Dawkins admits......
All-Seeing-I
free
podcast on Itunes)
Dawkins opened: "As an academic scientist I am a passionate Darwinian
believing that natural selection is, if not the only driving force in
evolution, certainly the only known force capable of producing the
illusion of purpose which so strikes all who contemplate nature".
But at the same time I support Darwinism as a scientist I am a
passionate ANTI-DARWINIAN when it comes to politics and how we should
conduct our human affairs."
"I would not like to live in a society which is run on Darwinian
principles while fully acknowledging that the brains and bodies that
we
possess were put there by Darwinian principles in the first place".
"If you try to apply the lessons of Social Darwinism as the social
Darwinists did to human society, then you end up with a kind of super
Thatcherism, or even Hitler".
________________________________
Well now. It seems the modern-day-father of atheism and grand poo-baah
of evolution thinks evolutionary thinking is bad for a society and
could even lead to the rebirth of such things as Thatcherism, or even
another Hitler.
Well. Hell. I will have to agree.
We DO seem to be leaning toward the destruction of religion and of the
family on a planatary wide basis these days.
Let's see. The bible says something about there being a one world
government led by an anti-christian (aka; anti-christ) and we will
all have to worship it and it's beliefs or we will not even be able to
buy and sell.
Buckle in dumb-boyz n stupid-Grrrls
The worst parts of the bible are unfolding before your eyes with the
evolutionists in America playing their tiny part as pawns in a game
that is slowing taking place but has some pretty high steaks.
--
Revealing the Book of Revelation with,,,
The All Seeing I
Bruce Stephens
> WNYC Radio Lab Podcast "In Defense Of Darwinism? (available as a
> free
> podcast on Itunes)
[...]
> "If you try to apply the lessons of Social Darwinism as the social
> Darwinists did to human society, then you end up with a kind of super
> Thatcherism, or even Hitler".
>
> ________________________________
>
> Well now. It seems the modern-day-father of atheism and grand poo-baah
> of evolution thinks evolutionary thinking is bad for a society and
> could even lead to the rebirth of such things as Thatcherism, or even
> another Hitler.
Social Darwinism, yes. When has Dawkins ever supported Social
Darwinism?
[...]
Dave Fritzinger
Is that what you get served if you are flying first class, "high
steaks"?
Inez
> WNYC Radio Lab Podcast �"In Defense Of Darwinism? (available as a
> free
> podcast on Itunes)
>
> Dawkins opened: "As an academic scientist I am a passionate Darwinian
> believing that natural selection is, if not the only driving force in
> evolution, certainly the only known force capable of producing the
> illusion of purpose which so strikes all who contemplate nature".
> But at the same time I support Darwinism as a scientist I am a
> passionate ANTI-DARWINIAN when it comes to politics and how we should
> conduct our human affairs."
>
> "I would not like to live in a society which is run on Darwinian
> principles while fully acknowledging that the brains and bodies that
> we
> possess were put there by Darwinian principles in the first place".
>
> "If you try to apply the lessons of Social Darwinism as the social
> Darwinists did to human society, then you end up with a kind of super
> Thatcherism, or even Hitler".
>
> ________________________________
>
> Well now. It seems the modern-day-father of atheism and grand poo-baah
> of evolution thinks evolutionary thinking is bad for a society and
> could even lead to the rebirth of such things as Thatcherism, or even
> another Hitler.
Social darwinism has nothing to do with evolution. I believe in
gravity but that doesn't mean I want to jump off a building.
>
> The worst parts of the bible are unfolding before your eyes with the
> evolutionists in America playing their tiny part as pawns in a game
> that is slowing taking place but has some pretty high steaks.
>
I agree that the religious right in a boil on America's butt.
Davej
> [...]
> The worst parts of the bible are unfolding before your eyes with the
> evolutionists in America playing their tiny part as pawns in a game
> that is slowing taking place but has some pretty high steaks.
Lessee... the idiot Christians are trying to achieve armageddon and
yet blame it on atheists rather than their own psychotic fairytale
beliefs.
John Harshman
> WNYC Radio Lab Podcast "In Defense Of Darwinism? (available as a
> free
> podcast on Itunes)
>
> Dawkins opened: "As an academic scientist I am a passionate Darwinian
> believing that natural selection is, if not the only driving force in
> evolution, certainly the only known force capable of producing the
> illusion of purpose which so strikes all who contemplate nature".
> But at the same time I support Darwinism as a scientist I am a
> passionate ANTI-DARWINIAN when it comes to politics and how we should
> conduct our human affairs."
>
>
> "I would not like to live in a society which is run on Darwinian
> principles while fully acknowledging that the brains and bodies that
> we
> possess were put there by Darwinian principles in the first place".
>
>
> "If you try to apply the lessons of Social Darwinism as the social
> Darwinists did to human society, then you end up with a kind of super
> Thatcherism, or even Hitler".
>
> ________________________________
>
> Well now. It seems the modern-day-father of atheism and grand poo-baah
> of evolution thinks evolutionary thinking is bad for a society and
> could even lead to the rebirth of such things as Thatcherism, or even
> another Hitler.
No he doesn't. You are confused as usual. He's also an anti-Newtonian.
He doesn't think that just because things fall in nature, we should push
other people out of tall buildings.
He's denying the naturalistic fallacy. And you, in misconstruing his
statement, import just that fallacy back into the discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
[snip Revelations nonsense]
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>Well now. It seems the modern-day-father of atheism
he is? how come i don't call him 'dad'?
i've never read dawkins and really don't care what he says.
so much for the 'father of atheism'.
and grand poo-baah
>of evolution thinks evolutionary thinking is bad for a society and
>could even lead to the rebirth of such things as Thatcherism, or even
>another Hitler.
no one cares what he says
>
>Well. Hell. I will have to agree.
as opposed to 19 centuries of christians owing slaves?
as opposed to 2000 years of christians killing jews?
>We DO seem to be leaning toward the destruction of religion and of the
>family on a planatary wide basis these days.
glad tdings you bring
>
>Let's see. The bible says something about there being a one world
>government led by an anti-christian (aka; anti-christ) and we will
>all have to worship it and it's beliefs or we will not even be able to
>buy and sell.
if religion is dying then how can there be a 1 world religion or
anti-religion?
jesus you guys are dumb
>
>Buckle in dumb-boyz n stupid-Grrrls
>
>The worst parts of the bible are unfolding before your eyes with the
>evolutionists in America playing their tiny part as pawns in a game
>that is slowing taking place but has some pretty high steaks.
as opposed to fundamentalists who fly planes into buildings
you guys are all alike
johnetho...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Never that I know of. ASI is just being a liar as always.
Sapient Fridge
<362bb50f-32b8-48ea...@e22g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
All-Seeing-I <allse...@usa.com> writes
>WNYC Radio Lab Podcast "In Defense Of Darwinism? (available as a
>free
>podcast on Itunes)
>
>Dawkins opened: "As an academic scientist I am a passionate Darwinian
>believing that natural selection is, if not the only driving force in
>evolution, certainly the only known force capable of producing the
>illusion of purpose which so strikes all who contemplate nature".
>But at the same time I support Darwinism as a scientist I am a
>passionate ANTI-DARWINIAN when it comes to politics and how we should
>conduct our human affairs."
>
>
>"I would not like to live in a society which is run on Darwinian
>principles while fully acknowledging that the brains and bodies that
>we
>possess were put there by Darwinian principles in the first place".
>
>
>"If you try to apply the lessons of Social Darwinism as the social
>Darwinists did to human society, then you end up with a kind of super
>Thatcherism, or even Hitler".
>
>________________________________
>
>Well now. It seems the modern-day-father of atheism and grand poo-baah
>of evolution thinks evolutionary thinking is bad for a society and
>could even lead to the rebirth of such things as Thatcherism, or even
>another Hitler.
The most successful evolutionary systems are co-operative. Your own
body is made of trillions of cells, all co-operating. What does that
say for your hypothesis?
BTW: We at least agree that Thatcher was evil ;-)
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
Greg G.
> On Dec 2, 11:51�am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> > The worst parts of the bible are unfolding before your eyes with the
> > evolutionists in America playing their tiny part as pawns in a game
> > that is slowing taking place but has some pretty high steaks.
>
> Is that what you get served if you are flying first class, "high
> steaks"?
I think they come from the same restaurant that serves real "pot"
roast.
chibiabos
<362bb50f-32b8-48ea...@e22g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
All-Seeing-I <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
> WNYC Radio Lab Podcast "In Defense Of Darwinism? (available as a
> free
> podcast on Itunes)
>
> Dawkins opened: "As an academic scientist I am a passionate Darwinian
> believing that natural selection is, if not the only driving force in
> evolution, certainly the only known force capable of producing the
> illusion of purpose which so strikes all who contemplate nature".
> But at the same time I support Darwinism as a scientist I am a
> passionate ANTI-DARWINIAN when it comes to politics and how we should
> conduct our human affairs."
>
>
> "I would not like to live in a society which is run on Darwinian
> principles while fully acknowledging that the brains and bodies that
> we
> possess were put there by Darwinian principles in the first place".
>
>
> "If you try to apply the lessons of Social Darwinism as the social
> Darwinists did to human society, then you end up with a kind of super
> Thatcherism, or even Hitler".
Or even:
"Who trusted God was love indeed
And love Creation's final law
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and claw
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed."
But you won't get the Tennyson quote, any more than you get anything
else.
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
Boikat
> free
> podcast on Itunes)
>
> Dawkins opened: "As an academic scientist I am a passionate Darwinian
> believing that natural selection is, if not the only driving force in
> evolution, certainly the only known force capable of producing the
> illusion of purpose which so strikes all who contemplate nature".
> But at the same time I support Darwinism as a scientist I am a
> passionate ANTI-DARWINIAN when it comes to politics and how we should
> conduct our human affairs."
>
> "I would not like to live in a society which is run on Darwinian
> principles while fully acknowledging that the brains and bodies that
> we
> possess were put there by Darwinian principles in the first place".
>
> "If you try to apply the lessons of Social Darwinism as the social
> Darwinists did to human society, then you end up with a kind of super
> Thatcherism, or even Hitler".
>
> ________________________________
>
> Well now. It seems the modern-day-father of atheism and grand poo-baah
> of evolution thinks evolutionary thinking is bad for a society and
> could even lead to the rebirth of such things as Thatcherism, or even
> another Hitler.
>
Illiterate moron. Re-read his last two paragraphs until you get a
clue.
> Well. Hell. I will have to agree.
> We DO seem to be leaning toward the destruction of religion and of the
> family on a planatary wide basis these days.
>
> Let's see. The bible says something about there being a one world
> government led by an anti-christian �(aka; anti-christ) and we will
> all have to worship it and it's beliefs or we will not even be able to
> buy and sell.
>
> Buckle in dumb-boyz n stupid-Grrrls
>
> The worst parts of the bible are unfolding before your eyes with the
> evolutionists in America playing their tiny part as pawns in a game
> that is slowing taking place but has some pretty high steaks.
Go rattle you beads at someone who'll believe that crap.
Boikat
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-Seeing-I
<allse...@usa.com>:
>WNYC Radio Lab Podcast "In Defense Of Darwinism? (available as a
>free
>podcast on Itunes)
>
>Dawkins opened: "As an academic scientist I am a passionate Darwinian
>believing that natural selection is, if not the only driving force in
>evolution, certainly the only known force capable of producing the
>illusion of purpose which so strikes all who contemplate nature".
>But at the same time I support Darwinism as a scientist I am a
>passionate ANTI-DARWINIAN when it comes to politics and how we should
>conduct our human affairs."
>
>
>"I would not like to live in a society which is run on Darwinian
>principles while fully acknowledging that the brains and bodies that
>we
>possess were put there by Darwinian principles in the first place".
>
>
>"If you try to apply the lessons of Social Darwinism as the social
>Darwinists did to human society, then you end up with a kind of super
>Thatcherism, or even Hitler".
>
>________________________________
>
>Well now. It seems the modern-day-father of atheism and grand poo-baah
>of evolution thinks evolutionary thinking is bad for a society and
>could even lead to the rebirth of such things as Thatcherism, or even
>another Hitler.
As long as ignorance exists anything can be misused. Perhaps
universal education in science (and *especially* in logic)
is the answer? It might even work for the science
illiterates who post here.
<snip>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Hatunen
<bruce+...@cenderis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Well now. It seems the modern-day-father of atheism and grand poo-baah
>> of evolution thinks evolutionary thinking is bad for a society and
>> could even lead to the rebirth of such things as Thatcherism, or even
>> another Hitler.
>
>Social Darwinism, yes. When has Dawkins ever supported Social
>Darwinism?
"Social Darwinism" sounds so quaint now... Something out of the
Victorian and Edwardian age...
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Hatunen
wrote:
>On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 13:51:44 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
><allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Well now. It seems the modern-day-father of atheism
>
>he is? how come i don't call him 'dad'?
>
>i've never read dawkins and really don't care what he says.
I'm sure he'll be crushed...
All-Seeing-I
wrote:
> In message
> <362bb50f-32b8-48ea-9d7f-cbc385aab...@e22g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
> All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> writes
Al of those complex cells working in concert together just so happened
because of a random force, eh?
Don't think soooo
>
> BTW: We at least agree that Thatcher was evil ;-)
great minds meet in the middle, ;P
Caranx latus
<snip>
>> The most successful evolutionary systems are co-operative. Your own
>> body is made of trillions of cells, all co-operating. What does that
>> say for your hypothesis?
>
> Al of those complex cells working in concert together just so happened
> because of a random force, eh?
>
> Don't think soooo
Are you suggesting that God is actively keeping the bodies of every
living thing on this planet together and functioning? That without his
active participation, our bodies would spontaneously stop functioning
and disassemble?
All-Seeing-I
> In article
> <362bb50f-32b8-48ea-9d7f-cbc385aab...@e22g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
Typical Smug Atheist
Of course you omitted the other dozens upon dozens of lines to the
poem,
But to give you a reply that is approiate for an atheist:
The bible repeatetly says man is dust. And to dust man will return.
There is only one way to avoid being turned back into the simple
minerals and biological matter that you are that you are. Everyone
must face this first death.
If you ponder the brutality of nature, don't; And don't ask God to
save you from it; He won't. So Don't beg,
Man was given the earth as a gift, But now the earth will be given
man as a gift instead.
It is the second death you should be concerned with. But Tennyson did
not realize that when his friend died.
You do the math on the rest
guscubed
How do you know that the references to man being as dust are not
METAPHOR's as you claim the biblical ideas of cosmology are?
>
> If you ponder the brutality of nature, don't; And don't ask God to
> save you from it; He won't. So Don't beg,
Why won't Gawd save you from death? I thought he promised to do just
that about 2000 years ago, of course he also said that it would happen
during the lifetimes of those present when he said it, maybe there's
some reaaally old Jewish dude grimly hanging on somewhere in Israel.
Besides this is sounding suspiciously like something a Christian would
say, but you've already denied many times that you are a Christian.
>
> �Man was given the earth as a gift, But now the earth will be given
> man as a gift instead.
