I do not consider religion to be the root of ALL evil. Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, atheists all. Hitler, despite his references to Christianity when he was a politician on the make, was in no sense a "practising" Christian.

My position is akin to that of Steven Weinberg, physicist and Nobel Laureate:

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."

On the other hand, religion is responsible for much that is wrong in the contemporary world. Not every global ill, but many of them, are a consequence of the malign influence of religion. Hence I applaud AC Grayling's timely column in the Guardian, "SECULARISTS' VITAL WAR ON RELIGION."

Quotes:

"In Afghanistan the Taliban stop girls going to school, beat up women who show a millimeter of skin, ban music, kill gays, and in general force their choice of life and belief on everyone, thus illustrating the less charming aspects of enforced observance of religious orthodoxy under which most of humanity has suffered for most of history."

"Secularists…say to the apologists of the religions: your beliefs are your choice, so take your place in the queue…you've had it your own way for a very long time - and committed a lot of crimes in the process - and you still fancy yourself entitled, but you aren't. You don't smell too good at times, so don't try to tell me what I can read, see on TV, do in my private time, think or say. In fact, keep your sticky fingers off my life. Believe what you like but don't expect me to admire or excuse you because of it: rather the contrary, given the fairy-stories in question. And when you are a danger to the lives and liberties of others, which alas is too frequently the wont of your ilk, we will speak out against you as loudly, persistently, and uncompromisingly as we can."

See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/20/wasilla-palin-church-fire-secularism

Hear hear!

Dear Steven.....

if only it was just the religious nutters who want it all their way..and want to impose laws on others.

A subject most of us are now familiar with I'm sure is the Ake Green case.

http://www.akegreen.org/

<<The whole thing actually started in 2002 when the Swedish Parliament enacted a new novel law that criminalized expressions of disrespect (Swedish: “missakting”) against homosexuals.>>

When the Prime Minister of a country (Sweden) declares it would be a crime to describe an un-natural act (Homosexual sex) as 'un-natural'...then we know we are in HUGE trouble!

The same law addresses issues of race, color and nationality, but the Bible does not condemn people based on any of these things. It is homosexual ACTS which are condemned.

So, clearly, a fight is unfolding. We cannot have both holding hands singing Kum Ba Yah.

The foul stench of Orwellian 'ministry of truth' is a pungent reminder of how close we are to his hyperthetical society.

LOL Polycarp I was wondering whether it would be you or OUG first off the mark.

For what it's worth I believe in free speech so I think you should be free to make any comment you like on homosexual acts.

On the other hand the religios – especially Muslims – are trying to restrict free speech. Another quote from Grayling:

"...and in Geneva at the Human Rights Council the Islamic countries are trying to subvert the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because it is inconvenient to their medieval, sexist, intolerant outlook."

I think this is a reference to the attempt by Muslim countries to introduce blasphemy laws under the guise of enforcing "respect" for religions.

See:

http://www.upi.com/news/issueoftheday/2008/12/19/Critics_slam_UN_religious_hate_vote/UPI-29281229711881/

Thanks Steven - that's an excellent little article that you linked to as a discussion starter. I think that the current atheist/secular response to neo-religionism is a fascinating and inevitable social phenomenon. Indeed, we've had some discussions here about local manifestations of this dialectic, with some very interesting negative perspectives from some OLO contributors who profess to be either atheist or secular in orientation.

On the other hand, we have a typically bizarre response from Porkycrap, who wants to divert the discussion to a revisitation of the sorry saga of the Swedish homophobic pastor that caused him to morph from Boazy into Porky.

I'd put money on Porky not having read the article that Steven based his OP on. If he had, he'd have undoubtedly responded to these gems:

<< Secularism is the view that religious outlooks, though perfectly entitled to exist and have their say, are not entitled to a bigger slice of the public pie than any other self-constituted, self-appointed, self-selected and self-serving civil society organisation. >>

Hear hear to that!

<< They even have the cheek to ask for "respect" for their silly and antiquated beliefs; and in Geneva at the Human Rights Council the Islamic countries are trying to subvert the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because it is inconvenient to their medieval, sexist, intolerant outlook >>

And who is it at OLO that rants most vociferously and intemperately against human rights, for exactly the same reasons? You don't "smell too good", Porky.

Hilarious.

Thanks again, Steven.

No problemo Steven... I'm actually 'Leigh' in drag :) (kidding)

The point you make.... about the Muslim countries appears to have flown totally over the somewhat flat head of CJ :) (think "man from IronBark and guilded youths" cj :) because it totally negates his rather lamely thought out.. 'mantra' like attack on me. (watch out CJ.. "I know karaty" as the saying goes, haha..

The PROBLEM I have with "Human Rights Legislation" is the very thing Steven pointed out... there are many parties and interests who want them to be THEIR version of human rights.. Islamic countries in particular want blasphemy laws or supression of criticism of Islam in the name of 'respect'....now..from that little 'gem' you can trace pretty much MOST of my 'Islamophobia' as it is often described. Except that it isn't an irrational phobia it is a very rational response to a very real, identifiable attempt to subvert our freedom to criticize.

I won't argue with the right to criticize my own faith, unfortunately for CJ..his criticisms would carry more weight if he avoided snide 'PolyCRAP' type epithets. Using them.. he just looks like a spoiled child who did not get his way.. awwwwwww :)

The point about Greene is that he should be just as entitled to criticize Homosexual behavior in his own church as homosexuals are to criticize and even vilify Fred Nile at their own next in house barbeque.

TRUE HUMAN RIGHTS... .is where I have the right to criticize your lifestyle and religious/faith choices and you have the equal right to criticize mine.
FULL STOP.

Anything less is not true human rights it is discrimination.

The fact that CJ is oblivous to this, as evidenced by his little whine is clear testimony to why we are cynical about the 'which/who' of "Human Rights" legislation.

No Boazy. Human Rights is far more than your right to criticise who you like.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

It’s about the rights to freedom from torture.
It’s about the rights to education.
It’s about the rights to freedom from slavery.
It’s about recognition as a person before the law.
It’s about the rights to freedom of movement.
It’s about the rights to freedom from persecution.
The list goes on….

Every day innocent people are being tortured in India, Turkey, Pakistan, China, Africa. Every day people are being starved by their own governments, detained arbitrarily, persecuted for their beliefs, denied access to education, and the list goes on….

Attacking Human Rights because of some stupid pastors spat with a couple of homosexuals in Sweden that happened years ago? Oh yeah, CJ’s the childish one.

Get over it.

Polycarp

We long ago established that the Green case was a vindication of human rights law. Why can you only remember the bits of the truth that suit your narrow mind?

