"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Schizoid Man" wrote in message


I cannot believe the audacity of Judge Johns. Not only is
he legislating from the bench, he is also not qualified
to dismiss the scientific theory of intelligent design as
'thinly-veiled creationism'.

I don't know why Christians feel the need for their own unsupportable
theory of creation just like the one that the secularizers have
(evolution).

One is based on observable data, the other is based on a bilical fairy tale.

It is truly a sad day for America when we are prohibited
from promoting a Biblical worldview.

Remember that we are now a pluralistic society. If you don't want the
government to promote a Moslemic worldview, then you'll have to give up
the idea of the government promoting a Christian worldview.


I don't want the government to promote any religous view.



The systematic warfare on Christianity by the far-left is
making us a godless and heathen society much like Western
Europe.

No, its just putting religious education back into the hands of religious
people.

Can the government really force me to lie to children and
pollute their minds with theories that suggest that
humans are nothing more than glorified apes?

Depends what your occupation is - if its public school teacher then, if
you like your job you better do your employer's bidding.

This is a moral castastrophe.

Only if it stops you from doing the right thing. Arguably getting the
government out of the religious education business puts that business back
in the hands of religious educators, perhaps yourself included.

It is affront to Him.

Ultimately such a thing can not persist.

It is a spiritual travesty.

Should the government be in charge of promoting spirituality?

What a sad day for America indeed.

Maybe just another case of some hypocracy biting the dust.

wrote:

I don't want the government to promote any religous view.

I thought the US constitution forbade that in fact.

Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


wrote:

I don't want the government to promote any religous view.

I thought the US constitution forbade that in fact.


It does. But it doesn't require the level of separation that some people
seem to think it does, in fact it doesn't require it at all. The phrase
separation of church and state came from somewhere else.

I've been an atheist most of my adult life, but the level that both sides of
the church/state debate are willing to go to, bothers me.

Removing religion from all public places is overkill and smacks of
intolerance, especially from the left who always want us to "celebrate our
diversity." They mean, as long as you're not religious.

When I grew up, there were displays that had all the typical manger, wise
man, camel stuff and we sang Christmas songs in school and all the parents
came to hear us do our off key versions. We said the Pledge of Allegiance
and some people said under God and some didn't. It didn't require a
lawsuit, people just did as they felt.

It's gotten so far the other way now that one city in Texas, Plano I
believe, has a school district where students are not allowed to wear red
and green! That's not separation, that's just ****ing nuts.

I don't agree with any idea of a supreme being, unless maybe it's Sol
Marantz :-)

In some ways these NG's are becoming or have become as polarized as the
whackos in the church/state fight, or as the religious/secular warriors.

There's the side that understands how things work and what is audible and
the other side that thinks there's magic if you buy the right wires or
choose the designer caps for your xover. The only thing sadder and stupider
than the debate over tubes vs. SS or blind listening vs. sighted is the
singularly unflattering idea that in the 21st Century people who own Hi-Fi
equipment that uses laser beams can still believe in people rising from the
dead and ascending to Heaven.

I know return you ro our regular scheculed mayhem.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


wrote:

I don't want the government to promote any religous view.

I thought the US constitution forbade that in fact.

Graham

It does indeed. But the Religous Right has argued that the words are to be
understood in the context of the time in which they were written, a context
they claim they know. I prefer the literal meaning.

But in fact, it is my understanding that the late 18th and early 19th
century, in America, were times of greater religious diversity, at least in
terms of tolerance of aetheism, than now.

Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


wrote:

I don't want the government to promote any religous view.

I thought the US constitution forbade that in fact.

Graham

It does indeed. But the Religous Right has argued that the words are to be
understood in the context of the time in which they were written, a context
they claim they know

I see. The 'we know better' argument . Typical..


. I prefer the literal meaning.

Indeed.


But in fact, it is my understanding that the late 18th and early 19th
century, in America, were times of greater religious diversity, at least in
terms of tolerance of aetheism, than now.

Really ? Yet again American society puzzles. Given the scepticism apparent in
the US for large organisations e.g. the 'gubmint' etc I'm perplexed how ppl are
so easily hoaxed by religion.

Graham

From: Pooh Bear
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 03:48:32 +0000

Really ? Yet again American society puzzles. Given the scepticism apparent in
the US for large organisations e.g. the 'gubmint' etc I'm perplexed how ppl are
so easily hoaxed by religion.

I personally blame Europe for the religious crazies in the US, and lack
of personal thought or introspection or study for their perpetuation.