>
> It is the second death you should be concerned with. But Tennyson did
> not realize that when his friend died.
>
> You do the math on the rest
The math is that you're terrified of death and would rather cling
desperately to your delusions in the vain hope that your 'three score
years and ten' is not all that you have. Of course if you'd spent your
time living a fulfilling life instead of constantly berating and
judging others by some bronze-age moral code you might not find your
existence to be so miserable.
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't suppose you read the story of chicken little, have you?
Just because there have been others in the past that cried: "The Sky
Is Falling" and it didn't, does not mean that it --will --not --
happen.
The time is ripe boikitty.
Just the right events, in just the right sequence, actually appear to
be lining up.
You may be running O.U.T of time.
You should consider it.
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Revelation is not nonsense JH
You heard it here first.
All-seeing-I
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 13:51:44 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-Seeing-I
Well. There ya go. Dawkins is right. You advocate universal education
to correct what you consider to be ignorance. THAT is Thatcher-ism.
You could even be a mini version of Hitler with that kinda thinking.
But as Dawkins said, he would "not like to live in a society which is
run on Darwinian principles". But you do. You desire Darwinian
principals for a society while "fully acknowledging that the brains
and bodies that we possess were put there by Darwinian principles in
the first place".
You seem to be a perfect example for what Darwin is saying.
urrmm.
yes
thanks.
macaddicted
iTunes Link (11/23/09: "Happy Birthday Evolution"):
<http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/browserRedirect?url=i
tms%253A%252F%252Fitunes.apple.com%252FWebObjects%252FMZStore.woa%252Fwa
%252FviewPodcast%253Fid%253D73331636%2526subMediaType%253DAudio>
WNYC link (download mp3 below "radio" display)
<http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/2009/11/24/segments/144916>
[snip]
> Well now. It seems the modern-day-father of atheism and grand poo-baah
> of evolution thinks evolutionary thinking is bad for a society and
> could even lead to the rebirth of such things as Thatcherism, or even
> another Hitler.
Wow. First paragraph of the commentary portion of the OP and we're into
Godwin's law.
I suppose someone else will come along to explain how lower taxes,
privitization and free markets led to National Socialism.
>
> Well. Hell. I will have to agree.
> We DO seem to be leaning toward the destruction of religion and of the
> family on a planatary wide basis these days.
>
> Let's see. The bible says something about there being a one world
> government led by an anti-christian (aka; anti-christ) and we will
> all have to worship it and it's beliefs or we will not even be able to
> buy and sell.
Which brings up the question of how smaller government Thatcherism is
going to bring this about.
I'll hazard a guess: Hell is only being able to buy stuff from the
government but having no government to buy it from?
>
> Buckle in dumb-boyz n stupid-Grrrls
Nah, as your interpretation of Revelation is inherently anti-Catholic I
won't.
>
> The worst parts of the bible are unfolding before your eyes with the
> evolutionists in America playing their tiny part as pawns in a game
> that is slowing taking place but has some pretty high steaks.
>
NOW I understand! ASI is working with a pop-up Bible!
> --
> Revealing the Book of Revelation with,,,
>
> The All Seeing I
This edition of mis-interpreting the Bible brought to you by Paranoia.
Paranoia, they'll get you sooner or later.
--
macaddicted
Wisdom is radiant and unfading and she is easily discerned
by those who love her and is found by those who seek her.
Wisdom 6:12 (NRSV)
Caranx latus
> On Dec 2, 7:22 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
<snip>
>>> Well. Hell. I will have to agree.
>>> We DO seem to be leaning toward the destruction of religion and of the
>>> family on a planatary wide basis these days.
>>> Let's see. The bible says something about there being a one world
>>> government led by an anti-christian (aka; anti-christ) and we will
>>> all have to worship it and it's beliefs or we will not even be able to
>>> buy and sell.
>>> Buckle in dumb-boyz n stupid-Grrrls
>>> The worst parts of the bible are unfolding before your eyes with the
>>> evolutionists in America playing their tiny part as pawns in a game
>>> that is slowing taking place but has some pretty high steaks.
>> Go rattle you beads at someone who'll believe that crap.
>>
>> Boikat
>
> I don't suppose you read the story of chicken little, have you?
>
> Just because there have been others in the past that cried: "The Sky
> Is Falling" and it didn't, does not mean that it --will --not --
> happen.
In the story of Chicken Little, the sky never does fall. Rather Chicken
Little suffers from self-induced hysteria, and actively recruits others
into that same hysteria. It's your metaphor...
<snip>
Eric Root
>
(snip)
All of us think social darwinism is a crock. It is inappropriately
trying to apply a layman's misconception of survival of the fittest to
society. Biological science owes less apology for it than mainstream
Christianity owes for the pro-slavery stance of the old Southern
Baptists.
Eric Root
Andre Lieven
> On Dec 2, 4:51�pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> All of us think social darwinism is a crock. �It is inappropriately
> trying to apply a layman's misconception of survival of the fittest to
> society. � Biological science owes less apology for it
Biological science owes precisely no apology for it, because it
was the tarted up product of *theft* FROM the sciences.
> than mainstream
> Christianity owes for the pro-slavery stance of the old Southern
> Baptists.
With lots more such where that came from...
Andre
guscubed
Chez Watt in the category: Fumbling fables: Boy who cried wolf,
Chicken Little, what's the difference?
> I don't suppose you read the story of chicken little, have you?
>
> Just because there have been others in the past that cried: "The Sky
> Is Falling" and it didn't, does not mean that it --will --not --
> happen.
>
<snip>
John Harshman
So, you didn't comment on this. Do you agree you were wrong?
>> [snip Revelations nonsense]
>
> Revelation is not nonsense JH
>
> You heard it here first.
No I didn't. I've heard that from every fundy before you. I agree it
isn't nonsense, quite. But the part that isn't nonsense appears to be a
veiled assault on the legitimacy of the Roman Empire. It has nothing to
do with anything that's actually going to happen in the future, much
less anything that's happening now.
If you have any argument to the contrary, present it now.
John Harshman
Still, you have to admire his implicit acknowledgment that he believes
the sky to be a solid dome. Biblical literalism at its best!
SortingItOut
> On Dec 2, 7:22�ｿｽpm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 3:51�ｿｽpm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > WNYC Radio Lab Podcast �ｿｽ"In Defense Of Darwinism? (available as a
> > > free
> > > podcast on Itunes)
>
> > > Dawkins opened: "As an academic scientist I am a passionate Darwinian
> > > believing that natural selection is, if not the only driving force in
> > > evolution, certainly the only known force capable of producing the
> > > illusion of purpose which so strikes all who contemplate nature".
> > > But at the same time I support Darwinism as a scientist I am a
> > > passionate ANTI-DARWINIAN when it comes to politics and how we should
> > > conduct our human affairs."
>
> > > "I would not like to live in a society which is run on Darwinian
> > > principles while fully acknowledging that the brains and bodies that
> > > we
> > > possess were put there by Darwinian principles in the first place".
>
> > > "If you try to apply the lessons of Social Darwinism as the social
> > > Darwinists did to human society, then you end up with a kind of super
> > > Thatcherism, or even Hitler".
>
> > > ________________________________
>
> > > Well now. It seems the modern-day-father of atheism and grand poo-baah
> > > of evolution thinks evolutionary thinking is bad for a society and
> > > could even lead to the rebirth of such things as Thatcherism, or even
> > > another Hitler.
>
> > clue.
>
> > > Well. Hell. I will have to agree.
> > > We DO seem to be leaning toward the destruction of religion and of the
> > > family on a planatary wide basis these days.
>
> > > Let's see. The bible says something about there being a one world
> > > all have to worship it and it's beliefs or we will not even be able to
> > > buy and sell.
>
> > > Buckle in dumb-boyz n stupid-Grrrls
>
> > > The worst parts of the bible are unfolding before your eyes with the
> > > evolutionists in America playing their tiny part as pawns in a game
> > > that is slowing taking place but has some pretty high steaks.
>
> > Go rattle you beads at someone who'll believe that crap.
>
> > Boikat- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I don't suppose you read the story of chicken little, have you?
>
> Just because there have been others in the past that cried: "The Sky
> Is Falling" and it didn't, does not mean that it --will --not --
> happen.
>
> The time is ripe boikitty.
>
> Just the right events, in just the right sequence, actually appear to
> be lining up.
>
> You may be running O.U.T of time.
>
> You should consider it.
Why should he consider it?
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Don't think
We know that already Mudbrain.
Now, stop wasting time and start backing up your wild claims.
Remember, we are starting with these two.
1) That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
[Message-ID: <e3xDk.44738$De7....@bignews7.bellsouth.net>]
2) That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
[Message-ID: <3Olyk.31543$Ep1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net>]
If you have any sense you will just admit you were wrong.
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.
AlwaysAskingQuestions
A heap of utter nonsense.
Nevertheless, there is something in Dawkins words that needs to be picked up
on, it's the sort of thing that Dawkins does that IMO makes him at times as
bad as the fundies he opposes:
> "I would not like to live in a society which is run on Darwinian
> principles while fully acknowledging that the brains and bodies that
> we
> possess were put there by Darwinian principles in the first place".
He is absolutely right that our bodies were developed by evolution, the
evidence is overwhelming, but there is no such overwhelming evidence - very
little real evidence, in fact - that our brains are a product of evolution.
An assumption that because our bodies evolved, our brains must have evolved
too is just that - an assumption, not a scientific conclusion.
(Obviously by "brain" I am referring to the capabilities of the human mind,
not just the cells that physically make it up.)
Garamond Lethe
I think "brain" is usually used as an anatomical term while "mind" refers to
the capabilities.
Brain: the portion of the vertebrate central nervous system enclosed in the
skull and continuous with the spinal cord through the foramen magnum that is
composed of neurons and supporting and nutritive structures (as glia) and that
integrates sensory information from inside and outside the body in controlling
autonomic function (as heartbeat and respiration), in coordinating and
directing correlated motor responses, and in the process of learning.
Mind: : the element or complex of elements in an individual that feels,
perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons b : the conscious mental
events and capabilities in an organism c : the organized conscious and
unconscious adaptive mental activity of an organism.
(Merriam Webster)
As to our minds not evolving, I think it really depends on where you draw the
line. Our empathy and lanaguage abilities appear to have evolved, but our
mathematical abilities are probably learned. Music? I don't know.
This is a reasonable place to start to read more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_human_intelligence
bpuharic
>On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:04:59 -0500, bpuharic <wf...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 13:51:44 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>><allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Well now. It seems the modern-day-father of atheism
>>
>>he is? how come i don't call him 'dad'?
>>
>>i've never read dawkins and really don't care what he says.
>
>I'm sure he'll be crushed...
mebbe he'll consider me the prodigal son :-)
AlwaysAskingQuestions
"Appear to" is a reasonable statement and a good place to start
investigation but does not form a scientifiv conclusion.
> but our mathematical abilities are probably learned. Music?
> I don't know.
>
> This is a reasonable place to start to read more:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_human_intelligence
The first sentence in that article reads "The evolution of human
intelligence refers to a set of theories ..."
That's wrong. What we have in regard to the evolution of intelligence is, at
best, a set of *hypotheses*, not a set of *theories*. Science can't even
agree what intelligence is, let alone agree where it came from.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>I don't suppose you read the story of chicken little, have you?
>
>Just because there have been others in the past that cried: "The Sky
>Is Falling" and it didn't, does not mean that it --will --not --
>happen.
for thousands of years? billions of people
how many wrong answers do you guys need to realize that you're wrong?
2000 years of failure and STILL you don't get it...
Eric Root
> is still alive. Many "libertarians" still use ideas like "survival of the
> fittest" to argue against social security and even charity.
True, but my point was that people who accept evolution as a real
biological are not responsible in any way for "social darwinism."
It's only called "darwinism" as a sort of metaphor, and has nothing to
do with actual scientific theory. Creationists are showing their poor
raising by coming to talk.origins and and waving "social darwinism" at
us.
Eric Root
Eric Root
> On Dec 2, 7:22�ｿｽpm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 3:51�ｿｽpm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > WNYC Radio Lab Podcast �ｿｽ"In Defense Of Darwinism? (available as a
> > > free
> > > podcast on Itunes)
>
> > > Dawkins opened: "As an academic scientist I am a passionate Darwinian
> > > believing that natural selection is, if not the only driving force in
> > > evolution, certainly the only known force capable of producing the
> > > illusion of purpose which so strikes all who contemplate nature".
> > > But at the same time I support Darwinism as a scientist I am a
> > > passionate ANTI-DARWINIAN when it comes to politics and how we should
> > > conduct our human affairs."
>
> > > "I would not like to live in a society which is run on Darwinian
> > > principles while fully acknowledging that the brains and bodies that
> > > we
> > > possess were put there by Darwinian principles in the first place".
>
> > > "If you try to apply the lessons of Social Darwinism as the social
> > > Darwinists did to human society, then you end up with a kind of super
> > > Thatcherism, or even Hitler".
>
> > > ________________________________
>
> > > Well now. It seems the modern-day-father of atheism and grand poo-baah
> > > of evolution thinks evolutionary thinking is bad for a society and
> > > could even lead to the rebirth of such things as Thatcherism, or even
> > > another Hitler.
>
> > clue.
>
> > > Well. Hell. I will have to agree.
> > > We DO seem to be leaning toward the destruction of religion and of the
> > > family on a planatary wide basis these days.
>
> > > Let's see. The bible says something about there being a one world
> > > all have to worship it and it's beliefs or we will not even be able to
> > > buy and sell.
>
> > > Buckle in dumb-boyz n stupid-Grrrls
>
> > > The worst parts of the bible are unfolding before your eyes with the
> > > evolutionists in America playing their tiny part as pawns in a game
> > > that is slowing taking place but has some pretty high steaks.
>
> > Go rattle you beads at someone who'll believe that crap.
>
> > Boikat- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I don't suppose you read the story of chicken little, have you?
>
> Just because there have been others in the past that cried: "The Sky
> Is Falling" and it didn't, does not mean that it --will --not --
> happen.
>
> The time is ripe boikitty.
>
> Just the right events, in just the right sequence, actually appear to
> be lining up.
>
> You may be running O.U.T of time.
>
> You should consider it.
Should consider what?
Eric Root
Garamond Lethe
> Garamond Lethe wrote:
>> On 2009-12-03, AlwaysAskingQuestions
>> alwaysaski...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> As to our minds not evolving, I think it really depends on where you
>> draw the line. Our empathy and lanaguage abilities appear to have
>> evolved,
>
> "Appear to" is a reasonable statement and a good place to start
> investigation but does not form a scientifiv conclusion.
>
>> but our mathematical abilities are probably learned. Music?
>> I don't know.
>>
>> This is a reasonable place to start to read more:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_human_intelligence
>
> The first sentence in that article reads "The evolution of human
> intelligence refers to a set of theories ..."
>
> That's wrong.
Really?
> What we have in regard to the evolution of intelligence is, at
> best, a set of *hypotheses*, not a set of *theories*. Science can't even
> agree what intelligence is, let alone agree where it came from.