So if human rights are about:
It’s about the rights to freedom from torture.
It’s about the rights to education.
It’s about the rights to freedom from slavery.
It’s about recognition as a person before the law.
It’s about the rights to freedom of movement.
It’s about the rights to freedom from persecution.
The list goes on….

Then who initiated the belioef in these rights in the first place and what was the philosophy that motivated equal justice and acceptance of all men, the desire to teach all people the truth, who was it that came to release from slavery every captive. Who is it that originally condemned injustice, hatred and injury of spirit and body. They are all values expressed and commissioned by Jesus Christ. He did condemn opressive religion also and taught all men are free only when they happily choose their destiny.

If that's true philo, why does Polyboaz hate them so?

Because, Bugsy, Polyboaz denies the nice version of Jesus. His tastes run towards the wrathful, vengeful, fire and brimstone, pointed sticks in your eyeballs, covered in honey and left on an anthill, first stone casting, first male child sacrificing, flesh eating bits of the story.

oh, and any of the bits with naked people in them.

Dear Bugsy.. Merry Christmas :)

No..I don't attack "human rights" as you think...I attack the ABUSE of the concept by both the gay community and the Islamic mob... they try to use the human right concept to marginalize and attack Christians.

It is THAT aspect of so called 'Human Rights' law which I detest for what I hope are obvious reasons.

I don't have a problem with all those other things being 'human rights' although I hasten to add that there is no such thing as a 'right' in this world unLESS you accept it is a declaration from the Almighty.

Anything other is a privilege based on a power framework.. a concession from those who wield that power.

But let's look at one GREAT example of... your list.

"Freedom from persecution"

Now..in the Ake Green case.. who persecuted who?

Clearly..

1/A pastor, is exericising his freedom of religious belief and is reading from his sacred text in his own church to people he believes share that faith.

2/ An individual in that assembly who does not share the faith of the congregation decides that he does not like what it preached.

3/ He complains.. lays charges, and the pastor is convicted and sentenced to Jail....

THAT.. dear Bugsy is 'PERSECUTION'.

It is abundantly clear that vested interests (In this case the Swedish political establishment trying to suck up to the Gay movement..possibly because of a critical power balance in a marginal seat) and they make a law which is AGAINST a specific human right...ie "Freedom of belief"

Change pastor with 'imam' and church for 'mosque' and then everyone can see what you are Polyboazy.

When will Porky learn? When he used to be Boazy he also made the claim that the homophobic pastor was jailed - and he still persists in omitting the fact that the pastor's conviction was quashed on appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.

Still not smelling too good, and still telling porkies.

And I bet he still hasn't bothered to read Grayling's article.

>>I attack the ABUSE of the concept by both the gay community and the Islamic mob<<

Only them? You're sure about that? You don't suspect there's anyone else concerned about your version of hate speech/free speech/civility? You don't think there are other groups concerned about extremist Christian religious groups?

It's taken a while, but people who've been easily scared about other/foreign/funny coloured religous groups are waking up to the destructive tendencies of other religions as well, including Christian fundamentalists. Maybe all that news coverage of American fundamentalists during the election coverage set off the alarms. Whatever. It's about time.

Like the post says, "when you are a danger to the lives and liberties of others, which alas is too frequently the wont of your ilk, we will speak out against you as loudly, persistently, and uncompromisingly as we can."

You've organised lobby groups, funded and colonised political parties and distributed misleading information, but it's been one step forward, two steps back since the enlightenment for you. Democracy can be really inconvenient at times, don't you find?

Polycarp,

I agree that Ake Green should not have been prosecuted. Neither should Scott and Nalliah have been hauled before VCAT under Victoria's so-called "Racial and Religious Tolerance Act."

However in Green's case justice was eventually done. If anything the case strengthened free speech in Europe since the Swedish court which quashed the conviction specifically mentioned that, had the conviction been allowed to stand, it would have been overturned by the European Court of Human Rights. That should inhibit future prosecutions along these lines.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85ke_Green

More worrying is developments at the UN. The UN General Assembly again passed a resolution calling on countries to ban "Defamation of Religion." This is a blatant attempt by Islamic countries to re-introduce blasphemy laws.

See:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0811/S00421.htm

Bugsy,
Perhaps I shouldn't be pedantic. But in your earlier post, you listed a few Human Rights. Some of which are logical fallacies. Such as:
"It’s about the rights to freedom from torture."
"It’s about the rights to freedom from slavery."
"It’s about the rights to freedom from persecution."

Yes to "The rights to freedom". But "The rights to freedom from torture" is an erroreous statement in logical terms.

Another example. Yes to "The rights to safety". But no such thing as "The rights to not run over by a bus when crossing the road".

It Christmas Boazy, so lets talk about Christianity first.
Is it true all we who do not believe are condemned until we do?
That Christians one day all go to heaven?
Be a bit crowded wouldn't it?
What age will we be?
Will my mum look like my sister?
If you wanted to produce a cult you would include the threats and promises of Christianity in your first draft.
We without question except men and women wrote every great book in history,
yet question if he could produce a book such as your Bible.
A book with yes and no answers to every question, full of story's of murder and suffering in the name of a God.
A God it appears in your view who made some so they can suffer forever, or bend to his ways
A life of slavery on our knees? not for me David.

Understand there is a difference between total respect for the dignity of every human being and those humans that have no respect for others. Defined rights are somthing that must not be restricted by written codes but defined by motive, attitude and action. That is the reason we attempt to appoint impartial Judges. Every criminal believes he / she has been denied justice and their rights. Every case must be evaluated by a standard. Then we enter the court of WHOSE STANDARD?

GZ, you're right, you shouldn't be pedantic.

Torture as it pertains to human rights is reasonably well defined as a deliberate act (as is slavery and persecution). Conflating the issue with what appears to be a random event, is a logical fallacy.
In fact, you do have the right to not get hit by a bus when crossing the road, especially if the bus driver was deliberately targeting pedestrians, in that case they would most definitely be charged and the case would certainly go further than 'rights to safety'. There is no "logical fallacy" here, if anything I may guilty of a rhetorical or grammatical error ( using 'freedom from' instead of 'not to be'), but I don't think even this is the case in this instance.

philo, what's your point?

It is not possible to explicitly spell out rights in the following manner:
"A right to not get hit by a bus"
"A right to not get hit by a car"
"A right to not get hit by a truck"
Attempts to do so mean someone hit by a bicycle may miss out on compensation because the list does not include a bicylcle.
It is better to reduce the list to say "A right to not get hit".
Even that is problematic.
Better still to reduce it to say "A right to safety", a catch-all that covers everything.