In the 1600 and 1700s, where did Europe send the religious whackos (or,
perhaps, where did they 'allow them to colonize')?

If your parents are, say, Baptist (or Lutheran or Catholic or
whatever), the odds are you will be too. If your parents are a
particular flavor (Wisconsin vs. Missouri Synod for Lutherans, for
example), the odds are you will be too.

Removing conversions of convenience (for marriage or location,
primarily) the nuts usually don't fall too far from the tree. Mom and
Dad just couldn't be wrong! So you take the nutjobs from the 1600s,
have them procreate and pass their fundamentalism from generation to
generation, have none of them seriously consider it, and there you have
it. They aren't being hoaxed; they're right, dammit! When will YOU
learn?

This is just personal observation and a study of history. To head off
the science crowd, I have no scientific data to back this up. You
should just have faith that I'm correct.

By the way, Merry Christmas.:-)

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

From: Pooh Bear
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 03:48:32 +0000

Really ? Yet again American society puzzles. Given the scepticism apparent in
the US for large organisations e.g. the 'gubmint' etc I'm perplexed how ppl are
so easily hoaxed by religion.

I personally blame Europe for the religious crazies in the US, and lack
of personal thought or introspection or study for their perpetuation.

In the 1600 and 1700s, where did Europe send the religious whackos (or,
perhaps, where did they 'allow them to colonize')?

'Europe' didn't *send* them anywhere of course.

Those who travelled to the 'new continent' did so of their own free will.


If your parents are, say, Baptist (or Lutheran or Catholic or
whatever), the odds are you will be too. If your parents are a
particular flavor (Wisconsin vs. Missouri Synod for Lutherans, for
example), the odds are you will be too.

Removing conversions of convenience (for marriage or location,
primarily) the nuts usually don't fall too far from the tree. Mom and
Dad just couldn't be wrong! So you take the nutjobs from the 1600s,
have them procreate and pass their fundamentalism from generation to
generation, have none of them seriously consider it, and there you have
it. They aren't being hoaxed; they're right, dammit! When will YOU
learn?

LOL !

This is just personal observation and a study of history. To head off
the science crowd, I have no scientific data to back this up. You
should just have faith that I'm correct.

By the way, Merry Christmas.:-)

Merry Christmas back at you ! ;-)

Have a great Feast of Mammon too.

Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


'Europe' didn't *send* them anywhere of course.

Those who travelled to the 'new continent' did so of their own free will.


Some prisoners were sent to South Carolina, I think.
And Europeans sent more than a few 'unwilling' Africans over here.

wrote...

One is based on observable data,

Certainly, living things can be observed to have evolved. However there
are many biological mechanisms that are irreduceably complex and could
not have evolved.... Had Darwin seen these things, he would have ****canned
his theory.

.... the other is based on a bilical fairy tale.

that's your opinion. Can you prove Christ didn't return from death?

"surf" wrote in message
. ..
wrote...

One is based on observable data,

Certainly, living things can be observed to have evolved. However there
are many biological mechanisms that are irreduceably complex and could
not have evolved.... Had Darwin seen these things, he would have
****canned
his theory.

.... the other is based on a bilical fairy tale.

that's your opinion.

**Nope. That's a fact.

Can you prove Christ didn't return from death?

**That would be a strawman, however, it is reasonable to deduce that one of
several things occurred:

* That Jesus did not die on the cross, but was in a coma. He awoke and
walked away.
* That Jesus did die on the cross and that the witnesses to his alleged
rising from the dead, were deluded.

No other explanation fits in with the available evidence and within the
framework of science.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 05:44:47 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"surf" wrote in message
...
wrote...

One is based on observable data,

Certainly, living things can be observed to have evolved. However there
are many biological mechanisms that are irreduceably complex and could
not have evolved.... Had Darwin seen these things, he would have
****canned
his theory.

.... the other is based on a bilical fairy tale.

that's your opinion.

**Nope. That's a fact.

Can you prove Christ didn't return from death?

**That would be a strawman, however, it is reasonable to deduce that one of
several things occurred:

* That Jesus did not die on the cross, but was in a coma. He awoke and
walked away.
* That Jesus did die on the cross and that the witnesses to his alleged
rising from the dead, were deluded.

No other explanation fits in with the available evidence and within the
framework of science.

Better to stick to electronics, Trevor.

"Trevor Wilson" wrote...

"surf" wrote...
wrote...