The handful of biologists and evolutionary psychologists I've spoken to
about the problem would disagree with that characterization, and it's
also not reflected in the small amount of literature I've read on the
topic.
What have you read that gave you that impression?
Garamond Lethe
From the first paper I picked up:
<q>
Many researchers
have also argued that some of our mental traits and behavioral propensities evolved
as fitness indicators, according to the principles of costly signaling theory. These
mental fitness indicators may include some of our capacities for:
• intelligence (Crow 1996; Furlow et al. 1997; Houle 2000; Miller 2000c; Prokosch et
al. 2005; Zechner et al. 2001),
• creativity (Eysenck 1995; Kanazawa 2000; Miller 1997; 1999a; Shaner et al. 2004),
• status-seeking (Barkow 1989; Buss 2003; Perusse 1993),
• language (Burling 1986; Dessalles 1998; Dunbar et al. 1997; Miller 2000a),
• art (Boas 1955; Hirn 1900; Kohn and Mithen 1999; Miller 2001),
• music (Darwin 1871; Miller 2000d; Sluming and Manning 2000),
• conspicuous altruism (Boone 1998; Goldberg 1995; Hawkes 1993; Hawkes et al.
2001; Lotem et al. 2003; Smith and Bird 2000; Sosis et al. 1998; Tessman 1995;
Zahavi and Zahavi 1997), and
• conspicuous consumption (Conniff 2002; Miller 1999b; Robson 2001; Saad and Gill
2000; Veblen 1899).
</q>
From Haselton, M., & Miller, G. F. (2006). Women's fertility across the cycle
increases the short-term attractiveness of creative intelligence. Human Nature,
17(1), 50-73.
For eight pages of references, see: Miller, G. F. (2007). Sexual selection for
moral virtues. Quarterly Review of Biology, 82(2), 97-125.
It usually takes a bit more than a hypothesis to get into QRB.
There are links to both papers here:
http://www.unm.edu/~psych/faculty/lg_gmiller.html
All-seeing-I
> All-seeing-I wrote:
> > On Dec 2, 4:33 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> All-Seeing-I wrote:
Dawkins clearly drew a parelle between how societies think with an
evolved brain and that he does not want to be a part of one because it
leads to Thatcherism, or even Hitler.
>
> >> [snip Revelations nonsense]
>
> > Revelation is not nonsense JH
>
> > You heard it here first.
>
> No I didn't. I've heard that from every fundy before you. I agree it
> isn't nonsense, quite. But the part that isn't nonsense appears to be a
> veiled assault on the legitimacy of the Roman Empire. It has nothing to
> do with anything that's actually going to happen in the future, much
> less anything that's happening now.
>
> If you have any argument to the contrary, present it now
It only "appears" to be a covert assault against the legitimacy of the
Roman Empire by those looking to rationalize the book that way. The
entire tone of Revelation is prophetic and works toward a final event
at some point in the future. Even one of those 'edcuated' evo-freaks
should be able to gather that. Besides, John was very old. Why would
he want to spend his remaining days on earth writing a book about
current events?
`
Anyway. Knowing how you just love to have evidence for everything,
below is the textual evidence that I base my opinion on:
John describes a great world wide war starting with a kingdom in the
north. It takes place at Meggedo, Israel. (which is where many
historical battles had taken place long before John's time). This war
is commonly called the war of "Armageddon'.
Now, the "7 hills" definitely refers to Rome. But. A final war
involving Rome and a kingdom in the North does not make sense. There
was no country in existance to the north of Rome or Israel that could
wage such a war on the Roman Empire during John's lifetime.This fact
alone is enough to discredit those television shows that present The
Book of Revelation as being during John's time period.
Next. The symbolic animals in revelation were originally identified in
Daniel�s prophecy. So John was just reinforcing prior prophesy about
end times, not about Nero or Rome oppression.
Then, John introduces the Whore of Babalyon in Revelation Chapter 17.
The whore is a metaphor for a great nation. John is clearly describing
as an international power. She "sits on many waters," and is
representing many different peoples (17:15), and she has committed
fornication with "the kings of the earth," and she has inflamed "the
dwellers on earth" with her fornication.
This plainly describes America of today for numerous reasons; Because
in chapter 18, John sees the destruction of the Whore. She is depicted
as a major center of international trade and commerce. When she is
destroyed in chapter 18, we read that "the merchants of the earth weep
and mourn for her, since no one buys their cargo any more" (18:11)
and, "all shipmasters and seafaring men, sailors and all whose trade
is on the sea . . . wept and mourned, crying out, �Alas, alas, for the
great city, where all who had ships at sea grew rich by her
wealth!�" (18:17�19).
It is common knowledge that America is the largest consumer nation on
earth and many countries would go broke should there be no more
America to buy their goods. Which is exactly what will happen should
America collapse.
But OTOH, When Rome fell ---nothing as John has described above or in
the book of revelatiotook place. Which shows that John was describing
a nation of the future. That nation also sounds eerily like America
today.
The country as described was not in existence during John's time and
therefore is another reason why The Book Of Revelation was about the
future..
.
Finally, and what is most compelling to me personally, is this:
"And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy
a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing
before the God of the earth. And if any man will hurt them, fire
proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if
any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed. These have
power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy:
and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the
earth with all plagues, as often as they will." (Revelation 11:3-6)
The world will want these two men dead and that can be shown by what
happens next. After a many months, God will finally permit these two
men to be killed by the Antichrist. Nevertheless, the Antichrist will
neither bury these men, nor allow others to bury them.
"And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that
ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and
shall overcome them, and kill them. And their dead bodies shall lie
in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and
Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see
their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their
dead bodies to be put in graves. And they that dwell upon the earth
shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to
another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the
earth." (Revelation 11:7-10)
It seems the whole world will throw a huge party, celebrating the
murder of these two righteous men. It will seem like "Christmas" or
some other holiday as the whole world eats, laughs, and watches these
two bloody bodies lie there on the street.
It was impossible for every nation, people and languare on earth to
witness dead bodies for several days and do it at the same time before
satellite television. This also suggests the bodies were recorded,
then played back, because otherwise, the bodies would begin the
decomposition process and no one would want to see that for 3 days.
Plus, the news media has quite a reputation for playing the same bad
news over and over for days..
"people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead
bodies three days and an half days"
Watching the corpses on TV or on the Internet, which was not available
during John's life time, is yet another reason why the book of
revelation is about future events and not about events during John's
life time
.
Augray
<ap...@email.com> wrote in
<92d50b2b-c562-4391...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> :
Well, your interpretation of it certainly is.
Augray
<ap...@email.com> wrote in
<707813ea-3e08-4626...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com> :
You're against education?
>THAT is Thatcher-ism.
Cite?
>You could even be a mini version of Hitler with that kinda thinking.
By advocating education?
>But as Dawkins said, he would "not like to live in a society which is
>run on Darwinian principles". But you do. You desire Darwinian
>principals for a society while "fully acknowledging that the brains
>and bodies that we possess were put there by Darwinian principles in
>the first place".
>
>You seem to be a perfect example for what Darwin is saying.
>
>urrmm.
> yes
>
>thanks.
You've completely misunderstood what was being said. But that's no
surprise.
Augray
<allse...@usa.com> wrote in
<362bb50f-32b8-48ea...@e22g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> :
[snip]
>The worst parts of the bible are unfolding before your eyes with the
>evolutionists in America playing their tiny part as pawns in a game
>that is slowing taking place but has some pretty high steaks.
Everyone's going to be fed steak?
Burkhard
<snip>
>
>
>>>> [snip Revelations nonsense]
>>> Revelation is not nonsense JH You heard it here first.
>> No I didn't. I've heard that from every fundy before you. I agree
>> it isn't nonsense, quite. But the part that isn't nonsense appears
>> to be a veiled assault on the legitimacy of the Roman Empire. It
>> has nothing to do with anything that's actually going to happen in
>> the future, much less anything that's happening now.
>>
>> If you have any argument to the contrary, present it now
>
> It only "appears" to be a covert assault against the legitimacy of
> the Roman Empire by those looking to rationalize the book that way.
> The entire tone of Revelation is prophetic and works toward a final
> event at some point in the future. Even one of those 'edcuated'
> evo-freaks should be able to gather that. Besides, John was very old.
> Why would he want to spend his remaining days on earth writing a
> book about current events?
" to reassure the Christians of Asia amid
the persecutions and trials of the end of the first century"
(Pope Benedict XVI)
> ` Anyway. Knowing how you just love to
> have evidence for everything, below is the textual evidence that I
> base my opinion on:
>
> John describes a great world wide war starting with a kingdom in the
> north. It takes place at Meggedo, Israel. (which is where many
> historical battles had taken place long before John's time). This war
> is commonly called the war of "Armageddon'.
>
> Now, the "7 hills" definitely refers to Rome. But. A final war
> involving Rome and a kingdom in the North does not make sense.
But it makes more sense if you replace Rome with the US? What power in
the North of the US will bring it down? Canada?
There
> was no country in existance to the north of Rome or Israel that could
> wage such a war on the Roman Empire during John's lifetime.
Leaving aside the tissue that Rome _was_ eventually brought down by
invaders from the North though after John, so he simply got the dates wrong
This fact
> alone is enough to discredit those television shows that present The
> Book of Revelation as being during John's time period.
>
> Next. The symbolic animals in revelation were originally identified
> in Daniel�s prophecy. So John was just reinforcing prior prophesy
> about end times, not about Nero or Rome oppression.
>
> Then, John introduces the Whore of Babalyon in Revelation Chapter 17.
> The whore is a metaphor for a great nation. John is clearly
> describing as an international power.
yes, Rome
>She "sits on many waters,"
Look up "Mare Nostrum".
see inparticular Saddington, D.B. (2007), "Classes. The Evolution of the
Roman Imperial Fleets", in Erdkamp, Paul, A Companion to the Roman Army,
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.,
in particular p. 208ff on the expansion of the fleet to protect new
trade routes in the tiems of John
and
> is representing many different peoples (17:15),
Rome again. see C. Ando, Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the
Empire. University of California Press, 2000, ch. 3;
F.W. Walbank, �Nationality as a Factor in Roman History�, Harvard
Studies in Classical Philology 76, 1972, pp.145-168.
and she has committed
> fornication with "the kings of the earth," and she has inflamed "the
> dwellers on earth" with her fornication.
>
> This plainly describes America of today for numerous reasons; Because
> in chapter 18, John sees the destruction of the Whore. She is
> depicted as a major center of international trade and commerce. When
> she is destroyed in chapter 18, we read that "the merchants of the
> earth weep and mourn for her, since no one buys their cargo any more"
> (18:11) and, "all shipmasters and seafaring men, sailors and all
> whose trade is on the sea . . . wept and mourned, crying out, �Alas,
> alas, for the great city, where all who had ships at sea grew rich
> by her wealth!�" (18:17�19).
>
Yep, Rome:
PM Rogers: Domitian and the Finances of State
Historia: Zeitschrift fur Alte Geschichte, 1984
K. Hopkins, �Taxes and Trade in the Roman Empire�, Journal
of Roman Studies 70, 1980, p. 121.
> It is common knowledge that America is the largest consumer nation on
> earth and many countries would go broke should there be no more
> America to buy their goods. Which is exactly what will happen should
> America collapse.
>
> But OTOH, When Rome fell ---nothing as John has described above or in
> the book of revelatiotook place. Which shows that John was
> describing a nation of the future. That nation also sounds eerily
> like America today.
>
Which of course simply means that his made-up prophecy failed. As
prophecies often do. Or in the words of Jefferson: "merely the
ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the
incoherences of our own nightly dreams."
You mean God could not have just ordered a miracle?
This also suggests the bodies were
> recorded, then played back, because otherwise, the bodies would begin
> the decomposition process and no one would want to see that for 3
> days. Plus, the news media has quite a reputation for playing the
> same bad news over and over for days..
>
> "people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead
> bodies three days and an half days"
>
> Watching the corpses on TV or on the Internet, which was not
> available during John's life time, is yet another reason why the book
> of revelation is about future events and not about events during
> John's life time .
Yeah, what woudl God do without the internet.
>
Burkhard
So we can add modern British history to the long list of things you know
nothing about. Thatcher instigated sweeping cuts in the eduction budget,
and science education as one of the most expensive part of the
curriculum was the worst affected. "Save British Science" was founded
under her reign to counteract this as much as possible. She also
abolished the commitment of the previous government to comprehensive
primary and secondary education, leaving this to local councils.
Just like our Tony Pagano, she was deeply sceptical of "elitist"
experts, and scientific advisers were frozen out. And systematically so
, because they tended to stick to facts and evidence and not party
ideology (hence the BSE desaster) Her Home secretary even went to the
courts to prevent publication of scientific findings that contradicted
government policy.
But she was as quite keen on religion - brought up as she was by a
strict Methodist lay preacher. Her view on religion was of course
precisely NOT to use state interference:
"Perhaps it would be best, Moderator, if I began by speaking personally
as a Christian, as well as a politician, about the way I see things.
Reading recently, I came across the starkly simple phrase:
"Christianity is about spiritual redemption, not social reform".
(aka let them eat cake)
Boikat
> On Dec 2, 7:22�ｿｽpm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > WNYC Radio Lab Podcast �ｿｽ"In Defense Of Darwinism? (available as a
> > > free
> > > podcast on Itunes)
>
> > > Dawkins opened: "As an academic scientist I am a passionate Darwinian
> > > believing that natural selection is, if not the only driving force in
> > > evolution, certainly the only known force capable of producing the
> > > illusion of purpose which so strikes all who contemplate nature".
> > > But at the same time I support Darwinism as a scientist I am a
> > > passionate ANTI-DARWINIAN when it comes to politics and how we should
> > > conduct our human affairs."
>
> > > "I would not like to live in a society which is run on Darwinian
> > > principles while fully acknowledging that the brains and bodies that
> > > we
> > > possess were put there by Darwinian principles in the first place".
>
> > > "If you try to apply the lessons of Social Darwinism as the social
> > > Darwinists did to human society, then you end up with a kind of super
> > > Thatcherism, or even Hitler".
>
> > > ________________________________
>
> > > Well now. It seems the modern-day-father of atheism and grand poo-baah
> > > of evolution thinks evolutionary thinking is bad for a society and
> > > could even lead to the rebirth of such things as Thatcherism, or even
> > > another Hitler.
>
> > clue.
>
> > > Well. Hell. I will have to agree.
> > > We DO seem to be leaning toward the destruction of religion and of the
> > > family on a planatary wide basis these days.
>
> > > Let's see. The bible says something about there being a one world
> > > government led by an anti-christian �ｿｽ(aka; anti-christ) and we will
> > > all have to worship it and it's beliefs or we will not even be able to
> > > buy and sell.
>
> > > Buckle in dumb-boyz n stupid-Grrrls
>
> > > evolutionists in America playing their tiny part as pawns in a game
> > > that is slowing taking place but has some pretty high steaks.
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
Well, I guess we know your actual level of scholarship.
>
> Just because there have been others in the past that cried: "The Sky
> Is Falling" and it didn't, does not mean that it --will --not --
> happen.