Actually, I am only interested in logical parts of any argument. A bit hard to resist that.

Yeah, what you are talking about there GZ is set theory as it pertains to legislation, not a logical fallacy.

The third article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights starts off with “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”, and while that would cover most of what we are talking about, it’s a very general statement, most documents go on to include specifics as to let the reader know what sorts of activities these statements apply to and what the framers had in mind when drafting such a declaration. The rights to freedom from slavery, torture etc., are covered by this blanket original statement, but can yet be defined further as the argument progresses. It is not a logical fallacy to use such statements, as they are subsets of article 3, it is merely a rhetorical device used to engender the spirit of the document (although they may be perceived as redundant by illustrious intellects).

Being only concerned with the logical parts of an argument is one thing. Being unconcerned with the spirit of an argument is another.

Dear CJ.. *GOTCHA* :) yes Indeedy I did. I know exactly what I said.. I said 'SENTENCED' :) I did not say "Jailed" this time. I was waiting for you to pounce and had my response at the ready. (*blows smoke away from gunbarrel and reholsters it*)

BUGSY... now.. on the other thread (Islamophobia) where I made a complete dill of myself with my first post :) yes.. "I WAS WRONG" and I did not fail the comprhension test by a small margin..I was king hit into oblivion... I admit it..and will underline that fact in my next post 9 hours away... I confess..I read his "If you this that or the other thing.. you might be suffering a mental disorder" and bingggggg it was like a trigger... by the end of my second post.. where I found strong support from Haslam in being very critical of Pericles and CJ in particular.. with you running a close 3rd there..(maybe neck and neck with Bushbasher) and you mob's constant reference to some of us as being Islamophobic...I'd clicked 'post' and it was too late.

BUT...having said that.. you also seem to have missed (yet again/still) the difference between Islam and Christianity, and the important issues which make political action/policy change most neccessary to limit the growing power of the Muslim community.

What you continue to miss, is the clear and unmistakable mein kampf-ish content of the Quran and Hadith, and how this would translate into real world behavior under a totalitarian Muslim regime.

You only have to look at how Arab countries regard Jews and Israel to know this. Of COURSE you are not going to see widespread OPEN condemnation of Jews or Christians in demographic minority Muslim groups.. no..you see it in POWERFUL ones..where they have the power and clout.
Only THERE will you see why I continue to harp on the 9th surah of the Quran.

Porkycrap: << *GOTCHA* :) yes Indeedy I did. I know exactly what I said.. I said 'SENTENCED' :) I did not say "Jailed" this time. I was waiting for you to pounce and had my response at the ready. (*blows smoke away from gunbarrel and reholsters it*) >>

So you quite deliberately told only half the truth - omitting the bit that his sentence was quashed on appeal, by reference to the European Court of Human Rights, no less? So that anybody who wasn't familiar with the story would get the impression that the poor old homophobic pastor was jailed for his hate speech?

That's called lying, Porky. Over the holidays, do try and reflect on why it is that you need to be dishonest. You might end up smelling better for it.

And have a hate-free Saturnalia.

Polycarp, UK tabloid-style claim of 'GOTCHA!' is a twisted self-defence of the indefensible.

"I know exactly what I said.. I said 'SENTENCED' :) I did not say "Jailed" this time."

But what he REALLY said was: "...convicted and sentenced to Jail..." EXACTLY.

Moreover, several posters had already pointed out to him what Polycarp conveniently omitted: Pastor Green was finally acquitted on a human rights argument. Poly didn't want the whole truth to get in the way of his fixed view opposing human rights because the Green case demonstrated the very opposite of what Polycarp was so clumsily trying to prove.

It's more than smoke Polycarp is blowing, and it's not coming from his gun barrel.

CJ Morgan has well and truly nailed him: "That's called lying, Porky."

I join with CJ in suggesting that Polycarp use his holidays to reflect on why he feels it necessary to be dishonest. If your argument is solid, surely you have no need to lie.

CJ and Spikey

- hey, go easy guys; DB's last post was actually a milestone in his OLO posting career: He apologised. Not an "I'm sorry you think I'm wrong but that's just because you are a heathen" type apology but a real, full blown one.

So, ok, he hasn't quite got round to apologising to the actual person he was so rude to - but that may come in time. The man admitted that he erred! We should all encourage him with bouquets rather than brickbats in the hope that he might be encouraged to do it again some time.

I've come to the conclusion that in BD's lexicon lying - like sinning - is something other people do. I honestly don't think that he considers it lying: - its the end not the means that he looks to. Seriously. Otherwise there is simply no explanation for how a person who has their untruths consistently, publicly and embarrassingly pointed out, can keep repeating the same behaviour so shamelessly and unrepentantly.

However, glad I've caught up with you CJ - and to you to, Spikey - to wish you all the best of the season - whatever it's called.

Dear Belly
with your background and knowledge of scripture..I'm sure you can answer those questions for yourself mate.
Failing that.. put those questions in the form of a google query and you will find many and varied opinions I'm sure.

Mine is but one of them. Only your own heart and the witness of the Holy Spirit will tell you which is correct.

Scripture says this, quoting our Lord.

"Behold..I stand at the door and knock, to him who opens I will come in"

If we hear the knock but don't open the door..where does this logically leave us?

Have a heartwarming time with all your family tonight and tomorrow.
Blessings... "joy to the world"

Belly,
Ignorance of Christian truth leads to false conclusions. Christians believe in a righteousness that is only expressed in the Lord Jesus Christ. Other behaviours are already condemned, as some already expressed on this topic. You yourself condemn those that practise such things. Right behaviour is judged against the teachings and the demonstrated life of Christ.

It is obvious you do not understand spiritual truth and expect a physical life after death by your statement. "That Christians one day all go to heaven? Be a bit crowded wouldn't it?"

If you believe extolling the virtues of goodness is a life of slavery, then you are currently captive to a slavery of leser values

Oh Boazy, you old curmudgeon. I know you made a dill of yourself, that was obvious for anybody who has English comprehension skills, so I won’t rub it in.

But what I do take issue with, is that while I have no problem being counted with the likes of CJ and Pericles, you still don’t realise that I do not use the term Islamophobe (ic) or (ia). You have just categorised us all into one and think that I (as 3rd in the list) am interested in shutting down discussion by using such terms. I think this is grievous error on your part.

Since this is Christmas, I have a small confession to make and it may come as a bit of shock to you. You may want to sit down. I don’t consider myself an Islamic apologist, in fact I don’t like Islam. I like it far less than I do Christianity. I loathe the way most Islamic countries treat their women and the way they treat their citizens generally.