.... the other is based on a bilical fairy tale.

that's your opinion.

**Nope. That's a fact.

It's not a fact, Trevor. You're guesses are only guesses.

"surf" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote...

"surf" wrote...
wrote...

.... the other is based on a bilical fairy tale.

that's your opinion.

**Nope. That's a fact.

It's not a fact, Trevor. You're guesses are only guesses.

**I am happy for you to proffer your explanation, based on the physical laws
which dominate this universe.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" wrote...

**I am happy for you to proffer your explanation, based on the physical
laws which dominate this universe.


for you to think that you need to understand and are capable of
understanding
everything both worldly and other worldly is self-centered and limited.
Believing that a big bang occurred without cause takes as much faith as
believing intelligent design.

"surf" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote...

**I am happy for you to proffer your explanation, based on the physical
laws which dominate this universe.


for you to think that you need to understand and are capable of
understanding
everything both worldly and other worldly is self-centered and limited.

**"Other worldly"? Are you discussing the supernatural? I just don't waste
my life on the supernatural. It is beyond reason and logic.

Believing that a big bang occurred without cause takes as much faith as
believing intelligent design.

**That would be yet another strawman.

Now, would you care to proffer an explanation of the alleged rise after
death of Jesus, based on the natural laws which dominate this universe?

In your answer, you may care to examine the reasons why Jews of 2,000 years
ago, interred the dead in a cave, before burying the body permanently.

BTW: The concept of a 'Big Bang' does not violate the laws of this universe.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"surf" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote...

**I am happy for you to proffer your explanation, based on the physical
laws which dominate this universe.


for you to think that you need to understand and are capable of
understanding
everything both worldly and other worldly is self-centered and limited.
Believing that a big bang occurred without cause takes as much faith as
believing intelligent design.
Of course there was a cause, but it was one that conforms to laws of
physics, not from the brow of some hairy cosmic thunderer.

In article ,
"surf" wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" wrote...

**I am happy for you to proffer your explanation, based on the physical
laws which dominate this universe.


for you to think that you need to understand and are capable of
understanding
everything both worldly and other worldly is self-centered and limited.
Believing that a big bang occurred without cause takes as much faith as
believing intelligent design.

Who said there was no cause? Just because something is a mystery doesn't
mean that we need to anthropomorphize it.

Edwin

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 05:44:47 GMT, Trevor Wilson wrote:



"surf" wrote in message
...
wrote...

One is based on observable data,

Certainly, living things can be observed to have evolved. However there
are many biological mechanisms that are irreduceably complex and could
not have evolved.... Had Darwin seen these things, he would have
****canned
his theory.

.... the other is based on a bilical fairy tale.

that's your opinion.

**Nope. That's a fact.

Can you prove Christ didn't return from death?

**That would be a strawman, however, it is reasonable to deduce that one of
several things occurred:

* That Jesus did not die on the cross, but was in a coma. He awoke and
walked away.
* That Jesus did die on the cross and that the witnesses to his alleged
rising from the dead, were deluded.

No other explanation fits in with the available evidence and within the
framework of science.


Hardly. A far more likely explanation is that it's just a fairy tale assembled
from prior fairy tales of the times.

AZ Nomad said:

Hardly. A far more likely explanation is that it's just a fairy tale assembled
from prior fairy tales of the times.

Surely you're not suggesting that some of the "events" recounted in Ye
Olde Bible did not actually happen? My god ... that would make those
religious guys a bunch of immoral fibbers.

Trevor Wilson Dec 22, 11:44 pm:

* That Jesus did not die on the cross, but was in a coma. He awoke and
walked away.
* That Jesus did die on the cross and that the witnesses to his alleged

rising from the dead, were deluded.

No other explanation fits in with the available evidence and within the
framework of science.

Um, how about that Jesus never actually existed, and that the stories
about Him were allegorical?

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
Trevor Wilson Dec 22, 11:44 pm:

* That Jesus did not die on the cross, but was in a coma. He awoke and
walked away.
* That Jesus did die on the cross and that the witnesses to his alleged

rising from the dead, were deluded.

No other explanation fits in with the available evidence and within the
framework of science.

Um, how about that Jesus never actually existed, and that the stories
about Him were allegorical?

**Possible, but there is quite a bit of direct and indirect evidence to
suggest that he did exist. The existence of a Jewish man called Jesus of
Nazareth (whose lineage can be traced to King David), born to Joseph and
Mary, who agitated for equality and fairness for all people (not just Jews)
is not a bizarre notion. Much fits with the archaeological evidence and
writings of the time.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"surf" wrote in message
. ..
wrote...

