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 wonder whether the White House will encourage the Supreme Court to
review the ruling.

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

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

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?

This is a moral castastrophe. It is affront to Him. It is a spiritual
travesty.

What a sad day for America indeed.

Schizoid Man said:

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


Where did you get this flatulence?

"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'.

**Are you serious? That is EXACTLY what 'Intelligent Design' is. It operates
from a point of complete absence of evidence. It is promoted by those who
are financially tied to the ignorance of millions. 'Intellignet Design'
should be placed in the trash can of history.


I wonder whether the White House will encourage the Supreme Court to
review the ruling.

**With that idiot, Dubya, running the show and his puppet masters, the
religious right, you can count on it.


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

**Yeah, right.


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

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?

This is a moral castastrophe. It is affront to Him. It is a spiritual
travesty.

What a sad day for America indeed.

**I think you got your smiley 'round the wrong way.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Schizoid Man wrote:

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'.

So-called 'intelligent design' is religious dogma posturing as 'pseudo
science'. It has no place in education at all. Keep it in the Church where
it belongs.

Graham

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"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'.


**Are you serious?

No.

George M. Middius wrote:

Schizoid Man said:

[snip]

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

[snip]


Where did you get this flatulence?

I'm bored - waiting for my flight in the SFO lounge. Am off to sunny
London for Christmas.

Pooh Bear wrote:
Schizoid Man wrote:

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'.

So-called 'intelligent design' is religious dogma posturing as 'pseudo
science'. It has no place in education at all. Keep it in the Church where
it belongs.

Schools, univeristies, libraries, museums, galleries, theaters, public
spaces, hearts and souls.

In , Pooh Bear wrote :



Schizoid Man wrote:

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'.

So-called 'intelligent design' is religious dogma posturing as 'pseudo
science'.

More than that ! Any human attempt to describe an "Intelligent design" is
implicitly a conceited insult to God.


It has no place in education at all. Keep it in the Church where
it belongs.

It's just fudamentalist's crappy demagogy.



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

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

Poopie said:

So-called 'intelligent design' is religious dogma posturing as 'pseudo
science'. It has no place in education at all. Keep it in the Church where
it belongs.

You'll never get into Heaven by carrying on like this. Ask Yaeger if you
doubt me.

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"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'.


**Are you serious?

No.

**Whew! Then I apologise.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"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).


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.

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.

"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 wonder whether the White House will encourage the Supreme Court to
review the ruling.

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


No one is prohibited from doing that.
However, the government is prohibited from doing that.
That is, in essence, establishment of a religion.



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


We are not a Godless and heathen society, and
I doubt we will become one. However, we are a society of many
Gods, not just one particular God. And there are those among us
who beleive in no God, and they are free to do so.
The governemnt should stay out of that, and not
promote the veiled religious dogma of one particular group.

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?


If you are a science teacher, you shall teach science to children.
Considering your views, I don't think you are a science
teacher, therefore, you don't have to teach those things to children.


This is a moral castastrophe. It is affront to Him. It is a spiritual
travesty.


Personally, I think that Intelligent Design is not only a travesty
for science, but a travesty to Christianity and Judaism as well.
It is NOT AT ALL what is said in the Bible. It si turning you
against the acual precepts of your own basic rekigious teachings.

What a sad day for America indeed.

Its a sad day for Chrisitians who want to force their
dogma on the rest of society.

Schizoid Man wrote:

This is a moral castastrophe. It is affront to Him. It is a spiritual
travesty.

Maybe if you had a SINGLE SHRED of evidence...

P.S. "Science can't yet explain everything" doesn't cut it.

13. dizzy
Dec 22, 5:27 pm show options

Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
From: dizzy - Find messages by this author
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 23:27:15 GMT
Local: Thurs, Dec 22 2005 5:27 pm
Subject: A sad day for America
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse



Schizoid Man wrote:
This is a moral castastrophe. It is affront to Him. It is a spiritual
travesty.


Maybe if you had a SINGLE SHRED of evidence...

P.S. "Science can't yet explain everything" doesn't cut it.

Intelligent Design has passed the intense scrutiny of believers
everywhere (except the Vatican). It has also been properly
peer-reviewed by Pat Robertson, James Dobson, George Bush and Jerry
Falwell and a simple majority of the Kansas Board of Education. The
entire 'science' department, and the Athletic Director, at Bob Jones
University consider it as valid as the Theory of Evolution.

What more do you want?

"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).

**The problem with that is that Evolution is a fact. It is observable and
undeniable. What is not completely understood, are ALL of the factors which
contribute to evolution. Darwin, in his seminal work, attempted to explain a
good deal of the fact of evolution, by the term: 'Natural Selection'.



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.

**Precisely! Many conveniently forget this point. It is absolutely vital for
government to remain above religion and the petty arguments which surround
it. If at some time in the future, the majority of the US Congress is
comprises of Muslims, then Sharia Law is not far behind.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! said:

Intelligent Design has passed the intense scrutiny of believers
everywhere (except the Vatican). It has also been properly
peer-reviewed by Pat Robertson, James Dobson, George Bush and Jerry
Falwell and a simple majority of the Kansas Board of Education. The
entire 'science' department, and the Athletic Director, at Bob Jones
University consider it as valid as the Theory of Evolution.

What more do you want?

I want a G35 in midnight blue.

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
In , Schizoid Man wrote :

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 wonder whether the White House will encourage the Supreme Court to
review the ruling.

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

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

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?