Another thing I seriously dislike though, is your (and ‘your mob’) labelling me as an some sort of apologist because I don’t like the way you denigrate them, using their religion against them while simultaneously promoting yours as some sort of better alternative. To me it is a case of ‘pick my religion, it’s a little less medieval’. What I cannot stand is that usually you will take some sort of scriptural dump at the end your posts as a kind of half-assed attempt to evangelise.

....contd

It may seem to you (and ‘your mob’) that I am some sort of Islamic apologist because I don’t comment much against our very few Muslim commentators, but only because I don’t want my voice added to yours and ‘your mobs’. There is far enough crowing and frothing at the mouth and quoting of scripture in those threads for me to ever want to be a part of that. I do want to change some attitudes, in real life, and your brand of argument does not strike me as productive. You and your mob will forever be preaching to the choir with your attitude. I am however prepared to treat Muslims as humans and have them treated as equals under the law, with freedom of religion and all that. But no further. I would very much like to open honest dialogues with Muslims, but that is not going to happen around here. There are very few that comment on these pages. No mystery as to why of course.

And don’t expect me to believe you about Surah bloody 9, I will meet them and talk to them as humans. I know people are far more than their scriptural background. I know this because just about all the so-called Christians I have read on these pages are so far away from the example of Jesus I was taught in years gone by, that I KNOW scripture doesn’t govern behaviour. It’s only there to justify what you think is right at the time. We can strengthen our systems of law in a reasonable manner without running around like Henny bloody Penny saying they’re about to take over.

But as for religion, you guys really are on the snout. All of you.

Merry Christmas.

Bugsy,
What does the Merry Christ mas mean to you?

Hi Bugsy... well I consider those 2 posts quite ok :) and you make some reasonable points.

I don't actually consider you an Islamic apologist... just a naive secularist.(but a good geneticist:)

Indeed it must sooooo look like we/I are on some kind of "sour grapes/aah..they are getting ahead/lets pick on them and slow them down a bit"

But if through all that, we can actually get to a point where the critics of we 'Islam knockers' do some more thorough research on the 'bloody Surah' (9) (literally) at least my own goal of having people better informed would have been acheived.

Some pitfalls though.

1/
You mention speaking to 'them'... *danger signal-1* This would mean u speak to demographical minorities about something they would have an interest in playing down.

May I suggest a better approach?

a) Approach 'them'....yes indeed. But not with questions about Surah 9...ask them "Is the historian and scholar Ibn Kathir highly respected by Muslims generally"?

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=1&tid=3

b) Ask 'them'..if Abul Ala Maududi is also a respected opinion?
In his case, you might receive a divided response, depending on whether the person you ask is a Salafi,Wahabi, Shia or liberal modernistic Sunni. Each background will influence how his work is perceived.

Maududi "was" the 'ideological reference' cited by the USC Muslim Students Association Web site until about a month ago, But while his political views (re the place of Islam) are rather strong, his knowledge of the early Muslims beliefs is extremely comprehensive.
He wrote this:
http://www.englishtafsir.com/

His thoughts are linked here: (introduction to Quran chapters)

http://www.islamicity.com/Mosque/quran/maududi/mau9.html

THEN... have a read of what they say about Surah 9 .. v 1-30 in particular.

2/ They might lie. (yep...that's what I said) I spoke face to face with Amr Fouda (RMIT Islamic Society president) who told me at the Friday Prayers in Bowen street that they prayed there due to "lack of space in the multi faith centre".
I watched him later say at an information day that it was a protest to "regain the MFC as a mosque."

DANGER ZONE...... @ Bugsy.

Yep.. comparing and contrasting religions is shakey territory.
If one says "Oooooh..look at THEM... they do this and that and such and such"..but WEEE don't...nope...not us.. we are mr squeaky clean.

Of course it could make us look bad.

I'll freely admit that our faith appears on the surface to be a bit "on the nose" about the role of women, including dress standards.

But those issues can be worked through at the local Church level, and I don't see any females in our fellowship who look anything other than liberated, free and in full participation.

The primary difference between the Christian faith and Islam is the nature of the human expression of it. Islam='State' and Christianity is a faith community..within any state.

CHRISTMAS... even though you may not at this stage share our convictions regarding the true meaning of Christmas, I'm sure you could benefit from some reflection on the reported events..
So..a merry and reflective Christmas to you also.

Porkycrap: << They might lie. (yep...that's what I said) >>

Hilarious. Thanks for the festive humour.

<< I'm sure you could benefit from some reflection on the reported events.. >>

I'm sure you could benefit from some reflection on the reported examples of you telling lies in this discussion, that you've typically avoided.

Have a great Saturnalia, Porky.

Bugsy while I can not claim to own your last two posts they spoke for me, every word.
Now Philo, drop that know every thing attitude, I did not just wet my feet in your religion, like so many who search for answers I swam the length of the pool.
Dived to the bottom researched and tasted it.
Even now I see some who are truly good following the fantasy of religion.
What changed me? open my eyes? ten thousand lies, threats, reasons to divide humans not unite them.
Even within the Christ religion one church against another.
The author of this thread said it in words like this.
to get good men to do evil it takes religion.
Look at the base of each one, existing to hold a group together.
To denigrate those from outside the group.
To promise we need not fear the thing some fear the most death.
Let me tell you just a few of the things I saw that made me look again
A minister overheard telling of his increasing wage and the need to get more donations.
A child with a broken arm prayed for for days by his whole church before being taken to hospital.
A man who went on to lead his church nationally sending his mother in law to throw away crutches she had never needed on his stage.
Look up tonight to the stars, or down to the sea , we have no God, clutch your own straws but do not ask me along for the ride.
Poly carp Boaz David for what ever reason you should never lie to prove a point.
Have a good Christmas, I will and a head acre tomorrow

Belly,
You do have an ache with people who fall short of living Christ in the world. They may be religious but not of the divine spirit. Stop associating poor behaviour of people you know with the purity of the God we adore. May you grasp the message of peace to men of good will.

"but the Bible does not condemn people based on any of these things. It is homosexual ACTS which are condemned."

poly-boaz, do *you* condemn homosexual acts? if so, can you tell me why? just because the bible says it's naughty, or for some other reason? i'm honestly curious.