One is based on observable data,

Certainly, living things can be observed to have evolved. However there
are many biological mechanisms that are irreduceably complex and could
not have evolved....

There exists no mathematical reasoning that justifies the above statement.
You cannot trust your intuition on such matters.

Had Darwin seen these things, he would have ****canned
his theory.

You cannot speak for Darwin. You do not know his mind.



.... the other is based on a bilical fairy tale.

that's your opinion. Can you prove Christ didn't return from death?
We cannot prove it. However, the Constitution mandates separation of Church
and State. Viewpoints of ontology that originate from religion are not
permitted to be taught in public schools.

"Robert Morein" wrote...

"surf" wrote...

Certainly, living things can be observed to have evolved. However there
are many biological mechanisms that are irreduceably complex and could
not have evolved....

There exists no mathematical reasoning that justifies the above statement.
You cannot trust your intuition on such matters.

Science is observable, subject to experimentation, repeatable and
verifiable.
Evolution isn't a science; it doesn't fit one of the four categories.
Neither
does intelligent design.

Had Darwin seen these things, he would have ****canned
his theory.

You cannot speak for Darwin. You do not know his mind.

Darwin wrote that. Read him.

that's your opinion. Can you prove Christ didn't return from death?

We cannot prove it. However, the Constitution mandates separation of
Church and State. Viewpoints of ontology that originate from religion are
not permitted to be taught in public schools.

Agreed. However, ID has as much place in a science class as evolution.

On 12/23/05 7:19 AM, in article
, "surf"
wrote:

Science is observable, subject to experimentation, repeatable and
verifiable.
Evolution isn't a science; it doesn't fit one of the four categories.
Neither
does intelligent design.

So why did Science Magazine just award recent research on evolution as the
"Breakthrough of the Year"? I guess a magazine devoted entirely to science
doesn't understand what science is?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../310/5756/1878

"surf" wrote in message
. ..
wrote...

One is based on observable data,

Certainly, living things can be observed to have evolved. However there
are many biological mechanisms that are irreduceably complex and could
not have evolved.... Had Darwin seen these things, he would have
****canned
his theory.

.... the other is based on a bilical fairy tale.

that's your opinion. Can you prove Christ didn't return from death?


can you prove he was the son of God?

Clyde Slick wrote:

"surf" wrote in message
. ..
wrote...

One is based on observable data,

Certainly, living things can be observed to have evolved. However there
are many biological mechanisms that are irreduceably complex and could
not have evolved.... Had Darwin seen these things, he would have
****canned
his theory.

.... the other is based on a bilical fairy tale.

that's your opinion. Can you prove Christ didn't return from death?


can you prove he was the son of God?

Moslems certainly believe otherwise ( downsizing Jesus to a prophet ) and
there's more Moslems worldwide than Christians.

So - Yah boo to Christianity.

Graham

Pooh Bear a écrit :


Moslems certainly believe otherwise ( downsizing Jesus to a prophet ) and
there's more Moslems worldwide than Christians.

Oh, oh I see... the majority is *obviously* right !

Perhaps an other effect of the "natural selection" ? :-D


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

Lionel wrote:

Pooh Bear a écrit :

Moslems certainly believe otherwise ( downsizing Jesus to a prophet ) and
there's more Moslems worldwide than Christians.

Oh, oh I see... the majority is *obviously* right !

Makes as much sense as anything else in matters of 'faith'.

Graham

Poopie said:

Makes as much sense as anything else in matters of 'faith'.

That's what I was thinking about your reason-free abjuration of all tube
gear, Poopie.

In , Pooh Bear wrote :



Lionel wrote:

Pooh Bear a écrit :

Moslems certainly believe otherwise ( downsizing Jesus to a prophet )
and there's more Moslems worldwide than Christians.

Oh, oh I see... the majority is *obviously* right !

Makes as much sense as anything else in matters of 'faith'.


I fully agree... with your detractors ! :-)


--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Clyde Slick wrote:

"surf" wrote in message
. ..
wrote...

One is based on observable data,

Certainly, living things can be observed to have evolved. However
there
are many biological mechanisms that are irreduceably complex and could
not have evolved.... Had Darwin seen these things, he would have
****canned
his theory.

.... the other is based on a bilical fairy tale.

that's your opinion. Can you prove Christ didn't return from death?


can you prove he was the son of God?