The nice thing about that is that when you are *always* claiming that
the "sky is falling", when it actually *does*, you get to hop around
and claim, "See! I warned you!".
>
> The time is ripe boikitty.
Ripe for what, Monnnnkeey-boy?
>
> Just the right events, in just the right sequence, actually appear to
> be lining up.
As they throughout history.
>
> You may be running O.U.T of time.
Like I said, go rattle your beads at someone gullible enough to
believe your crap.
>
> You should consider it.
I did. You're an idiot.
Boikat
Boikat
> On Dec 2, 9:45 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 7:22 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 2, 3:51 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > > WNYC Radio Lab Podcast "In Defense Of Darwinism? (available as a
> > > > free
> > > > podcast on Itunes)
>
> > > > Dawkins opened: "As an academic scientist I am a passionate Darwinian
> > > > believing that natural selection is, if not the only driving force in
> > > > evolution, certainly the only known force capable of producing the
> > > > illusion of purpose which so strikes all who contemplate nature".
> > > > But at the same time I support Darwinism as a scientist I am a
> > > > passionate ANTI-DARWINIAN when it comes to politics and how we should
> > > > conduct our human affairs."
>
> > > > "I would not like to live in a society which is run on Darwinian
> > > > principles while fully acknowledging that the brains and bodies that
> > > > we
> > > > possess were put there by Darwinian principles in the first place".
>
> > > > "If you try to apply the lessons of Social Darwinism as the social
> > > > Darwinists did to human society, then you end up with a kind of super
> > > > Thatcherism, or even Hitler".
>
> > > > ________________________________
>
> > > > Well now. It seems the modern-day-father of atheism and grand poo-baah
> > > > of evolution thinks evolutionary thinking is bad for a society and
> > > > could even lead to the rebirth of such things as Thatcherism, or even
> > > > another Hitler.
>
> > > clue.
>
> > > > Well. Hell. I will have to agree.
> > > > We DO seem to be leaning toward the destruction of religion and of the
> > > > family on a planatary wide basis these days.
>
> > > > Let's see. The bible says something about there being a one world
> > > > all have to worship it and it's beliefs or we will not even be able to
> > > > buy and sell.
>
> > > > Buckle in dumb-boyz n stupid-Grrrls
>
> > > > The worst parts of the bible are unfolding before your eyes with the
> > > > evolutionists in America playing their tiny part as pawns in a game
> > > > that is slowing taking place but has some pretty high steaks.
>
> > > Go rattle you beads at someone who'll believe that crap.
>
> > > Boikat- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I don't suppose you read the story of chicken little, have you?
>
> > Just because there have been others in the past that cried: "The Sky
> > Is Falling" and it didn't, does not mean that it --will --not --
> > happen.
>
> > The time is ripe boikitty.
>
> > Just the right events, in just the right sequence, actually appear to
> > be lining up.
>
> > You may be running O.U.T of time.
>
> > You should consider it.
>
He's a frightened little primate, so all primates need to be
frightened.
Boikat
Steven L.
> We DO seem to be leaning toward the destruction of religion and of the
> family on a planatary wide basis these days.
I think Islam is on a roll.
Islam is very much pro-family.
Think Ralph Kramden with a beard and the Quran:
"I'm the king of the castle, Samar!"
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
AlwaysAskingQuestions
[...]
>> That's wrong. What we have in regard to the evolution of
>> intelligence is, at best, a set of *hypotheses*, not a set of
>> *theories*. Science can't even agree what intelligence is, let alone
>> agree where it came from.
>
> From the first paper I picked up:
>
> <q>
> Many researchers
> have also argued that some of our mental traits and behavioral
> propensities evolved as fitness indicators, according to the
> principles of costly signaling theory. These mental fitness
> indicators may include some of our capacities for:
[...]
"have also argued" and "may include" do not a theory make.
John Harshman
> On Dec 2, 10:29 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> All-seeing-I wrote:
>>> On Dec 2, 4:33 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
So your persist in your error despite being shown to be wrong. Note that
Dawkins said nothing about "how societies think with an evolved brain".
He wasn't saying that evolution implies bad results. He was saying that
founding your morality on natural selection (and a twisted version at
that) is a bad idea. That's quite different from anything you have said.
>>>> [snip Revelations nonsense]
>>> Revelation is not nonsense JH
>>> You heard it here first.
>> No I didn't. I've heard that from every fundy before you. I agree it
>> isn't nonsense, quite. But the part that isn't nonsense appears to be a
>> veiled assault on the legitimacy of the Roman Empire. It has nothing to
>> do with anything that's actually going to happen in the future, much
>> less anything that's happening now.
>>
>> If you have any argument to the contrary, present it now
>
> It only "appears" to be a covert assault against the legitimacy of the
> Roman Empire by those looking to rationalize the book that way. The
> entire tone of Revelation is prophetic and works toward a final event
> at some point in the future. Even one of those 'edcuated' evo-freaks
> should be able to gather that. Besides, John was very old. Why would
> he want to spend his remaining days on earth writing a book about
> current events?
Can you provide any evidence that the person whose name went on the
title was the person who wrote the book? You must know that it was
common in the Roman world to sign someone else's name to your work, in
order to give it authority. And you have no access to the motives of the
author.
> Anyway. Knowing how you just love to have evidence for everything,
Yes, I'm funny that way.
> below is the textual evidence that I base my opinion on:
>
> John describes a great world wide war starting with a kingdom in the
> north. It takes place at Meggedo, Israel. (which is where many
> historical battles had taken place long before John's time). This war
> is commonly called the war of "Armageddon'.
>
> Now, the "7 hills" definitely refers to Rome. But. A final war
> involving Rome and a kingdom in the North does not make sense. There
> was no country in existance to the north of Rome or Israel that could
> wage such a war on the Roman Empire during John's lifetime.This fact
> alone is enough to discredit those television shows that present The
> Book of Revelation as being during John's time period.
Well, of course there were all manner of barbarian tribes that had given
Rome trouble and would eventually cause its fall. So you're wrong there.
> Next. The symbolic animals in revelation were originally identified in
> Daniel�s prophecy. So John was just reinforcing prior prophesy about
> end times, not about Nero or Rome oppression.
>
> Then, John introduces the Whore of Babalyon in Revelation Chapter 17.
> The whore is a metaphor for a great nation. John is clearly describing
> as an international power. She "sits on many waters," and is
> representing many different peoples (17:15), and she has committed
> fornication with "the kings of the earth," and she has inflamed "the
> dwellers on earth" with her fornication.
> This plainly describes America of today for numerous reasons;
This plainly describes any empire you care to mention, including the
Roman Empire, for numerous reasons.
> Because
> in chapter 18, John sees the destruction of the Whore. She is depicted
> as a major center of international trade and commerce. When she is
> destroyed in chapter 18, we read that "the merchants of the earth weep
> and mourn for her, since no one buys their cargo any more" (18:11)
> and, "all shipmasters and seafaring men, sailors and all whose trade
> is on the sea . . . wept and mourned, crying out, �Alas, alas, for the
> great city, where all who had ships at sea grew rich by her
> wealth!�" (18:17�19).
Sounds like Rome, Venice, London, or any of a host of cities now and in
the past.
> It is common knowledge that America is the largest consumer nation on
> earth and many countries would go broke should there be no more
> America to buy their goods. Which is exactly what will happen should
> America collapse.
>
> But OTOH, When Rome fell ---nothing as John has described above or in
> the book of revelatiotook place. Which shows that John was describing
> a nation of the future. That nation also sounds eerily like America
> today.
Nonsense. Saying the prophecy doesn't match the fall of Rome is evidence
only if you assume that the prophecy is a true prophecy, which is what
you're attempting to prove.
> The country as described was not in existence during John's time and
> therefore is another reason why The Book Of Revelation was about the
> future..
> .
>
> Finally, and what is most compelling to me personally, is this:
I'm glad you finally got to something compelling, because the previous
is weak indeed.
> "And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy
> a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
> These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing
> before the God of the earth. And if any man will hurt them, fire
> proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if
> any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed. These have
> power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy:
> and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the
> earth with all plagues, as often as they will." (Revelation 11:3-6)
>
> The world will want these two men dead and that can be shown by what
> happens next. After a many months, God will finally permit these two
> men to be killed by the Antichrist. Nevertheless, the Antichrist will
> neither bury these men, nor allow others to bury them.
So far, this seems like evidence of nothing.
> "And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that
> ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and
> shall overcome them, and kill them. And their dead bodies shall lie
> in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and
> Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
>
> And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see
> their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their
> dead bodies to be put in graves. And they that dwell upon the earth
> shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to
> another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the
> earth." (Revelation 11:7-10)
>
> It seems the whole world will throw a huge party, celebrating the
> murder of these two righteous men. It will seem like "Christmas" or
> some other holiday as the whole world eats, laughs, and watches these
> two bloody bodies lie there on the street.
So far, evidence of nothing.
> It was impossible for every nation, people and languare on earth to
> witness dead bodies for several days and do it at the same time before
> satellite television. This also suggests the bodies were recorded,
> then played back, because otherwise, the bodies would begin the
> decomposition process and no one would want to see that for 3 days.
> Plus, the news media has quite a reputation for playing the same bad
> news over and over for days..
That's a ridiculous overinterpretation. I suggest that this statement
was intended figuratively, as when the 1968 Chicago protestors chanted
"the whole world is watching". They were well aware that it wasn't.
> "people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead
> bodies three days and an half days"
>
> Watching the corpses on TV or on the Internet, which was not available
> during John's life time, is yet another reason why the book of
> revelation is about future events and not about events during John's
> life time
> .
That's your evidence? One hyperbolic phrase? It's really amazing how you
can zero in on one phrase in the middle of a mass of metaphors that
needs to be interpreted literally. How exactly do you do that?
All-Seeing-I
> All-seeing-I wrote:
> > On Dec 2, 10:29 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> All-seeing-I wrote:
> >>> On Dec 2, 4:33 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: �and if
> > any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed. �These have
> > power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy:
> > and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the
> > earth with all plagues, as often as they will." (Revelation 11:3-6)
>
> > The world will want these two men dead and that can be shown by what
> > men to be killed by the Antichrist. �Nevertheless, the Antichrist will
> > neither bury these men, nor allow others to bury them.
>
> So far, this seems like evidence of nothing.
>
>
>
>
>
> > "And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that
> > ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and
> > in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and
> > Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
>
> > And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see
> > their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their
> > shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to
> > earth." (Revelation 11:7-10)
>
> > It seems the whole world will throw a huge party, celebrating the
> > some other holiday as the whole world eats, laughs, and watches these
> > two bloody bodies lie there on the street.
>
> So far, evidence of nothing.
>
> > It was impossible for every nation, people and languare on earth to
> > witness dead bodies for several days and do it at the same time before
> > satellite television. This also suggests the bodies were recorded,
> > then played back, because otherwise, the bodies would begin the
> > decomposition process and no one would want to see that for 3 days.
> > Plus, the news media has quite a reputation for playing the same bad
> > news over and over for days..
>
> That's a ridiculous overinterpretation. I suggest that this statement
> was intended figuratively, as when the 1968 Chicago protestors chanted
> "the whole world is watching". They were well aware that it wasn't.
>
> > "people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead
> > bodies three days and an half days"
>
> > Watching the corpses on TV or on the Internet, which was not available
> > during John's life time, is yet another reason why the book of
> > revelation is about future events and not about events during John's
> > life time
> > .
>
Textual evidence. I strongly suggest you remember it. The information
may be valuable some day.
Boikat
> On Dec 3, 10:12�am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
<snip>
> > > .
>
> > That's your evidence? ...
>
> Textual evidence. I strongly suggest you remember it. The information
> may be valuable some day.
Once again, thank you for..
Ta-da!!
"The Logical Fallacy of the Day"
Brought to you by "Idiot-R-I!" (A wholey owned subsidiary of ASS-I
(nc) )
And todays fallacy is....
(Drum roll)
"Circular Reasoning"!!
(Audience Cheers!)
Yes, our little creationist primate has cited the Bible as evidence to
support a claim made in the Bible! In this case, "supporting evidence
of prophesies".
(Audience laughs)
Thank you, Monnnnkeey-boy, and today's reward for demonstrating your
idiocy, is another piece of a bananna!
(Applauds)
Boikat
Garamond Lethe
As posts go, that was very efficient, and I appreciate that. I now
know:
1) You're not a scientist.
2) You don't know how to read scientific writing.
3) You don't understand what a theory is.
4) You haven't read anything in this field.
5) The above qualifies you --- at least in your own mind --- to
determine what is and is not a theory in this field.
Not bad for a dozen words.
I can't think of anything constructive to say, so I'll leave it
at that.
Dan Listermann
"All-Seeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:eb196fb1-ebc0-4bb5...@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Watching the corpses on TV or on the Internet, which was not available
>> > during John's life time, is yet another reason why the book of
>> > revelation is about future events and not about events during John's
>> > life time
>> > .
>>
>> That's your evidence? ...
>
>
> Textual evidence. I strongly suggest you remember it. The information
> may be valuable some day.
>
.
All-Seeing-I
> All-seeing-I wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >>>> [snip Revelations nonsense]
> >>> Revelation is not nonsense JH You heard it here first.
> >> No I didn't. I've heard that from every fundy before you. I agree
> >> it isn't nonsense, quite. But the part that isn't nonsense appears
> >> has nothing to do with anything that's actually going to happen in
>
> >> If you have any argument to the contrary, present it now
>
> > It only "appears" to be a covert assault against the legitimacy of
> > the Roman Empire by those looking to rationalize the book that way.
> > The entire tone of Revelation is prophetic and works toward a final
> > event at some point in the future. Even one of those 'edcuated'
> > evo-freaks should be able to gather that. Besides, John was very old.
> > book about current events?
>
> " to reassure the Christians of Asia amid
> (Pope Benedict XVI)
>
> �> ` Anyway. Knowing how you just love to
>
> > have evidence for everything, below is the textual evidence that I
> > base my opinion on:
>
> > John describes a great world wide war starting with a kingdom in the
> > north. It takes place at Meggedo, Israel. (which is where many
> > historical battles had taken place long before John's time). This war
>
> > Now, the "7 hills" definitely refers to Rome. But. A final war
> > involving Rome and a kingdom in the North does not make sense.
>
> the North of the US will bring it down? �Canada?
>
> � There
>
> > was no country in existance to the north of Rome or Israel that could
> > wage such a war on the Roman Empire during John's lifetime.
>
> invaders from the North though after John, so he simply got the dates wrong
>
> This fact
>
> > alone is enough to discredit those television shows that present The
> > Book of Revelation as being during John's time period.
>
> > Next. The symbolic animals in revelation were originally identified
> > in Daniel�s prophecy. So John was just reinforcing prior prophesy
> > about end times, not about Nero or Rome oppression.
>
> > Then, John introduces the Whore of Babalyon in Revelation Chapter 17.
> > describing as an international power.
>
> yes, Rome
>
>
> Look up "Mare Nostrum".