Philo it truly is time you woke up to your self.
You posted that in another thread it is meaningless dribble.
I have every right, to believe there is and never was a God.
Do you understand that?
I refuse to believe your maker ever existed, or that he made followers of every other religion so you could convert them.
Even Polycarp, I do not doubt his zeal or understanding of his myth, speaks of celebrating Christs birth today.
Yet sure he and you know this is not the time of that birth?
It is a many century's older pagan ritual at this time of the year we still celebrate calling it Christmas.
Now I know you have a right to your beliefs, never challenge it in my life, its a basic freedom of the western world, freedom of religion.
Do you not come close to denying me my right not to believe in such a fantasy in your every post?
So very many who post in a Gods name here seem to fail to understand my freedoms are just as important as theirs, reality is screaming at me for not grasping your straw is wasting your time.

Dear Belly....
I noted carefully those points you made regarding your former (bad) experience in a particular denomination. Yes..some of those things are quite characteristic of that denomination or group. So.. what I'm wondering is why you didn't simply compare these acts to the content of the Bible.. to the teaching of our Lord?
It seems you said "Bad Christians in my denomination=Christianity/Christ=bad =not to be believed any more"

Lies. I did not lie...you have been sucked in by Morgans mouthing off.
Pastor Greene WAS 'sentenced' to jail... he did not serve as the SENTENCE was appealed and overturned by a DIFFERENT (higher) court. Read it for yourself.

<< The case was first heard in Lower Court (“Tingsrätt”) in Kalmar and on June 29, 2004 he was sentenced to serve one month in jail.

After first appealing the verdict to the Appellate Court, the case finally made its way to the Swedish Supreme Court where it was heard on November 9, 2005. When the Supreme Court verdict fell on November 29, 2005 Pastor Green was acquitted of all charges against him.>>

He was acquitted by a different court than the one which did 'sentence' him to Jail.

BUSHBASHER... yes.. I also condemn HS 'Acts' because it gives me the heeby jeebies that anyone could find completeness and fulfilment in such an obviously terminal way of expressing sexuality. By 'terminal' I mean that there is absolutely ZERO possibility of human reproduction via that practice (in itself) so when one considers that the release of semen is basis of human reproduction, the practice must logically and reasonably be considered 'abnormal/un-natural/deviant'

The issue which distinguishes 'homo' sexual from heterosexual is just one ... 'sex'. If the issue is loving and being loved by another human being.. this can be achieved heterosexually. If a person is drawn, sexually, for whatever reason toward another species, his parents, his children or his own gender, they are all 'deviant' and no amount of whining about 'identity' will change that, or the need to use the 'will' to avoid it.

bushbasher,
The act of anal sex has given humanity most of the dire sexually transmitted diseases eg AIDS. The anus was not designed to accomodate the thrusting male penis and results in frequent rupture that allows excreated viruses from the body to enter the blood stream. Even in the act of anal sex followed by vaginal sex places the female to high levels of rupture, transmitted disease and infection. The anus is designed specifically to excreate waste from the body. The vagina is designed specifically for intercourse and reproduction of our species.

Because men choose to abuse their designed purpose is the reason God also condemns the act.

Porkycrap: << Lies. I did not lie... >>

I'm beginning to think that Porky's mendacity is truly pathological. Several posters have pointed out exactly how it is that his telling of a half-truth in this instance constitutes a lie, i.e. that his deliberate omission of the very salient fact (that the homophobe's custodial sentence was quashed on appeal by reference to international human rights standards) gives exactly the opposite impression to readers of the real out come of the case.

One wonders if Porky's aware that in legal matters those who give evidence are required to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? If so, how can he claim with a straight face to be telling the truth here?

Even after most other participants in this discussion have pointed out his dishonesty to him, he still continues to prevaricate. Note that he refuses to acknowledge the critical role of the European Court of Human Rights in the outcome of the case.

More reflection is needed by our Porky. As others have said, if your argument is sound, why do you need to lie? As you know you did.

Finally, Porky is joined by a fellow homophobic fundamentalist in attempting to justify why their religious beliefs about homosexual acts should prevail over the rights of gay people to express their sexuality. To pronounce that human bodies were "designed" by anyone or anything is simply an assertion of religious belief, as is the claim that sex is principally for reproduction.

Sex is about pleasure - reproduction is a mostly unwanted side-effect experienced by heterosexuals after the event.

poly-boaz, do you also regard oral sex between heterosexuals as 'abnormal/un-natural/deviant'?

Polycarp where do I start.
On the table out front now some from every religion are good people, some are our best.
Far too many are much less than that, child sexual assaults, in Catholic Church's and the church of my birth C of E have been huge and truly evil.
Cults grown from Christianity, so many of them, are not products of Any God.
I know if such a God exists, he/she would be ashamed of deeds done by Church's.
I refuse, totally, to ever believe half of humanity is blind, that they can only be saved by following another God.
Sex, come David it is a wonderful thing, our instinct to breed drives us.
As it does all living things, how can God get into bed with us? why?
Aussies of my age mostly do not feel the need condemn homosexuals, I do not go out of my way to find them, but am not against them.
Mate if, just for a second, you think I may be right, that the human minds that wrote the works of Shakespeare's could write the Bible.
That man wrote so many great books like war and peace and no one questioned it was man who did it.
Look for a second at the writings of Charles Darwin, tell me no chance exists I may be right.
Poly, fibs bite you on the bottom every time,
You will not doubt this story but some union officials lie,
Tell a porky to get the crowd on side, it never works for long
regards

Does a woman have a right to insist that only one man hold her virginity exclusively to himself and he not engage in sexual acts that treat her as excreta? Is that also a human right because it is a value she believes right for her. It she believes violates her dignity and purity as a person.

All human rights are judged on a value system. That CJ believes we are not more than a mass of undesigned protein might be his value of his neighbour but it is not mine.

There are double standards being applied to anus sexual acts here. If it is done by people calling themselves Christian then in both our value systems it is wrong. If it is done by atheists then it is OK in some value systems. In mine and Davids values we are consistent and hold it in violation of the Creators design.

Dear CJ.... ur whining :) I set a little trap for you and now, having fallen into it.. you are munching on very sour grapes.. awwww.

The 'salient' point about the Green case..was not whether he spent time in the slammer or not..but that the gay lobby TRIED to get him there.
If Sweden was a political Island.. he would have been incarcerated.

The issue at stake is the 'motives/methods' of the gay lobby...not the fact that their scurrelous attempt at religious persecution failed under the heavier hammer of the EU human rights court.

The issues pointed out by the EUHRC showed clearly how evil and how disgraceful was the attempt by the homosexual lobby to criminalize valid religious freedom of expression. It also revealed that homosexuals will goto extreme lengths of political manipulation to silence their critics.. JUST as you yourself are doing with this persistant clinging to your 'you lied'mantra.