Moslems certainly believe otherwise ( downsizing Jesus to a prophet ) and
there's more Moslems worldwide than Christians.

So - Yah boo to Christianity.

Graham


Kill a Commie for Christ.

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Clyde Slick wrote:

"surf" wrote in message
. ..
wrote...

One is based on observable data,

Certainly, living things can be observed to have evolved. However
there
are many biological mechanisms that are irreduceably complex and could
not have evolved.... Had Darwin seen these things, he would have
****canned
his theory.

.... the other is based on a bilical fairy tale.

that's your opinion. Can you prove Christ didn't return from death?


can you prove he was the son of God?

Moslems certainly believe otherwise ( downsizing Jesus to a prophet ) and
there's more Moslems worldwide than Christians.

So - Yah boo to Christianity.

Graham


Kill a Commie for Christ.

Kill a Christian for IslamoFascism.

surf wrote:

wrote...

One is based on observable data,

Certainly, living things can be observed to have evolved. However there
are many biological mechanisms that are irreduceably complex and could
not have evolved.... Had Darwin seen these things, he would have ****canned
his theory.

.... the other is based on a bilical fairy tale.

that's your opinion. Can you prove Christ didn't return from death?

And how can you prove it's not a total fairy tale ?

Graham

"surf" wrote in message
. ..
wrote...

One is based on observable data,

Certainly, living things can be observed to have evolved. However there
are many biological mechanisms that are irreduceably complex and could
not have evolved.... Had Darwin seen these things, he would have
****canned
his theory.

.... the other is based on a bilical fairy tale.

that's your opinion. Can you prove Christ didn't return from death?

Don't need to, that burden of proof rests eleswhere.

surf a écrit :

Had Darwin seen these things, he would have ****canned
his theory.

Is it your strongest argument ?


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 21:52:51 -0700, surf wrote:


wrote...

One is based on observable data,

Certainly, living things can be observed to have evolved. However there
are many biological mechanisms that are irreduceably complex and could
not have evolved.... Had Darwin seen these things, he would have ****canned
his theory.

.... the other is based on a bilical fairy tale.

that's your opinion. Can you prove Christ didn't return from death?


Can you prove you don't owe me a million dollars?
I could have materialized out of thin air, given you the money with you
signing a promisary note to repay and then vanished just as suddenly.
Prove it didn't happen.

I'm waiting. In the mean time, start your payments.

"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 21:52:51 -0700, surf wrote:


wrote...

One is based on observable data,

Certainly, living things can be observed to have evolved. However there
are many biological mechanisms that are irreduceably complex and could
not have evolved.... Had Darwin seen these things, he would have
****canned
his theory.

.... the other is based on a bilical fairy tale.

that's your opinion. Can you prove Christ didn't return from death?


Can you prove you don't owe me a million dollars?
I could have materialized out of thin air, given you the money with you
signing a promisary note to repay and then vanished just as suddenly.
Prove it didn't happen.

I'm waiting. In the mean time, start your payments.

Refer to burden of proof requirements. :-)

surf Dec 22, 10:52 pm:

that's your opinion. Can you prove Christ didn't return from death?

Hopefully this is said tongue-in-cheek. Otherwise, you lose based on a
total lack of knowledge of logical argument.

I would like to know what 'irreduceably complex mechanisms' would cause
Darwin to '****can' his theory.

And please, let's not drag out the tired old eyeball again. That one's
been flogged to death by the buh-leevers. Give me something new.

In article ,
"surf" wrote:

wrote...

One is based on observable data,

Certainly, living things can be observed to have evolved. However there
are many biological mechanisms that are irreduceably complex and could
not have evolved.... Had Darwin seen these things, he would have ****canned
his theory.

.... the other is based on a bilical fairy tale.

that's your opinion. Can you prove Christ didn't return from death?

Can you prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't create the
universe?


Edwin

Edwin Hurwitz wrote:

In article ,
"surf" wrote:

wrote...

One is based on observable data,

Certainly, living things can be observed to have evolved. However there
are many biological mechanisms that are irreduceably complex and could
not have evolved.... Had Darwin seen these things, he would have ****canned
his theory.

.... the other is based on a bilical fairy tale.

that's your opinion. Can you prove Christ didn't return from death?

Can you prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't create the
universe?

I reckon that the universe is sitting in a goldfish bowl on someone's coffee
table. Show me why not ?

Graham