> see inparticular Saddington, D.B. (2007), "Classes. The Evolution of the
> Roman Imperial Fleets", in Erdkamp, Paul, A Companion to the Roman Army,
> Blackwell Publishing Ltd.,
>
> in particular p. 208ff on the expansion of the fleet to protect new
> trade routes in the tiems of John
>
> and
>
> > is representing many different peoples (17:15),
>
> Rome again. see C. Ando, Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the
>
> � F.W. Walbank, �Nationality as a Factor in Roman History�, Harvard
> � Studies in Classical Philology 76, 1972, pp.145-168.
>
> and she has committed
>
> > fornication with "the kings of the earth," and she has inflamed "the
>
> > This plainly describes America of today for numerous reasons; Because
> > depicted as a major center of international trade and commerce. When
> > earth weep and mourn for her, since no one buys their cargo any more"
> > whose trade is on the sea . . . wept and mourned, crying out, �Alas,
> > by her wealth!�" (18:17�19).
>
> Yep, Rome:
>
> Historia: Zeitschrift fur Alte Geschichte, 1984
>
> K. Hopkins, �Taxes and Trade in the Roman Empire�, Journal
> of Roman Studies 70, 1980, p. 121.
>
> > It is common knowledge that America is the largest consumer nation on
> > America to buy their goods. Which is exactly what will happen should
> > America collapse.
>
> > But OTOH, When Rome fell ---nothing as John has described above or in
> > describing a nation of the future. That nation also sounds eerily
> > like America today.
>
> Which of course simply means that his made-up prophecy failed. As
> ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the
> incoherences of our own nightly dreams."
>
> > The country as described was not in existence during John's time and
> > therefore is another reason why The Book Of Revelation was about the
> > future.. .
>
> > Finally, and what is most compelling to me personally, is this:
>
> > "And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy
> > These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing
> > proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: �and if
> > any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed. �These have
> > �power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their
> > prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to
> > smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will." (Revelation
>
> > The world will want these two men dead and that can be shown by what
> > men to be killed by the Antichrist. �Nevertheless, the Antichrist
> > will neither bury these men, nor allow others to bury them.
>
> > "And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that
> > ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and
> > in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom
> > and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
>
> > And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see
> > �dead bodies to be put in graves. �And they that dwell upon the earth
> > �shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to
> > �another; �because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on
> > the earth." (Revelation 11:7-10)
>
> > It seems the whole world will throw a huge party, celebrating the
> > some other holiday as the whole world eats, laughs, and watches these
> > two bloody bodies lie there on the street.
>
> > It was impossible for every nation, people and languare on earth to
> > witness dead bodies for several days and do it at the same time
> > before satellite television.
>
> You mean God could not have just ordered a miracle?
>
>
> > recorded, then played back, because otherwise, the bodies would begin
> > days. Plus, the news media has quite a reputation for playing the
> > same bad news over and over for days..
>
> > "people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead
> > bodies three days and an half days"
>
> > Watching the corpses on TV or on the Internet, which was not
> > available during John's life time, is yet another reason why the book
> > John's life time .
>
> Yeah, what woudl God do without the internet.
You guys are so amusing. I could not buy this kind of entertainment
anywhere.
The point to Harshman, that flew straight over your head obviously, is
the apostle John is describing a war that takes place in the middle
east involving the entire world at some time in the future. Rome is no
where near the middle east for the events in Revelation to happen
during John's life time, The King of the north has to come from north
of Israel since the battle will cumulate at Magetto, which is located
in Israel. But you are going on and on about Rome while the events
described in the book are taking place in the Middle East.
Specifically Israel.
So there is no way John can be describing events that were taking
place in Rome during his life time since Magetto is many many miles
away. Plus, no such world wide war ever took place during John's life
time anyway. Even if it could take place, there was no such world
power north of Rome that could start such a war during John's life
time with Rome.
Therefore John is clearly describing a future world war that takes
place, but is no where near Rome. So how can the book be about Rome
during John's life time if he is describing a war that will take place
in an entirely different country?
Since there has not been a world wide war focused on the middle east
yet, we can safely assume that such a war as described is still to
come, That is of course, if the prophesy is true.
As a second point: A rich and powerful international trading-nation is
described to have been destroyed BEFORE this world wide war takes
place.This nation enraged many people on the earth and was destroyed,
in part, due to it's percieved behavior by these other nations. This
is happening today. The teaching of evolution and athestic ideas are
indeed one (read 1) of the reasons why nations around the world hate
America today. Plus. There was no such nation on the planet, as
described, and at that time, But there is today, America,
As a third point: There are some events that simply could not happen
without the marvel of today's technology.
Clearly these three points alone show that revelation is not refering
to events taking place during John's life time but, rather to some
events that will take place in the future.
Quite amusingly, we have not even touched on how John's revelation
ties in with other biblical prophesy that also shows revelation is
describing events of the future.
Clearly many of you will fall hook line and sinker for anything you
see on television.
All-Seeing-I
> "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in message
All-Seeing-I
> guscubed wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 2:45 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 2, 7:22 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> WNYC Radio Lab Podcast �"In Defense Of Darwinism? (available as a
> >>>> free
> >>>> podcast on Itunes)
> >>>> Dawkins opened: "As an academic scientist I am a passionate Darwinian
> >>>> believing that natural selection is, if not the only driving force in
> >>>> evolution, certainly the only known force capable of producing the
> >>>> illusion of purpose which so strikes all who contemplate nature".
> >>>> But at the same time I support Darwinism as a scientist I am a
> >>>> passionate ANTI-DARWINIAN when it comes to politics and how we should
> >>>> conduct our human affairs."
> >>>> "I would not like to live in a society which is run on Darwinian
> >>>> principles while fully acknowledging that the brains and bodies that
> >>>> we
> >>>> possess were put there by Darwinian principles in the first place".
> >>>> "If you try to apply the lessons of Social Darwinism as the social
> >>>> Darwinists did to human society, then you end up with a kind of super
> >>>> Thatcherism, or even Hitler".
> >>>> ________________________________
> >>>> Well now. It seems the modern-day-father of atheism and grand poo-baah
> >>>> of evolution thinks evolutionary thinking is bad for a society and
> >>>> could even lead to the rebirth of such things as Thatcherism, or even
> >>>> another Hitler.
> >>> clue.
> >>>> Well. Hell. I will have to agree.
> >>>> family on a planatary wide basis these days.
> >>>> government led by an anti-christian �(aka; anti-christ) and we will
> >>>> all have to worship it and it's beliefs or we will not even be able to
> >>>> buy and sell.
> >>>> Buckle in dumb-boyz n stupid-Grrrls
> >>>> The worst parts of the bible are unfolding before your eyes with the
> >>>> evolutionists in America playing their tiny part as pawns in a game
> >>>> that is slowing taking place but has some pretty high steaks.
> >>> Go rattle you beads at someone who'll believe that crap.
> >>> Boikat- Hide quoted text -
> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Chicken Little, what's the difference?
>
> >> I don't suppose you read the story of chicken little, have you?
>
> >> Just because there have been others in the past that cried: "The Sky
> >> Is Falling" and it didn't, does not mean that it --will --not --
> >> happen.
>
> the sky to be a solid dome. Biblical literalism at its best!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wow. You have joined the ranks of gypsies tramps and thieves I see.
All-Seeing-I
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> Well. Hell. I will have to agree.
> >>> We DO seem to be leaning toward the destruction of religion and of the
> >>> family on a planatary wide basis these days.
> >>> Let's see. The bible says something about there being a one world
> >>> government led by an anti-christian �(aka; anti-christ) and we will
> >>> all have to worship it and it's beliefs or we will not even be able to
> >>> buy and sell.
> >>> Buckle in dumb-boyz n stupid-Grrrls
> >>> The worst parts of the bible are unfolding before your eyes with the
> >>> evolutionists in America playing their tiny part as pawns in a game
> >>> that is slowing taking place but has some pretty high steaks.
> >> Go rattle you beads at someone who'll believe that crap.
>
> >> Boikat
>
>
> > Just because there have been others in the past that cried: "The Sky
> > Is Falling" and it didn't, does not mean that it --will --not --
> > happen.
>
> Little suffers from self-induced hysteria, and actively recruits others
> into that same hysteria. It's your metaphor...
>
> <snip>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
There are several versions of chicken little.
But the point is just because there were those in the past that made
the claim that the sky was falling but it did not, does not mean that
it COULD not.
All-Seeing-I
> On Dec 3, 2:45�ｿｽpm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 7:22�ｿｽpm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 2, 3:51�ｿｽpm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > > WNYC Radio Lab Podcast �ｿｽ"In Defense Of Darwinism? (available as a
> > > > free
> > > > podcast on Itunes)
>
> > > > Dawkins opened: "As an academic scientist I am a passionate Darwinian
> > > > believing that natural selection is, if not the only driving force in
> > > > evolution, certainly the only known force capable of producing the
> > > > illusion of purpose which so strikes all who contemplate nature".
> > > > But at the same time I support Darwinism as a scientist I am a
> > > > passionate ANTI-DARWINIAN when it comes to politics and how we should
> > > > conduct our human affairs."
>
> > > > "I would not like to live in a society which is run on Darwinian
> > > > principles while fully acknowledging that the brains and bodies that
> > > > we
> > > > possess were put there by Darwinian principles in the first place".
>
> > > > "If you try to apply the lessons of Social Darwinism as the social
> > > > Darwinists did to human society, then you end up with a kind of super
> > > > Thatcherism, or even Hitler".
>
> > > > ________________________________
>
> > > > Well now. It seems the modern-day-father of atheism and grand poo-baah
> > > > of evolution thinks evolutionary thinking is bad for a society and
> > > > could even lead to the rebirth of such things as Thatcherism, or even
> > > > another Hitler.
>
> > > clue.
>
> > > > Well. Hell. I will have to agree.
> > > > We DO seem to be leaning toward the destruction of religion and of the
> > > > family on a planatary wide basis these days.
>
> > > > Let's see. The bible says something about there being a one world
> > > > all have to worship it and it's beliefs or we will not even be able to
> > > > buy and sell.
>
> > > > Buckle in dumb-boyz n stupid-Grrrls
>
> > > > The worst parts of the bible are unfolding before your eyes with the
> > > > evolutionists in America playing their tiny part as pawns in a game
> > > > that is slowing taking place but has some pretty high steaks.
>
> > > Go rattle you beads at someone who'll believe that crap.
>
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> Chicken Little, what's the difference?
Just because there are those that have claimed the sky is falling in
the past, but it did not, does not mean the sky COULD not fall.
The analogy stands.
>
> > I don't suppose you read the story of chicken little, have you?
>
> > Just because there have been others in the past that cried: "The Sky
> > Is Falling" and it didn't, does not mean that it --will --not --
> > happen.
>
chris thompson
> On Dec 2, 10:29 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > All-seeing-I wrote:
> > > On Dec 2, 4:33 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >> All-Seeing-I wrote:
As opposed to a final event at some point in the past?
Just wondering...
Chris
Dana Tweedy
snip
>>
>> Chez Watt in the category: Fumbling fables: Boy who cried wolf,
>> Chicken Little, what's the difference?
>
> Just because there are those that have claimed the sky is falling in
> the past, but it did not, does not mean the sky COULD not fall.
The moral of the "Chicken Little" story is "People who panic over little
things are easily duped". That's how the fox gets to have a nice dinner on
chicken, turkey, and other foolish birds.
>
> The analogy stands.
The point is you are conflating two different stories, "the boy who cried
wolf" , and "chicken little".
There's no reason to think the sky is falling, just as in the story (it was
a falling acorn, not the sky that fell) and you, like chicken little are
running around in a panic and are easily fooled .
DJT
All-Seeing-I
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
No silly.
The events spoken of by John appear to be lining up with what we can
observe.
One example is the "whore of babalyon".
No such nation //as described// has ever existed on earth.
Now it does.
Caranx latus
>
> But the point is just because there were those in the past that made
> the claim that the sky was falling but it did not, does not mean that
> it COULD not.
I didn't think that I'd worn out [M]adape yet, but you seem now to
want the moniker [C]hicken [L]ittle. That seems to be the role that
you've chosen for yourself.
All-Seeing-I
> On Dec 3, 2:05�pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 7:04 pm, chibiabos <c...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > > <362bb50f-32b8-48ea-9d7f-cbc385aab...@e22g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> > > > WNYC Radio Lab Podcast "In Defense Of Darwinism? (available as a
> > > > free
> > > > podcast on Itunes)
>
> > > > Dawkins opened: "As an academic scientist I am a passionate Darwinian
> > > > believing that natural selection is, if not the only driving force in
> > > > evolution, certainly the only known force capable of producing the
> > > > illusion of purpose which so strikes all who contemplate nature".
> > > > But at the same time I support Darwinism as a scientist I am a
> > > > passionate ANTI-DARWINIAN when it comes to politics and how we should
> > > > conduct our human affairs."
>
> > > > "I would not like to live in a society which is run on Darwinian
> > > > principles while fully acknowledging that the brains and bodies that
> > > > we
> > > > possess were put there by Darwinian principles in the first place".
>
> > > > "If you try to apply the lessons of Social Darwinism as the social
> > > > Darwinists did to human society, then you end up with a kind of super
> > > > Thatcherism, or even Hitler".
>
>
> > > "Who trusted God was love indeed
> > > And love Creation's final law
> > > Tho' Nature, red in tooth and claw
> > > With ravine, shriek'd against his creed."
>
> > > But you won't get the Tennyson quote, any more than you get anything
> > > else.
>
> > Typical Smug Atheist
>
> > Of course you omitted the other dozens upon dozens of lines to the
> > poem,
>
> > But to give you a reply that is approiate for an atheist:
>
> > The bible repeatetly says man is dust. And to dust man will return.
> > There is only one way to avoid being turned back into the simple
> > minerals and biological matter that you are that you are. Everyone
> > must face this first death.
>
> How do you know that the references to man being as dust are not
> METAPHOR's as you claim the biblical ideas of cosmology are?
>
Can you read? I said "minerals and biological matter"
>
> > If you ponder the brutality of nature, don't; And don't ask God to
> > save you from it; He won't. So Don't beg,
>
> Why won't Gawd save you from death? I thought he promised to do just
> that about 2000 years ago, of course he also said that it would happen
> during the lifetimes of those present when he said it, maybe there's
> some reaaally old Jewish dude grimly hanging on somewhere in Israel.
> Besides this is sounding suspiciously like something a Christian would
> say, but you've already denied many times that you are a Christian.
>
You misunderstand the generation Jesus meant when he said that, and I
i am sick of explaining it. If you want the truth, Go find it.
Chanting atheist mantras as if they are truth will leave you with the
lie you started with.
BTW. You were saved 2000 years ago but seem to be too dumb to accept
it.
>
> > �Man was given the earth as a gift, But now the earth will be given
> > man as a gift instead.
>
> > It is the second death you should be concerned with. But Tennyson did
> > not realize that when his friend died.
