universe. Since that is true, the dishonest claims of
creationists are lies because the creationists know that scientists
disagree with them.
Yes, because it is nonsense. You have nothing to support your assertion
so you choose to attack when I point out that your statement was
nonsense.
Your first sentence here is false. Objectivity is not a myth. It is true
that people are not always as objective as we would like in the ideal,
but that is a failing of people, not the lack of objectivity. The
evidence is what we find. It is not subjective. The knowledge that has
been derived from this evidence is also objective. You aren't seriously
implying that a nuclear explosion is just subjective or that a
concussion or cancer cannot be identified, are you? Those are objective
things.
...
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it does suit them, but it is still a false doctrine and they know
>>>> they are lying. Of course they know that they have suckers who will pay
>>>> them to continue the lies, so they do.
>>>
>>>It may well be a false doctrine, whether they actually know it is and are
>>>therefore lying is another matter entirely.
>>
>> It is lying. If they don't know, they intentionally don't know. The
>> leadership absolutely knows that they are lying.
>
>I assume you intentionally didn't know what 'lie' meant? Maybe you
>absolutely knew you were lying?
I intentionally reject your extremely narrow definition of lie. I'll
accept any definition of lie that will get you sanctioned in court if
you engage in it -- any kind of false witness. Just because you tell me
that you aren't lying, that you really believe the falsehoods you
repeat, that doesn't excuse them if you are a witness and had the duty
to do a bit better than intentionally delude yourself. Your argument
implies that Lay and Skilling should not have been convicted because
they said they weren't lying.
...
>>>>>You conveniently ignore this part of the argument (yet have confirmed
>>>>>your
>>>>>own ubermensch mentality)?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I ignored this because it had nothing to do with the point I was
>>>> trying to make. I disagree with your claims about my attitude, but that
>>>> won't change your own hubris, so I don't see any point in following it
>>>> up.
>>>
>>>Your 'point' was that creationists are liars. It's not a point so much as
>>>it is a highly generalized slur on a wide group of people who simply have
>>>different beliefs to your own.
>>>
>> This isn't about belief. It's about making false claims in spite of the
>> evidence and anti-science creationists are making those false claims.
>> They have no excuses.
>
>Yes, it is about belief. Your belief that anyone who thinks differently to
>you and expresses those beliefs is automatically dishonest, and that belief
>is predicated on the assumption that everyone should study the 'evidence'
>that you have studied and come to the conclusions that you have, and that if
>they don't that is evidence of dishonesty. You have a clear excuse: you are
>a bigot.
Refusing to accept lies is not bigotry. Evidence is real. It is testable
and verifiable. You have attacked with false claims, apparently trying
to defend the lies of creationists or just defending the proposition
that we cannot know anything. Of course you try to sell this using
technology that relies on the evidence that scientists have gathered. I
guess that your computer is just subjective, too. Maybe you didn't write
arrant nonsense, but it got turned into it when it propagated over the
net.
I have no idea why anyone would want to defend the lies of creationists
and other anti-science liars, like George Bush and his nonsense about
global warming, but you choose to do it. I oppose these lies and stand
up against them.