The statement "Green was sentenced to Jail" is entirely accurate and factual. His appeal and subesequent acquital is an entirely accurate additional fact. The 2nd simply underlines the reality of the first.
It does nothing to negate what the gay lobby tried to achieve.

Dear BUSHBASHER.. I'm not aware of any Biblical teaching against what you mentioned. The only thing specifically forbidden is 'same sex' sex. Work out your foreplay with your partner.

Porky: << The 'salient' point about the Green case..was not whether he spent time in the slammer or not..but that the gay lobby TRIED to get him there.
If Sweden was a political Island.. he would have been incarcerated. >>

Now we're getting somewhere, despite Porky's prevarication. Finally he acknowledges that the homophobic preacher's right to freedom of speech trumps that of homosexuals not to be offended, and this is enforceable in an international court.

While I don't think that the homophobic Swede should have been convicted (nor the Melbourne Islamophobes), I think that both cases are useful in working out what are the acceptable limits of the expression of hateful ideologies in free societies. I'm quite sure that homophobic godbotherers in Sweden are now a little more circumspect in the ways that they vilify gays, and that Islamophobic godbotherers in Melbourne are a little more judicious in the ways that they spread fear and loathing of Muslims in Melbourne.

This, of course, evidently rankles with those hate-mongers among us who regard human rights as constituting little more than the ability to vilify publicly those of whom they disapprove.

Tough titties to them.

Philo: << In mine and Davids values we are consistent and hold it in violation of the Creators design. >>

And of course you and "David" are entitled to believe whatever fanciful nonsense you like. However, when you extend those quaint beliefs to active vilification of people because of their sexuality, religion or whatever, then you're treading on dangerous ground and you may well be held to account for it.

poly-boaz, oral sex need not be "foreplay". it needn't have anything to do with "human reproduction" which was the core of your first answer to me. if it is not foreplay, do you condemn it? or do you condemn it only if it is homosexual?

do you merely "condemn" homosexual acts, or would you wish to see homosexuality illegal?

In all those who condemn homosexuality one of the big guns brought in to shoot down the opposition is the "uncleanliness" of the act: anal intercourse is represented as being unatural, spreading disease etc.

It seems as though some posters are infering that, even if one doesn't use a religious basis for condemning homosexuality, surely a pragmatic approach would point to the dangers of such acts?

Not one person on this or most threads concerning gay people, however, enter into discussion on how female homosexuality can pragmatically be condemned.

At first I thought this was because people were getting their Greek and Latin mixed up and interpreting "homo" as meaning man rather than, as it does in this instance, meaning "same sex". But then I realised that etymology doesn't play a part at all.

It seems that most of the condemnation is because people just get the "heeby-jeebies" thinking about two men engaging in sexual acts. The corollory is that, deep down, the idea of two women engaging in sexual acts is, for most men, somewhat titillating.

It would surely do the nay-sayers cause a lot more good if they were to thunder equally about he "unaturalness" "sickness" "uncleanliness" of homosexuality under all circumstances?

The only Bible reference most quote is that which codemns one man lying with another. No reference is given to a stricture regarding women lying with women.

Does this mean then, that female homosexuality is ok while it is only male homosexuality that isn't?

Are some people, perhaps, merely publicising their aversion to anal sex per se?

Though Paul in Romans 1 identifies homosexual acts between women as unnatural however in context it refers to a state of society condusive to all types of sexual abuse. In Biblical history prior to the NT period because of the majority of women in the society men could marry multiple wives. It would appear that within the marriage the women enjoyed mutual sex. However Baal worship and women having sexual objects resembling the penis were anathma.

Dear Romany (& Bushbasher).... for me, while the 'thought' of obtaining sexual gratification via the place from which people defacate is hmm well to be blunt..rather repulsive.. we both know that sexual activity can and does go further to even the licking of those anatomical parts. I guess that's one stage further on the 'repulsion' scale.

The point of course is that while this is true.. (perhaps for some and not others?) the issue is not those things....the problem with homosexual activity is pure and simple that it's with the same gender.
i.e.. the Biblical position says nothing about the 'disgust' aspect, but only the 'gender' aspect.

It's simply that we were created male and female.. one for the other, complementing, fulfilling, -that's the Creation pattern.

To restrict the discussion to the 'disgust' aspect in order to justify heterosexual sex, is like the "King James Only" mob who claim that the KJV Bible is 'the' one which God preserved for mankind..and their justification is "Well...look at how God has USED it to bless mankind" .... it's pure subjective rubbish.

Assessing sexual conduct should not be 'subjective' but very much objective and connected to the permissions and exclusions/prohibitions of the Almighty.

Yes, I believe homosexual acts should be illegal. (on the basis of democratic processes)-I don't believe that the punishment should be severe or based on the Levitical punishments, I believe God will judge us all. For this world, the important thing is to send a message of social dissapproval about some things,(sexual misconduct) and severely punish others (such as murder)

Porkycrap: << I believe homosexual acts should be illegal >>

So, on the basis of Porky's interpretation of his religious text, he wants to make homosexual acts illegal. How exactly does this differ from Sharia law?

This is, of course, why we need secular definitions of human rights that override the designs of religionists to incorporate their screwy values in the laws of the land.

Porky and the other Christian Taliban are currently smelling somewhat worse than the orifice with which they seem to be obsessed.

Good People,

Proscribing laws against consenting sexual acts by adults is far beyond bigotry. It is deep seated arrogance supported only by narrow prejudice. When religions and this includes most of them, gain control of political systems, such intolerance does become law.

This faith-based obsession with same sex activity is only undermining any moral high ground religions thought they had. Is it any wonder that the pews are emptying of young people?

As for anal sex, it is a common practice amongst heterosexual couples. It does not involve ‘making babies’ and neither does masturbation or night emissions.

There is so much sperm filling spaces and places not vaginal, that to use the non-reproductive intention argument is well to be frank, just bloody stupidity of the highest order.

Have any of the religious folk on this thread never masturbated or had a nightly emission or had their penis or fingers near or in a partner’s anus? If none of these things is true, then it is they who are the ‘abnormal’ ones, and maybe they should rethink their own sex lives and stop telling others how to live theirs.

David

poly-boaz, i'm genuinely astonished by your answers. and appalled. i wasn't trying to do a gotcha or anything, but you have come out with some truly hateful responses. i'm sure you don't regard it as hateful. but trust me: anybody whose behaviour you wish to re-criminalize would regard it as hateful.

let's first be clear that your first reply to me was nonsense, that your condemnation of homosexuality is *not* because sex has to do with human reproduction. of course, as a number of people of pointed out, the premise is false, that sex is not necessarily about reproduction. if that was the source of your condemnation, it was absurd.

but as your later responses indicate, your condemnation is purely and simply a product of biblical condemnation. i'm appalled, but i admire your honesty.

but your stance raises obvious questions.