>
> > You do the math on the rest
>
> The math is that you're terrified of death and would rather cling
> desperately to your delusions in the vain hope that your 'three score
> years and ten' is not all that you have. Of course if you'd spent your
> time living a fulfilling life instead of constantly berating and
> judging others by some bronze-age moral code you might not find your
> existence to be so miserable
Death? Why should I be afraid of death? It is the atheist that has
nothing for him beyond the grave because you do not even understand
such things as you posted.
The first death is nothing to fear. The second death is what you need
to be concerned with my dear atheist friend.
Of course, one could pretend that there is no second death. Then you
will not have to fear the comming judgment while you are alive.
The atheist is the one who fears death and that is why thay have to
tell themselves there is nothing beyond what they can see or feel in
the hear and now.
Burkhard
> On Dec 3, 7:31 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> All-seeing-I wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>>>>> [snip Revelations nonsense]
>>>>> Revelation is not nonsense JH You heard it here first.
>>>> No I didn't. I've heard that from every fundy before you. I agree
>>>> it isn't nonsense, quite. But the part that isn't nonsense appears
>>>> has nothing to do with anything that's actually going to happen in
>>>> If you have any argument to the contrary, present it now
>>> It only "appears" to be a covert assault against the legitimacy of
>>> the Roman Empire by those looking to rationalize the book that way.
>>> The entire tone of Revelation is prophetic and works toward a final
>>> event at some point in the future. Even one of those 'edcuated'
>>> evo-freaks should be able to gather that. Besides, John was very old.
>>> book about current events?
>> " to reassure the Christians of Asia amid
>> (Pope Benedict XVI)
>>
>>
>>> have evidence for everything, below is the textual evidence that I
>>> base my opinion on:
>>> John describes a great world wide war starting with a kingdom in the
>>> north. It takes place at Meggedo, Israel. (which is where many
>>> historical battles had taken place long before John's time). This war
>>> Now, the "7 hills" definitely refers to Rome. But. A final war
>>> involving Rome and a kingdom in the North does not make sense.
>> the North of the US will bring it down? Canada?
>>
>> There
>>
>>> was no country in existance to the north of Rome or Israel that could
>>> wage such a war on the Roman Empire during John's lifetime.
>> invaders from the North though after John, so he simply got the dates wrong
>>
>> This fact
>>
>>> alone is enough to discredit those television shows that present The
>>> Book of Revelation as being during John's time period.
>>> Next. The symbolic animals in revelation were originally identified
>>> in Daniel�s prophecy. So John was just reinforcing prior prophesy
>>> about end times, not about Nero or Rome oppression.
>>> Then, John introduces the Whore of Babalyon in Revelation Chapter 17.
>>> describing as an international power.
>> yes, Rome
>>
>>
>> Look up "Mare Nostrum".
>> see inparticular Saddington, D.B. (2007), "Classes. The Evolution of the
>> Roman Imperial Fleets", in Erdkamp, Paul, A Companion to the Roman Army,
>> Blackwell Publishing Ltd.,
>>
>> in particular p. 208ff on the expansion of the fleet to protect new
>> trade routes in the tiems of John
>>
>> and
>>
>>> is representing many different peoples (17:15),
>> Rome again. see C. Ando, Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the
>>
>> F.W. Walbank, �Nationality as a Factor in Roman History�, Harvard
>>
>> and she has committed
>>
>>> fornication with "the kings of the earth," and she has inflamed "the
>>> This plainly describes America of today for numerous reasons; Because
>>> depicted as a major center of international trade and commerce. When
>>> earth weep and mourn for her, since no one buys their cargo any more"
>>> whose trade is on the sea . . . wept and mourned, crying out, �Alas,
>>> by her wealth!�" (18:17�19).
>> Yep, Rome:
>>
>> Historia: Zeitschrift fur Alte Geschichte, 1984
>>
>> K. Hopkins, �Taxes and Trade in the Roman Empire�, Journal
>> of Roman Studies 70, 1980, p. 121.
>>
>>> It is common knowledge that America is the largest consumer nation on
>>> America to buy their goods. Which is exactly what will happen should
>>> America collapse.
>>> But OTOH, When Rome fell ---nothing as John has described above or in
>>> describing a nation of the future. That nation also sounds eerily
>>> like America today.
>> Which of course simply means that his made-up prophecy failed. As
>> ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the
>> incoherences of our own nightly dreams."
>>
>>> The country as described was not in existence during John's time and
>>> therefore is another reason why The Book Of Revelation was about the
>>> future.. .
>>> Finally, and what is most compelling to me personally, is this:
>>> "And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy
>>> These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing
>>> proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if
>>> any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed. These have
>>> power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their
>>> prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to
>>> smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will." (Revelation
>>> The world will want these two men dead and that can be shown by what
>>> men to be killed by the Antichrist. Nevertheless, the Antichrist
>>> will neither bury these men, nor allow others to bury them.
>>> "And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that
>>> ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and
>>> in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom
>>> and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
>>> And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see
>>> shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to
>>> the earth." (Revelation 11:7-10)
>>> It seems the whole world will throw a huge party, celebrating the
>>> some other holiday as the whole world eats, laughs, and watches these
>>> two bloody bodies lie there on the street.
>>> It was impossible for every nation, people and languare on earth to
>>> witness dead bodies for several days and do it at the same time
>>> before satellite television.
>> You mean God could not have just ordered a miracle?
>>
>>
>>> recorded, then played back, because otherwise, the bodies would begin
>>> days. Plus, the news media has quite a reputation for playing the
>>> same bad news over and over for days..
>>> "people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead
>>> bodies three days and an half days"
>>> Watching the corpses on TV or on the Internet, which was not
>>> available during John's life time, is yet another reason why the book
>>> John's life time .
>> Yeah, what woudl God do without the internet.
>
> You guys are so amusing. I could not buy this kind of entertainment
> anywhere.
>
> The point to Harshman, that flew straight over your head obviously, is
> the apostle John is describing a war that takes place in the middle
> east involving the entire world at some time in the future. Rome is no
> where near the middle east
Beg your pardon? The Roman Empire extended well into tyhe Middle east -
there was a chap, you won;t have heard the name, Pontius Pilate or some
such, who at some point in time was governor thereabouts.
for the events in Revelation to happen
> during John's life time, The King of the north
You mean the Parthians then?
has to come from north
> of Israel since the battle will cumulate at Magetto, which is located
> in Israel. But you are going on and on about Rome while the events
> described in the book are taking place in the Middle East.
> Specifically Israel.
And the province of Judea was part of what empire?
>
> So there is no way John can be describing events that were taking
> place in Rome during his life time since Magetto is many many miles
> away. Plus, no such world wide war ever took place during John's life
> time anyway. Even if it could take place, there was no such world
> power north of Rome that could start such a war during John's life
> time with Rome.
>
> Therefore John is clearly describing a future world war that takes
> place, but is no where near Rome. So how can the book be about Rome
> during John's life time if he is describing a war that will take place
> in an entirely different country?
Check the borders of the Roman Emire at the time
>
> Since there has not been a world wide war focused on the middle east
> yet, we can safely assume that such a war as described is still to
> come, That is of course, if the prophesy is true.
>
> As a second point: A rich and powerful international trading-nation is
> described to have been destroyed BEFORE this world wide war takes
> place.This nation enraged many people on the earth and was destroyed,
> in part, due to it's percieved behavior by these other nations. This
> is happening today. The teaching of evolution and athestic ideas are
> indeed one (read 1) of the reasons why nations around the world hate
> America today.
The they have a really odd target for their hate, since this is much
more widespread in Europe - and nobody hates the Swedes or Norwegians.
Augray
<allse...@usa.com> wrote in
<2c93d9df-5bab-4112...@p30g2000vbt.googlegroups.com> :
[snip]
>Just because there are those that have claimed the sky is falling in
>the past, but it did not, does not mean the sky COULD not fall.
Care to explain how?
>The analogy stands.
Only in your imagination.
Kleuskes & Moos
I know a story about a boy who cried CHICKEN! and got beat up. Does
that have anything to do with this?
Boikat
That pretty much tosses out any claimed evidence in the Bible for most
of the claims made by the Bible, except a few ancient ruins.
Boikat
Boikat
> On Dec 2, 10:22�pm, guscubed <james.prenderg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 3, 2:45�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 2, 7:22�pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 2, 3:51�pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > WNYC Radio Lab Podcast �"In Defense Of Darwinism? (available as a
> > > > > free
> > > > > podcast on Itunes)
>
> > > > > Dawkins opened: "As an academic scientist I am a passionate Darwinian
> > > > > believing that natural selection is, if not the only driving force in
> > > > > evolution, certainly the only known force capable of producing the
> > > > > illusion of purpose which so strikes all who contemplate nature".
> > > > > But at the same time I support Darwinism as a scientist I am a
> > > > > passionate ANTI-DARWINIAN when it comes to politics and how we should
> > > > > conduct our human affairs."
>
> > > > > "I would not like to live in a society which is run on Darwinian
> > > > > principles while fully acknowledging that the brains and bodies that
> > > > > we
> > > > > possess were put there by Darwinian principles in the first place".
>
> > > > > "If you try to apply the lessons of Social Darwinism as the social
> > > > > Darwinists did to human society, then you end up with a kind of super
> > > > > Thatcherism, or even Hitler".
>
> > > > > ________________________________
>
> > > > > Well now. It seems the modern-day-father of atheism and grand poo-baah
> > > > > of evolution thinks evolutionary thinking is bad for a society and
> > > > > could even lead to the rebirth of such things as Thatcherism, or even
> > > > > another Hitler.
>
> > > > clue.
>
> > > > > Well. Hell. I will have to agree.
> > > > > We DO seem to be leaning toward the destruction of religion and of the
> > > > > family on a planatary wide basis these days.
>
> > > > > Let's see. The bible says something about there being a one world
> > > > > all have to worship it and it's beliefs or we will not even be able to
> > > > > buy and sell.
>
> > > > > Buckle in dumb-boyz n stupid-Grrrls
>
> > > > > The worst parts of the bible are unfolding before your eyes with the
> > > > > evolutionists in America playing their tiny part as pawns in a game
> > > > > that is slowing taking place but has some pretty high steaks.
>
> > > > Go rattle you beads at someone who'll believe that crap.
>
> > > > Boikat- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Chez Watt in the category: Fumbling fables: Boy who cried wolf,
> > Chicken Little, what's the difference?
>
> Just because there are those that have claimed the sky is falling in
> the past, but it did not, does not mean the sky COULD not fall.
>
> The analogy stands.
>
Yes. You're a frightened little primate, and you want to frighten all
the other primates. That would be a better analogy.
Have a bannanna and grow up.
Boikat
chris thompson
> On Dec 3, 12:11 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 3, 7:49 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
[...]
> > > It only "appears" to be a covert assault against the legitimacy of the
> > > Roman Empire by those looking to rationalize the book that way. The
> > > entire tone of Revelation is prophetic and works toward a final event
> > > at some point in the future.
>
> > As opposed to a final event at some point in the past?
>
> > Just wondering...
>
>
> No silly.
>
> The events spoken of by John appear to be lining up with what we can
> observe.
>
> One example is the "whore of babalyon".
> No such nation //as described// has ever existed on earth.
>
> Now it does.
Sigh.
It's just not funny when you have to explain it.
Chris
Iain
> could even lead to the rebirth of such things as Thatcherism
Please don't this bloke be a Britton.
--Iain
John Stockwell
> WNYC Radio Lab Podcast "In Defense Of Darwinism? (available as a
> free
> podcast on Itunes)
>
> Dawkins opened: "As an academic scientist I am a passionate Darwinian
> believing that natural selection is, if not the only driving force in
> evolution, certainly the only known force capable of producing the
> illusion of purpose which so strikes all who contemplate nature".
> But at the same time I support Darwinism as a scientist I am a
> passionate ANTI-DARWINIAN when it comes to politics and how we should
> conduct our human affairs."
>
> "I would not like to live in a society which is run on Darwinian
> principles while fully acknowledging that the brains and bodies that
> we
> possess were put there by Darwinian principles in the first place".
>
> "If you try to apply the lessons of Social Darwinism as the social
> Darwinists did to human society, then you end up with a kind of super
> Thatcherism, or even Hitler".
>
> ________________________________
>
> Well now. It seems the modern-day-father of atheism and grand poo-baah
> of evolution thinks evolutionary thinking is bad for a society and
> could even lead to the rebirth of such things as Thatcherism, or even
> another Hitler.
Social darwinism is not "evolution". If Hitler and his buddies
really understood "fitness" they would have been pushing for
genetic diversity, and welcoming people of all ethnicities into
the Reich to intermarry with the genetically unfit Aryans.
> The All Seeing I
-John
Erwin Moller
> WNYC Radio Lab Podcast "In Defense Of Darwinism? (available as a
> free
> podcast on Itunes)
>
> Dawkins opened: "As an academic scientist I am a passionate Darwinian
> believing that natural selection is, if not the only driving force in
> evolution, certainly the only known force capable of producing the
> illusion of purpose which so strikes all who contemplate nature".
> But at the same time I support Darwinism as a scientist I am a
> passionate ANTI-DARWINIAN when it comes to politics and how we should
> conduct our human affairs."
>
>
> "I would not like to live in a society which is run on Darwinian
> principles while fully acknowledging that the brains and bodies that
> we
> possess were put there by Darwinian principles in the first place".
>
>
> "If you try to apply the lessons of Social Darwinism as the social
> Darwinists did to human society, then you end up with a kind of super
> Thatcherism, or even Hitler".
>
> ________________________________
>
My dear Madman,
Is this news for you?
A surprise?
Where did you pick up the idea that supporters of Darwinism think it is
a nice idea that we build our societies on survival of the fittest and
things like that?
I actually know of few to none who think that is a nice idea.
I certainly wouldn't advise it.
You are attacking a strawman.
> Well now. It seems the modern-day-father of atheism and grand poo-baah
> of evolution thinks evolutionary thinking is bad for a society and
> could even lead to the rebirth of such things as Thatcherism, or even
> another Hitler.
Don't dumb everything down to one-liners: You loose precious information
if you do that.
Tell me Madman: Do you believe cats catch mice and toy them around
untill the mice die of exhaustion/pain/fear?
Ever had a cat? You must have observed this phenomena.
Now tell me Madman, Since you are such a big opponent of mice-killing
and grand-poo-baah of sadism, do you think we should build our society
on that idea?
Yes or no?
How stupid does my logic sound?
Well, you just did the same.
>
> Well. Hell. I will have to agree.
> We DO seem to be leaning toward the destruction of religion and of the
> family on a planatary wide basis these days.
I wished you were right.
(Appart from the family destruction: I like families.)
>
> Let's see. The bible says something about there being a one world
> government led by an anti-christian (aka; anti-christ) and we will
> all have to worship it and it's beliefs or we will not even be able to
> buy and sell.
bla bla
The bible says everything in retrospect.
Just like the Bavagad Ghidda, or Nostradamus.
It would be nice if you started predicting for a change (instead of
claiming a bunch of vague texts said it, always in retrospect).
>
> Buckle in dumb-boyz n stupid-Grrrls
??
>
> The worst parts of the bible are unfolding before your eyes with the
> evolutionists in America playing their tiny part as pawns in a game
> that is slowing taking place but has some pretty high steaks.