This is a moral castastrophe. It is affront to Him. It is a spiritual
travesty.

What a sad day for America indeed.


What's the problem ?

Most countries that were formerly "Catholic", such as France, have less
tolerance for intrusion of the church than the U.S., which never had an
established church. Here, it is an issue that the far right constantly tries
to worm their way into the educational establishment. But I would not be
surprised if the Supreme Court allows "intelligent design" to be taught.

"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 wonder whether the White House will encourage the Supreme Court to
review the ruling.

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

Nobody is being prevented from promoting it, they just aren't going to get
tax dollars to do it with.


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

There certainly is a war on religion from the lefties, and I think they are
going to far, Isay this as a devout atheist. Trying to remove all forms of
religious displays from public places is overkill, but not allowing
Creationist nonsense to be pushed in public schools is OK. Darwin is
science, creationism is religious nonsense.


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?

In the case of some here, not so glorified.

This is a moral castastrophe. It is affront to Him. It is a spiritual
travesty.

What a sad day for America indeed.
You may now remove your tongue from your cheek.

"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.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
13. dizzy
Dec 22, 5:27 pm show options

Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
From: dizzy - Find messages by this author
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 23:27:15 GMT
Local: Thurs, Dec 22 2005 5:27 pm
Subject: A sad day for America
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse



Schizoid Man wrote:
This is a moral castastrophe. It is affront to Him. It is a spiritual
travesty.


Maybe if you had a SINGLE SHRED of evidence...

P.S. "Science can't yet explain everything" doesn't cut it.

Intelligent Design has passed the intense scrutiny of believers
everywhere (except the Vatican). It has also been properly
peer-reviewed by Pat Robertson, James Dobson, George Bush and Jerry
Falwell and a simple majority of the Kansas Board of Education. The
entire 'science' department, and the Athletic Director, at Bob Jones
University consider it as valid as the Theory of Evolution.

What more do you want?

Science.

duh-Mikey bewails his lot in life.

What more do you want?

Science.

And yet science shall always elude the dimwits among us. Sorry, Mickey.

What more do you want?

I want a G35 in midnight blue.

You can have anything you want, if you only just pray hard for it.

If you found a midnight blue G35 in the middle of a field, would you
presume that something that complex had evolved there, or would you
presume it had been delicately placed there by the loving hand of a
higher power?

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


duh-Mikey bewails his lot in life.

What more do you want?

Science.

And yet science shall always elude the dimwits among us. Sorry, Mickey.


Me too. Audio is science and you seem to run screaming from the room
whenever that fact is mentioned.

Sad.

wrote:

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

I thought the US constitution forbade that in fact.

Graham

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?

wrote

Audio is science


no it's not.

wrote

.... as a devout atheist.


are you generally ugly. Every atheist I've ever seen
was generally ugly. I think it came from inside.

"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

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"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).

**The problem with that is that Evolution is a fact. It is observable and
undeniable. What is not completely understood, are ALL of the factors
which contribute to evolution. Darwin, in his seminal work, attempted to
explain a good deal of the fact of evolution, by the term: 'Natural
Selection'.

Correct. It is "Natural Selection" that is unproven, not "Evolution."
Conceivably, the selection process could be the result of "Intelligent
Design."

"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).

Arny, you are so clear-headed, and fair sounding, when it comes to subjects
other than audio. Look at what you've just tolerated -- repudiation of the
Christian creation myth, a pluralistic society, etc. Why not extend that
attitude to the relatively trivial subject of audio?

"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.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
What more do you want?

I want a G35 in midnight blue.

You can have anything you want, if you only just pray hard for it.

If you found a midnight blue G35 in the middle of a field, would you
presume that something that complex had evolved there, or would you
presume it had been delicately placed there by the loving hand of a
higher power?

I would presume that Jesus of Newark abandoned it, thinking the cops were in
pursuit.

"surf" wrote in message
...
wrote

.... as a devout atheist.


are you generally ugly. Every atheist I've ever seen
was generally ugly. I think it came from inside.
Mikey is a product of Unintelligent Design.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"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).

**The problem with that is that Evolution is a fact. It is observable and
undeniable. What is not completely understood, are ALL of the factors
which contribute to evolution. Darwin, in his seminal work, attempted to
explain a good deal of the fact of evolution, by the term: 'Natural
Selection'.

Correct. It is "Natural Selection" that is unproven, not "Evolution."
Conceivably, the selection process could be the result of "Intelligent
Design."

**Whilst there is abundant evidence to support Natural Selection as part of
the evolutionary process, there is no evidence to suggest any intelligent
design. If evidence comes to hand to support intelligent design, then and
only then, should it be considered.


--
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.... 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?

"surf" wrote in message
...
wrote

.... as a devout atheist.


are you generally ugly. Every atheist I've ever seen
was generally ugly. I think it came from inside.


I've balled some hot looking atheist babes.

"surf" wrote in message
...
wrote

.... as a devout atheist.


are you generally ugly. Every atheist I've ever seen
was generally ugly. I think it came from inside.


It nust be something to do with natural selction.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"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).

**The problem with that is that Evolution is a fact. It is observable and
undeniable. What is not completely understood, are ALL of the factors
which contribute to evolution. Darwin, in his seminal work, attempted to
explain a good deal of the fact of evolution, by the term: 'Natural
Selection'.

Correct. It is "Natural Selection" that is unproven, not "Evolution."
Conceivably, the selection process could be the result of "Intelligent
Design."


or the intelligent design would be to have natural selection.

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

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