1) as cj asks, why is your desire to re-criminalize homosexuality different in principle from a muslim's desire to impose koran-based law?

2) what do you regard as the appropriate criminal penalty for homosexuality? why not levitical-style punishments? how do you choose to ignore clear biblical direction?

3) would you seek to criminalize other biblically proscribed behaviour? should it be a crime to eat shellfish? why not?

Most of Levitical law is based in social health and little has changed despite our advances in medicine. AIDS is still a socially transmitted disease mostly among homosexual males. Criminal law still covers the deliberate spread of diseases. To claim the young generation reject social health is based in their ignorance and still results in the rise of the incidence of lifelong VD infections.

The analysis of sperm indicates it is designed to convey zyote for fertilisation of ovum. It is a living protein designed for human reproduction. It is true that we have an overt suppy greater than any possible fertilisation, similarly with ovum. Please tell me what purpose ovum have in the total scheme of sexuality! One is the complement of the other, when two flesh become one.

Exit Porky, stage right.

So Philo, the "Levitical law" that forbids eating shellfish is about "social health"? Should oysters be banned?

Please don't include any "design" crap in your answer.

Philo,

You have dodged around my post in a less than admirable manner.

As CJ Morgan pointed out, you are also being very selective. You are obliged to answer satisfactorily his question.

For your interest, as with opposite sex oriented people, same sex oriented people do not all engage in anal intercourse.

Evolution has made sure sexual desire is a powerful force to ensure the continuation of the species. Not many people I have come across, excepting the vastly small minority of those busy with sexual encounters in trying to achieve conception, consciously consider every sexual act a reproductive one.

As an example, think of those who practise contraception by the pill, vasectomy, IUD’s etc. And of course, let us not forget good old masturbation by self or by others.

In the same light, evolution has made eating a function to supply energy to maintain sexual health for reproduction. How many people consciously consider this when hoeing into their Tofu and chips?

The net population growth rate is 70 Million yearly (200,000 daily) shows there are enough to kill the planet already. Total Great Ape population equals one day’s human increase.

“mostly among homosexual males”

Really!

http://www.avert.org/worlstatinfo.htm
Globally, around 11% of HIV infections are among babies who acquire the virus from their mothers; 10% result from injecting drug use; 5-10% are due to sex between men; and 5-10% occur in healthcare settings. Sex between men and women accounts for the remaining proportion – around two thirds of new infections.

David

Hi David (Atheist Foundation),

You wrote: "Evolution has made sure sexual desire is a powerful force to ensure the continuation of the species."

Whilst I'm not interested in a Atheist vs God debate, I would caution any Atheist in making presumptuous comments that are all too common.

I don't think you have a proof now, and I don't think you will be able to prove it either.

Your statement is actually a statement of belief, not fact.

GZ,

Trees, grasses, insects and animals all prolifically demonstrate sexual reproduction to be one of the most powerful instruments for continuing particular genetic strains. I am not sure of your objection to this fact. Could you be a little clearer?

David

David,

To claim that "Evolution" has led to a prolific sexual reproduction, or anything, is very dodgy.

I regard "Evolutionism" as a "belief system".

To accept "Evolution" as factual does funny things to many people. They start disliking those who believe in God, (thinking they are so stupid), but not realising Evolutionists themselves are believers in things unproven.

(Perhaps I should debate about "Evolution" elsewhere, some other time.)

GZ

You can regard evolutionary theory as a ‘belief system’, but science does not. You place yourself in a group of undisciplined rabble who appear not to understand or do not wish to know how science works by making such a ludicrous statement.

Please do not answer with, ‘but it is only a Theory’. This demonstrates a lack of knowledge.

As you have not bothered to explain it, I wonder which system you think supplies a better explanation? Is it a young earth ordained by a god? Is it an old earth ordained by a god? Is it one of those ordained by aliens? Is it something else? Please supply proof that the rest of science knows not of. When I say proof, I mean that which will be universally accepted by science and has been peer review in accredited scientific journals.

Allow me to give you the basic reason as to why evolution is accepted as the sole cause of incremental change of species and nature. I have posted this before but it won’t hurt to do so again.

“The deeper into strata, the less advanced are organisms.

Morphological and chronological investigation of fossils is consistent.

Hominid and dinosaur fossils do not exist in the same strata.

Hominid fossils do not exist in strata below strata containing dinosaur fossils.

Rare exceptions have scientifically based explanations. (Tectonic plate movement, local flood etc)

Many disciplines of science support evolution.”

Now, if you can dispute any of the above you have the opportunity to overturn evolutionary theory and make a name for yourself. Go for it.

People who accept evolution do not dislike those who believe in a god. Many religious people accept evolutionary theory. However, many of us are not tolerant of personal beliefs being indoctrinated into the malleable minds of children much to the disadvantage of society and the planet. When this is dressed up as science, most socially responsible adults abhor and reject such a process and attempt to change it. Those of us who recognise the problem would not be socially responsible if we did anything less.

David

GZ, if you're the same person as GZ tan, then why are you using multiple names at once? Are you aware this is a breach of the forum rules, and that the limits are there for a reason?
If you're not, then fine, but your views appear very similar.

Evolution doesn't require people to 'hate' god. In fact, the two beliefs are not mutually exclusive.

As an agnostic, I could potentially believe in a god that set evolution in motion. I could believe in a timeless entity beyond our scope to understand. Fortunately, such an entity wouldn't give a damn if I believed in it, so I'm lucky.
It's the idea of a god that judges silly harmless things like homosexuality and set in motion a fairy tale about a garden and snakes and so on, just a few thousand years ago, that I find a little childlike.

So when I say that evolution appears to be the likeliest origin explanation we've found, going by the evidence around us instead of leaping to superstitious answers, then I'm essentially just stating the scientific approach.

No 'faith' or jumping to conclusions needed.

David wrote: "Now, if you can dispute any of the above you have the opportunity to overturn evolutionary theory and make a name for yourself. Go for it."

I shall give that a try then. I respond to some points you raised, as follow:-

--> "The deeper into strata, the less advanced are organisms."
Less-advanced organisms were less capable of surviving climatic changes. They became extinct much earlier and therefore could only be found in deep strata.
There is no proof that less advanced organisms evolved into more complex organisms, (and vanished after being "redundant").