Who were it excactly again that think that judgement day would be a nice
idea?
Oh yeah, religious zealots with their hands on the red buttons to start
an atomic war.
>
> --
> Revealing the Book of Revelation with,,,
Please reveal something in detail UP FRONT.
Thanks.
>
> The All Seeing I
>
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Dick C.
news:PLSdnbCg7eJCnYXW...@bresnan.com:
> All-Seeing-I wrote:
> snip
>
>
> There's no reason to think the sky is falling, just as in the story
> (it was a falling acorn, not the sky that fell) and you, like chicken
> little are running around in a panic and are easily fooled .
OTOH, we do gets bits falling out of the sky all the time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcAGHkEvkDU
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@gmail.com
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Dec 3, 7:31�am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> All-seeing-I wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> >>>> [snip Revelations nonsense]
>> >>> Revelation is not nonsense JH You heard it here first.
>> >> No I didn't. I've heard that from every fundy before you. I agree
>> >> it isn't nonsense, quite. But the part that isn't nonsense appears
>> >> �to be a veiled assault on the legitimacy of the Roman Empire. It
>> >> has nothing to do with anything that's actually going to happen in
>> >> �the future, much less anything that's happening now.
>>
>> >> If you have any argument to the contrary, present it now
>>
>> > It only "appears" to be a covert assault against the legitimacy of
>> > the Roman Empire by those looking to rationalize the book that way.
>> > The entire tone of Revelation is prophetic and works toward a final
>> > event at some point in the future. Even one of those 'edcuated'
>> > evo-freaks should be able to gather that. Besides, John was very old.
>> > �Why would he want to spend his remaining days on earth writing a
>> > book about current events?
>>
>> " to reassure the Christians of Asia amid
>> � the persecutions and trials of the end of the first century"
>> (Pope Benedict XVI)
>>
>> �> ` Anyway. Knowing how you just love to
>>
>> > have evidence for everything, below is the textual evidence that I
>> > base my opinion on:
>>
>> > John describes a great world wide war starting with a kingdom in the
>> > north. It takes place at Meggedo, Israel. (which is where many
>> > historical battles had taken place long before John's time). This war
>> > �is commonly called the war of "Armageddon'.
>>
>> > Now, the "7 hills" definitely refers to Rome. But. A final war
>> > involving Rome and a kingdom in the North does not make sense.
>>
>> But it makes more � sense if you replace Rome with the US? What power in
>> the North of the US will bring it down? �Canada?
>>
>> � There
>>
>> > was no country in existance to the north of Rome or Israel that could
>> > wage such a war on the Roman Empire during John's lifetime.
>>
>> � Leaving aside the tissue that Rome _was_ eventually brought down by
>> invaders from the North though after John, so he simply got the dates wrong
>>
>> This fact
>>
>> > alone is enough to discredit those television shows that present The
>> > Book of Revelation as being during John's time period.
>>
>> > Next. The symbolic animals in revelation were originally identified
>> > in Daniel�s prophecy. So John was just reinforcing prior prophesy
>> > about end times, not about Nero or Rome oppression.
>>
>> > Then, John introduces the Whore of Babalyon in Revelation Chapter 17.
>> > �The whore is a metaphor for a great nation. John is clearly
>> > describing as an international power.
>>
>> yes, Rome
>>
>> �>She "sits on many waters,"
>>
>> Look up "Mare Nostrum".
>> see inparticular Saddington, D.B. (2007), "Classes. The Evolution of the
>> Roman Imperial Fleets", in Erdkamp, Paul, A Companion to the Roman Army,
>> Blackwell Publishing Ltd.,
>>
>> in particular p. 208ff on the expansion of the fleet to protect new
>> trade routes in the tiems of John
>>
>> and
>>
>> > is representing many different peoples (17:15),
>>
>> Rome again. see C. Ando, Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the
>> Empire. University of �California Press, 2000, ch. 3;
>>
>> � F.W. Walbank, �Nationality as a Factor in Roman History�, Harvard
>> � Studies in Classical Philology 76, 1972, pp.145-168.
>>
>> and she has committed
>>
>> > fornication with "the kings of the earth," and she has inflamed "the
>> > �dwellers on earth" with her fornication.
>>
>> > This plainly describes America of today for numerous reasons; Because
>> > �in chapter 18, John sees the destruction of the Whore. She is
>> > depicted as a major center of international trade and commerce. When
>> > �she is destroyed in chapter 18, we read that "the merchants of the
>> > earth weep and mourn for her, since no one buys their cargo any more"
>> > �(18:11) and, "all shipmasters and seafaring men, sailors and all
>> > whose trade is on the sea . . . wept and mourned, crying out, �Alas,
>> > �alas, for the great city, where all who had ships at sea grew rich
>> > by her wealth!�" (18:17�19).
>>
>> Yep, Rome:
>>
>> PM Rogers: �Domitian and the Finances of State
>> Historia: Zeitschrift fur Alte Geschichte, 1984
>>
>> K. Hopkins, �Taxes and Trade in the Roman Empire�, Journal
>> of Roman Studies 70, 1980, p. 121.
>>
>> > It is common knowledge that America is the largest consumer nation on
>> > �earth and many countries would go broke should there be no more
>> > America to buy their goods. Which is exactly what will happen should
>> > America collapse.
>>
>> > But OTOH, When Rome fell ---nothing as John has described above or in
>> > �the book of revelatiotook place. Which shows that John was
>> > describing a nation of the future. That nation also sounds eerily
>> > like America today.
>>
>> Which of course simply means that his made-up prophecy failed. As
>> prophecies often do. Or in the words of Jefferson: �"merely the
>> ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the
>> incoherences of our own nightly dreams."
>>
>> > The country as described was not in existence during John's time and
>> > therefore is another reason why The Book Of Revelation was about the
>> > future.. .
>>
>> > Finally, and what is most compelling to me personally, is this:
>>
>> > "And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy
>> > �a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
>> > These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing
>> > before the God of the earth. �And if any man will hurt them, fire
>> > proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: �and if
>> > any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed. �These have
>> > �power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their
>> > prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to
>> > smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will." (Revelation
>> > �11:3-6)
>>
>> > The world will want these two men dead and that can be shown by what
>> > happens next. �After a many months, God will finally permit these two
>> > men to be killed by the Antichrist. �Nevertheless, the Antichrist
>> > will neither bury these men, nor allow others to bury them.
>>
>> > "And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that
>> > ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and
>> > shall overcome them, and kill them. �And their dead bodies shall lie
>> > in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom
>> > and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
>>
>> > And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see
>> > �their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their
>> > �dead bodies to be put in graves. �And they that dwell upon the earth
>> > �shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to
>> > �another; �because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on
>> > the earth." (Revelation 11:7-10)
>>
>> > It seems the whole world will throw a huge party, celebrating the
>> > murder of these two righteous men. �It will seem like "Christmas" or
>> > some other holiday as the whole world eats, laughs, and watches these
>> > two bloody bodies lie there on the street.
>>
>> > It was impossible for every nation, people and languare on earth to
>> > witness dead bodies for several days and do it at the same time
>> > before satellite television.
>>
>> You mean God could not have just ordered a miracle?
>>
>> � This also suggests the bodies were
>>
>> > recorded, then played back, because otherwise, the bodies would begin
>> > �the decomposition process and no one would want to see that for 3
>> > days. Plus, the news media has quite a reputation for playing the
>> > same bad news over and over for days..
>>
>> > "people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead
>> > bodies three days and an half days"
>>
>> > Watching the corpses on TV or on the Internet, which was not
>> > available during John's life time, is yet another reason why the book
>> > �of revelation is about future events and not about events during
>> > John's life time .
>>
>> Yeah, what woudl God do without the internet.
>
>You guys are so amusing. I could not buy this kind of entertainment
>anywhere.
>
>The point to Harshman, that flew straight over your head obviously, is
>the apostle John is describing a war that takes place in the middle
>east involving the entire world at some time in the future.
Something they thought was imminent as soon as the authors wrote it.
>Rome is no
>where near the middle east
Duh! At that time it controlled the Middle East.
> for the events in Revelation to happen
>during John's life time, The King of the north has to come from north
>of Israel since the battle will cumulate at Magetto, which is located
>in Israel.
Where the firk is "Magetto"?
> But you are going on and on about Rome while the events
>described in the book are taking place in the Middle East.
>Specifically Israel.
You forget that the whole area was part of the Roman Empire.
>
>So there is no way John can be describing events that were taking
>place in Rome during his life time since Magetto is many many miles
>away.
Could you point me to a place called Magetto?
> Plus, no such world wide war ever took place during John's life
>time anyway.
Which John are you talking about?
>Even if it could take place, there was no such world
>power north of Rome that could start such a war during John's life
>time with Rome.
This is one of the things that tends to put the authorship well into
the 2nd century.
>
>Therefore John is clearly describing a future world war that takes
>place, but is no where near Rome. So how can the book be about Rome
>during John's life time if he is describing a war that will take place
>in an entirely different country?
Learn from the reams of text written on the subject.
>
>Since there has not been a world wide war focused on the middle east
>yet, we can safely assume that such a war as described is still to
>come, That is of course, if the prophesy is true.
>
>As a second point: A rich and powerful international trading-nation is
>described to have been destroyed BEFORE this world wide war takes
>place.This nation enraged many people on the earth and was destroyed,
>in part, due to it's percieved behavior by these other nations. This
>is happening today.
Is it?
> The teaching of evolution and athestic ideas are
>indeed one (read 1) of the reasons why nations around the world hate
>America today.
Don't talk such rubbish.
> Plus. There was no such nation on the planet, as
>described, and at that time, But there is today, America,
There have been several before and there are several now.
>
>As a third point: There are some events that simply could not happen
>without the marvel of today's technology.
Oh?
>
>Clearly these three points alone show that revelation is not refering
>to events taking place during John's life time but, rather to some
>events that will take place in the future.
The authors of John thought they were describing events that were
about to take place. Mainly, of course, this was due to their delusion
that their mythical gods were about to descend - after all, when the
authors wrote Revelation, old JC and his horde were already about
50-100 years overdue.
>
>Quite amusingly, we have not even touched on how John's revelation
>ties in with other biblical prophesy that also shows revelation is
>describing events of the future.
>
>Clearly many of you will fall hook line and sinker for anything you
>see on television.
Clearly many of you will fall hook line and sinker for anything you
see in old texts.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
Science causes disease.
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whore_of_Babylon#Identity
>
>Now it does.
Rubbish.
>
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
AlwaysAskingQuestions
Don't be so reticent, you could always point out what actual scientific
evidence these "theories" are based on; or you might explain how they are
falsifiable; or you might show how they meet the predictability requirement
of a scientific theory.
Dan Listermann
observe it now? Show me your creation myth as it unfolds now - in a
laboratory, let's see if it is repeatable. Got any equations to show us?
Any DNA data? What about radiometric data? Show us what you have besides
snipping at evolution. Hell, you can't even tell us if all the animals that
ever existed, 99% of which are now extinct, were created at the beginning or
do they still pop into existence now. You ignore this question because you
are so stupid as to not see where it will take you and you don't want to be
there.
.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Better than joining the ranks of idiots as you have done.
John Harshman
> On Dec 3, 10:12 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
[snip great amounts of nothing]
> That's your evidence? ...
>
> Textual evidence. I strongly suggest you remember it. The information
> may be valuable some day.
That wasn't evidence at all. It was a series of assertions. In what way
will this information be valuable? Are you predicting the imminent
arrival of the End Times, in exactly the same was others have been
predicting that imminence for the last 2000 years?
John Harshman
> Wow. You have joined the ranks of gypsies tramps and thieves I see.
You're a Cher fan too? I thought you had to be gay for that.
For a person who claims to be able to perceive what's literal and what's
metaphor, you seem oddly unable to comprehend humor. You made a dumb
statement about the sky falling; I capitalized on it. Get over it.
John Harshman
Hey, I have it on good authority (you, in fact) that it's supposed to be
spelled "CHEZZY WATT". What happened?
Sapient Fridge
<c20994c2-8ddc-485b...@g12g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
All-Seeing-I <allse...@usa.com> writes
<snip>
>The atheist is the one who fears death and that is why thay have to
>tell themselves there is nothing beyond what they can see or feel in
>the hear and now.
Why do you think atheists are scared of death? I'm not. I not keen on
the idea of dying but that's a different thing, and likely painful.
Are you scared about the fact that you did not exist before you were
born?
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
All-Seeing-I
> All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 7:31 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> All-seeing-I wrote:
>
> >> <snip>
> >>>>>> [snip Revelations nonsense]
> >>>>> Revelation is not nonsense JH You heard it here first.
> >>>> No I didn't. I've heard that from every fundy before you. I agree
> >>>> it isn't nonsense, quite. But the part that isn't nonsense appears
> >>>> has nothing to do with anything that's actually going to happen in
> >>>> If you have any argument to the contrary, present it now
> >>> It only "appears" to be a covert assault against the legitimacy of
> >>> the Roman Empire by those looking to rationalize the book that way.
> >>> The entire tone of Revelation is prophetic and works toward a final
> >>> event at some point in the future. Even one of those 'edcuated'
> >>> evo-freaks should be able to gather that. Besides, John was very old.
> >>> book about current events?
> >> " to reassure the Christians of Asia amid
> >> (Pope Benedict XVI)
>
> >> �> ` Anyway. Knowing how you just love to
>
> >>> have evidence for everything, below is the textual evidence that I
> >>> base my opinion on:
> >>> John describes a great world wide war starting with a kingdom in the
> >>> north. It takes place at Meggedo, Israel. (which is where many
> >>> historical battles had taken place long before John's time). This war
> >>> Now, the "7 hills" definitely refers to Rome. But. A final war
> >>> involving Rome and a kingdom in the North does not make sense.
> >> the North of the US will bring it down? �Canada?
>
> >> � There
>
> >>> was no country in existance to the north of Rome or Israel that could
> >>> wage such a war on the Roman Empire during John's lifetime.
> >> invaders from the North though after John, so he simply got the dates wrong
>
> >> This fact
>
> >>> alone is enough to discredit those television shows that present The
> >>> Book of Revelation as being during John's time period.
> >>> Next. The symbolic animals in revelation were originally identified
> >>> in Daniel�s prophecy. So John was just reinforcing prior prophesy
> >>> about end times, not about Nero or Rome oppression.
> >>> Then, John introduces the Whore of Babalyon in Revelation Chapter 17.
> >>> describing as an international power.
> >> yes, Rome
>
>
> >> Look up "Mare Nostrum".
> >> see inparticular Saddington, D.B. (2007), "Classes. The Evolution of the
> >> Roman Imperial Fleets", in Erdkamp, Paul, A Companion to the Roman Army,
> >> Blackwell Publishing Ltd.,
>
> >> in particular p. 208ff on the expansion of the fleet to protect new
> >> trade routes in the tiems of John
>
> >> and
>
> >>> is representing many different peoples (17:15),
> >> Rome again. see C. Ando, Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the
>
> >> � F.W. Walbank, �Nationality as a Factor in Roman History�, Harvard
> >> � Studies in Classical Philology 76, 1972, pp.145-168.
>
> >> and she has committed
>
> >>> fornication with "the kings of the earth," and she has inflamed "the
> >>> This plainly describes America of today for numerous reasons; Because
> >>> depicted as a major center of international trade and commerce. When
> >>> earth weep and mourn for her, since no one buys their cargo any more"
> >>> whose trade is on the sea . . . wept and mourned, crying out, �Alas,
> >>> by her wealth!�" (18:17�19).
> >> Yep, Rome:
>
> >> Historia: Zeitschrift fur Alte Geschichte, 1984
>
> >> K. Hopkins, �Taxes and Trade in the Roman Empire�, Journal
> >> of Roman Studies 70, 1980, p. 121.
>
> >>> It is common knowledge that America is the largest consumer nation on
> >>> America to buy their goods. Which is exactly what will happen should
> >>> America collapse.
> >>> But OTOH, When Rome fell ---nothing as John has described above or in
> >>> describing a nation of the future. That nation also sounds eerily
> >>> like America today.
> >> Which of course simply means that his made-up prophecy failed. As
> >> ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the
> >> incoherences of our own nightly dreams."
>
> >>> The country as described was not in existence during John's time and
> >>> therefore is another reason why The Book Of Revelation was about the
> >>> future.. .
> >>> Finally, and what is most compelling to me personally, is this:
> >>> "And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy
> >>> These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing
> >>> proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: �and if
> >>> any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed. �These have
> >>> �power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their
> >>> prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to
> >>> smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will." (Revelation
> >>> The world will want these two men dead and that can be shown by what
> >>> men to be killed by the Antichrist. �Nevertheless, the Antichrist
> >>> will neither bury these men, nor allow others to bury them.
> >>> "And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that
> >>> ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and
> >>> in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom
> >>> and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
> >>> And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see
> >>> �dead bodies to be put in graves. �And they that dwell upon the earth
> >>> �shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to
> >>> �another; �because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on
> >>> the earth." (Revelation 11:7-10)
> >>> It seems the whole world will throw a huge party, celebrating the
> >>> some other holiday as the whole world eats, laughs, and watches these
> >>> two bloody bodies lie there on the street.
> >>> It was impossible for every nation, people and languare on earth to
> >>> witness dead bodies for several days and do it at the same time
> >>> before satellite television.
> >> You mean God could not have just ordered a miracle?
>
>
> >>> recorded, then played back, because otherwise, the bodies would begin
> >>> days. Plus, the news media has quite a reputation for playing the
> >>> same bad news over and over for days..
> >>> "people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead
> >>> bodies three days and an half days"
> >>> Watching the corpses on TV or on the Internet, which was not
> >>> available during John's life time, is yet another reason why the book
> >>> John's life time .
> >> Yeah, what woudl God do without the internet.
>
> > You guys are so amusing. I could not buy this kind of entertainment
> > anywhere.
>
> > The point to Harshman, that flew straight over your head obviously, is
> > the apostle John is describing a war that takes place in the middle
> > east involving the entire world at some time in the future. Rome is no
> > where near the middle east
>
> Beg your pardon? The Roman Empire extended well into tyhe Middle east -
> there was a chap, you won;t have heard the name, Pontius Pilate or some
> such, who at some point in time was governor thereabouts.
>
> for the events in Revelation to happen
>
> > during John's life time, The King of the north
>
> You mean the Parthians then?
>
> more widespread in Europe - and nobody hates the Swedes or Norwegians.
>
>
> > As a third point: There are some events that simply could not happen
> > without the marvel of today's technology.
>
> > Clearly these three points alone show that revelation is not refering
> > to events taking place during John's life time but, rather to some
> > events that will take place in the future.
>
> > Quite amusingly, we have not even touched on how John's revelation
> > ties in with other biblical prophesy that also shows revelation is
> > describing events of the future.
>
> > Clearly many of you will fall hook line and sinker for anything you
> > see on television.
Where was John at? Patmos. Which is NO WHERE NEAR Israel.
The television freaks argue that the events were taking place IN ROME,
ITALY and Not in a Roman Annex as you claim; which is was what Israel
was at that time. Besides. Magetto is far from Jerusalem. Rome did not
annex magetto nor did it have an outpost there. Probably because they
knew from history they could never hold it anyway.
Couple this with the plethora of other reasons; and,.... even a child
can understand that John was talking about a FUTURE war that was to
take place. One that seems to have a high probability of happening
since the events of 1918, 1948, 1967 and 1972.
Jesus was clear. He said "Learn the Lesson from the fig tree". When
the fig tree sprouts again then the end time is drawing near. Israel
is allegorically called "the fig tree" in many places throughout the
bible. In 1948 Israel reformed as a nation, In 1967 and 1972 Isreal
reclaimed more of promised land. The only event left that needs to be
fufilled now, is the rebuilding of the temple.
But the Muslems control the temple so that cannot happen. Right? Think
again.
Evidence has been presented for the location of Solomon's temple
having been situated between the existing Dome of the Rock and Dome of
the Tablets.
This evidence consists of:
1) a central axis row of stones that may contain original bedrock
stones directed nearly perpendicular to the east wall of the Temple
Mount,
2) a set of drainage channels on three sides of the location,
3) cisterns located below this area fed by holes in the drainage
channels, as would be needed for Solomon's temple,
4) a pillar base in about the correct location for the Boaz pillar,
and
5) all of the measurements between these features approximately
corresponding to the Biblical dimensions.
If this location is indeed correct, then the exact location and
orientation have been pinpointed in a place where no building
currently stands. So.. THAT means the temple could be restored there
without impacting the Dome of the Rock in any way.
But IF it is rebuilt, then get ready for the largest war that has ever
wittenessed in the history of mankind. Something that will be of
"Biblical Proportions". Gee....Like described in The Book of
Revelation maybe? Yes..
The Events in Revelation are unfolding as accuratly as can be
described by an old man using the language of his day to describe
future events. The events line up with what we can and have already
observed.
So. You are arguing just to be arguing, or you are a complete dummy
Let's see... umm.. I choose "dummy".
I want ALL of you to Learn The Book of Revelation By The End Of This
Year.
It is THAT important.
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>The atheist is the one who fears death and that is why thay have to
>tell themselves there is nothing beyond what they can see or feel in
>the hear and now.
and christians are just child molestors, right?
you speak for atheists
i speak for christians.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-seeing-I
<ap...@email.com>:
>On Dec 2, 7:26�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 13:51:44 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-Seeing-I
>> <allseei...@usa.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >WNYC Radio Lab Podcast �"In Defense Of Darwinism? (available as a
>> >free
>> >podcast on Itunes)
>>
>> >Dawkins opened: "As an academic scientist I am a passionate Darwinian
>> >believing that natural selection is, if not the only driving force in
>> >evolution, certainly the only known force capable of producing the
>> >illusion of purpose which so strikes all who contemplate nature".
>> >But at the same time I support Darwinism as a scientist I am a
>> >passionate ANTI-DARWINIAN when it comes to politics and how we should
>> >conduct our human affairs."
>>
>> >"I would not like to live in a society which is run on Darwinian
>> >principles while fully acknowledging that the brains and bodies that
>> >we
>> >possess were put there by Darwinian principles in the first place".
>>
>> >"If you try to apply the lessons of Social Darwinism as the social
>> >Darwinists did to human society, then you end up with a kind of super
>> >Thatcherism, or even Hitler".
>>
>> >________________________________
>>
>> >Well now. It seems the modern-day-father of atheism and grand poo-baah
>> >of evolution thinks evolutionary thinking is bad for a society and
>> >could even lead to the rebirth of such things as Thatcherism, or even
>> >another Hitler.
>>
>> As long as ignorance exists anything can be misused. Perhaps
>> universal education in science (and *especially* in logic)
>> is the answer? It might even work for the science
>> illiterates who post here.
>
>Well. There ya go. Dawkins is right.
Yes. And it seems to me that his words specifically reject
the type of Social Darwinism attempted by Hitler et. al.
Perhaps a remedial reading course would help you?
> You advocate universal education
>to correct what you consider to be ignorance.
What do you consider a lack of education other than
ignorance? Aside from its desirability in those you wish to
gull, that is.
> THAT is Thatcher-ism.
Really? You'll have to explain that connection, since I
don't see it.
>You could even be a mini version of Hitler with that kinda thinking.
I'm not surprised that you dislike universal education. It
would mean that either you'd be subject to education for the
first time, or you'd be hopelessly outclassed by everyone
else, rather than the current situation where only those
with an education and the ability to think rationally
outclass you. A bit of a rock and hard place, n'est-ce pas?
>But as Dawkins said, he would "not like to live in a society which is
>run on Darwinian principles". But you do. You desire Darwinian
>principals for a society while "fully acknowledging that the brains
>and bodies that we possess were put there by Darwinian principles in
>the first place".
Nope; sorry. Universal education specifically rejects that
sort of idiocy, since it presupposes that everyone is
educable. It may be wrong, but it doesn't assume any
heritable advantage.
>You seem to be a perfect example for what Darwin is saying.
Oh, I am. Just not in the way you attempted to twist it.
>urrmm.
Gas?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:
>All-Seeing-I wrote:
>
>A heap of utter nonsense.
>
>Nevertheless, there is something in Dawkins words that needs to be picked up
>on, it's the sort of thing that Dawkins does that IMO makes him at times as
>bad as the fundies he opposes:
>
>> "I would not like to live in a society which is run on Darwinian
>> principles while fully acknowledging that the brains and bodies that
>> we
>> possess were put there by Darwinian principles in the first place".
>
>He is absolutely right that our bodies were developed by evolution, the
>evidence is overwhelming, but there is no such overwhelming evidence - very
>little real evidence, in fact - that our brains are a product of evolution.
>
>An assumption that because our bodies evolved, our brains must have evolved
>too is just that - an assumption, not a scientific conclusion.
It's supported by paleontology; each species preceding Homo
sapiens (excepting Homo neanderthalensis, which was
essentially contemporaneous and not an ancestor) had a
smaller brain than its successor.
>(Obviously by "brain" I am referring to the capabilities of the human mind,
>not just the cells that physically make it up.)
First, we don't really know how well Homoerectus et. al.
could think. But second it's pretty well agreed (AFAIK) that
the capabilities of the human brain are an emergent property
of its size and organization, both of which resulted from
evolution.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca>:
>On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 13:51:44 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
><allse...@usa.com> wrote in
><362bb50f-32b8-48ea...@e22g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> :
>
>[snip]
>
>>The worst parts of the bible are unfolding before your eyes with the
>>evolutionists in America playing their tiny part as pawns in a game
>>that is slowing taking place but has some pretty high steaks.
>
>Everyone's going to be fed steak?
Slightly spoiled ones, apparently.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:
>Garamond Lethe wrote:
>> On 2009-12-03, AlwaysAskingQuestions
>> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>> That's wrong. What we have in regard to the evolution of
>>> intelligence is, at best, a set of *hypotheses*, not a set of
>>> *theories*. Science can't even agree what intelligence is, let alone
>>> agree where it came from.
>>
>> From the first paper I picked up:
>>
>> <q>
>> Many researchers
>> have also argued that some of our mental traits and behavioral
>> propensities evolved as fitness indicators, according to the
>> principles of costly signaling theory. These mental fitness
>> indicators may include some of our capacities for:
>
>[...]
>
>"have also argued" and "may include" do not a theory make.
You are, of course, free to present studies which contradict
the theories provided (or hypotheses if you prefer; I have
no idea how much testing has been done, and I suspect you
don't either).
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:
>All-Seeing-I wrote:
>
>Hey, I have it on good authority (you, in fact) that it's supposed to be
>spelled "CHEZZY WATT". What happened?
Maybe he got some of that "universal education" he
disparages?
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-Seeing-I
<allse...@usa.com>:
>On Dec 3, 11:48�am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>> "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:eb196fb1-ebc0-4bb5...@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > Watching the corpses on TV or on the Internet, which was not available
>> >> > during John's life time, is yet another reason why the book of
>> >> > revelation is about future events and not about events during John's
>> >> > life time
>> >> > .
>>
>> >> That's your evidence? ...
>>
>> > Textual evidence. I strongly suggest you remember it. The information
>> > may be valuable some day.
>>
>> "Biblical data?"
>>
>Yes. That matches what we can and have observed.
Really? There was a global flood, and all land life perished
except that on the ark built by Noah? We observe that in the
geological, biological and historical evidence?
All-Seeing-I
wrote:
> In message
> <c20994c2-8ddc-485b-a812-9a215571f...@g12g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> writes
>
> <snip>
>
> >The atheist is the one who fears death and that is why thay have to
> >tell themselves there is nothing beyond what they can see or feel in
> >the hear and now.
>
> Why do you think atheists are scared of death? �I'm not. �I not keen on
> the idea of dying but that's a different thing, and likely painful.
>
> Are you scared about the fact that you did not exist before you were
> born?
Not really. Are you?
All-Seeing-I
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 10:02:19 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-Seeing-I
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 3, 11:48 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> >> "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:eb196fb1-ebc0-4bb5...@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > Watching the corpses on TV or on the Internet, which was not available
> >> >> > during John's life time, is yet another reason why the book of
> >> >> > revelation is about future events and not about events during John's
> >> >> > life time
> >> >> > .
>
> >> >> That's your evidence? ...
>
> >> > Textual evidence. I strongly suggest you remember it. The information
> >> > may be valuable some day.
>
> >> "Biblical data?"
>
> >Yes. That matches what we can and have observed.
>
> Really? There was a global flood, and all land life perished
> except that on the ark built by Noah? We observe that in the
> geological, biological and historical evidence?
> --
>
> Bob C.
[facepalm] [blink] [sigh]
All-Seeing-I
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 10:34:26 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>
>
> >The atheist is the one who fears death and that is why thay have to
> >tell themselves there is nothing beyond what they can see or feel in
> >the hear and now.
>
> and christians are just child molestors, right?
>
> you speak for atheists
>
> i speak for christians.
heh...
We have a problem Gate Guard.
What I said was true. What you said is not.
All-Seeing-I
> On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 14:28:25 -0800, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
>
> >All-Seeing-I wrote:
>
> >Hey, I have it on good authority (you, in fact) that it's supposed to be
> >spelled "CHEZZY WATT". What happened?
>
> Maybe he got some of that "universal education" he
> disparages?
> --
>
> Bob C.
hey. I coined the phrase, therefore I get to spell the phrase the way
I like.
Now, If you guys want to take harvestdancer up on his idea to include
the Chezzy Watt for voting, then the group can name it how ever it
wants.
Until then FOAD
how about THEM apples
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
You want a universal edcuation system.
What will eventually happen with your kind of thinking? A unified one
world government.
Dawkins was correct. People that think like you are using an evolved
brain and will only lead mankind into universal armageddon. Which is
where Hitler almost took the world.
That just so happens to be what the bible describes as well
Free Lunch
<allse...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
The Bible is not reliable.
Don't blame us when you refer to "biblical data" and get mocked.