--> "Hominid and dinosaur fossils do not exist in the same strata"
--> "Hominid fossils do not exist in strata below strata containing dinosaur fossils"
I think these are proof that dinosaurs existed well before human did.
But does this prove evolution did happened?? Unfortunately, only anecdotally so. Not scientifically true.

As for which system supplies a better explanation, there is a scope for laying out all possibilities, but make sure they are (i) exhaustive and (ii) mutually exclusive.
(i) Exhaustive - The answer must be one or more of the possibilities listed.
(ii) Mutual exclusiveness - Only one answer can be correct.

What possibilities have we got?? I have ruled out aliens. If there are interesting possibilities then I'd like to hear. To me, the only contenders are evolution and creation.

TRTL,
I am not using multiple names at once. GZ-Tan morphed into gz, then "G Z" because I forgot my previous passwords.
(I didn't bother to approach the administrator to reset my password).
There is a GZA1312 or something but that's not me.

GZ,

Why have you skirted around peer reviewed proof?

“Less-advanced organisms were less capable of surviving climatic changes.”

So, you admit there were less advanced organisms…OK. If that is so, then there are more advanced organisms. That is called evolution. Why were they less likely to survive climatic change? (Cite accredited paper)

“They became extinct much earlier and therefore could only be found in deep strata.” (Cite accredited paper)

“There is no proof that less advanced organisms evolved into more complex organisms,”

This is true if you disregard the whole overwhelming body of fossil evidence.

Fossilised dinosaur and humans in different strata goes a long way to disprove a young earth where contemporary existence is postulated. Had to include that as I don’t’ know your belief slant on things and there are quite a number of similar supernaturally oriented guesses. Maybe make your position clear, as have I.

If you mean by exhaustive that so called “intelligent design” should be considered an equal to science, then you have missed the whole point of science. ID does not have a scientific basis, only one in faith.

And yes, they are mutually exclusive, as I have just explained. Evolution has a basis in science and ID in wishful guessing. I think the Dover trial cleared up that point of confusion.

Yes, to you the only contenders are evolution and creation but you really do not accept evolution.

Now back to the real world. All you have to do is supply proof by way of documented evidence for creation to be true and scientifically backed. But you cannot, as there is none. It is therefore a statement of faith.

Why is 99% of science wrong on this and a mere handful of those calling themselves creation scientists, right. Surely, if they wish to show the rest of us that we are wrong, then they should be doing the science. Why don’t they?

The AFA has found the real arrogance in this attitude is that the hidden reason people accept evolution is because of Satan. I guess you think that also. Do you?

David

david quote>>Now back to the real world.All you have to do is supply proof by way of documented evidence for creation to be true and scientifically backed.But you cannot,as there is none.It is therefore a statement of faith.>>

..your absurd convolutions go on

YOU claim evolution by science method[NAME YOUR facts]
not refer flipantly to fossil record [name the fossils that proves what

i tested you athiests science method right here
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2305
i asked if its valid/science to validate/name it on the posting

in over 100 posts it wasnt

in the end we all agreed the science isnt in

[you see dear david there are gaps in those fossils you revere as being miraculous proof of science method[huge gaps mainly egsaCTLY WHERE ONE GENUS CHANGES into another genus]

[yes attempts were,made to call speciation[within a genus proof] but specie-ation cant validate e-volution[evolution postulates a new genus from another genus]

it is that that science cant validate

these gaps are for you who hold a so called science method to prove via science method to explain[if science]

[beliving god creation is just that belief
[but you guys claim more than 'belief'[you claim science]

reveal your science

clearly as you cannot your belief is faith based
[not science]

we covered fossils in the debate about evolution[you can not have missed it thus clearly avoided it]

but here again is your oppertuinity
TO NAME YOUR FOSSILS HERE
or here
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2305

you have failed to name your own generalities
if you persist to claim science [name specifics]

what evolved into what[by what proof?]

present your science PROOFS

name names athiest

or admit you believe your tust in science by faith [not fact]

there goes the neighborhood.

FROM
http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/life.htm

QUOTE>>Evolutionists have proposed seven steps for the natural,chance,spontaneous generation[of life from non-living material..1.formation of monomers[2.formation/polymers[3.development of a meaningful code[4.Transcription of the code molecule[5.Translation of the code molecule[6.The appearance of the proto-cell[7.The appearance of the[FIRST]EVOLVED cell

Without exception,experiments[at eachof these steps have_failed..to demonstrate that such accomplishments can occur[by'chance'events''caused''by the'natural-properties'of molecules.

Contrary to the claims and expectations of evolutionists,origin of life experiments have[only]demonstrated:[1]the law of biogenesis is,credible(2)the probability of'abiogenesis'exceeds numerical possibility,(3)experiments have failed to produce products in natural simulation settings at all seven stages proposed for the alleged abiogenesis,and[4)evolution of life resulting from the natural properties of molecules[that;YET}cannot be generated even in intelligently designed and carefully controlled conditions.

The current...('evolution'as origin of life]...scenarios are untenable and the solution to the problem will not be found by continuing to flagellate these conclusions” H.Yockey;Information theory and molecular biology.1992...

..Nancy Touchette;“So far,none of the current theories have been substantiated or proven by experiment,and no consensus exists about which,if any,of these theories is correct.Solving the mystery may indeed take longer than the origin of life itself”(1993.Evolution: Origin of Life...

The'most'credible explanation for the origin of life is the creation model of intelligent,supernatural design.[It is consistent with the supernatural origin of the universe],confirmed by the law of biogenesis and the law of probabilities,[its predictions are demonstrated by thousands of daily experiments in the laboratory.

Insistence of a'natural'origin model in spite of the natural properties of molecules,their impossible chance of occurring,failed attempts to produce life in sophisticated and intelligently designed experiments,and in contradiction to the law of biogenesis is clearly irrational and unscientific.....Following is a summary of the Law of Biogenesis argument for the supernatural origin of life.

1.Law of Biogenesis:"Living cells come from pre-existing living cells."2.Living cells have never been observed to come from lifeless molecules.3.All attempts to create life in the laboratory have failed.4.Therefore,initial living cells must have originated supernaturally.5.The creation model conforms to the data.

[IF}Evolution proposes that life originated by means of the natural properties of molecules.[PROOVE IT]

evolutionary abiogenesis contradictsBASE}scientific law.[Models that contradict scientific laws are unscientific.Therefore, evolutionary abiogenesis as a model of origins is unscientific

from
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i1/finch.asp

quote>>There is a very heavy burden of proof on those propounding the doctrine that bacteria have self-transformed into palm trees and fish,and the latter turned into tigers and nuclear scientists.

For one thing,it demands a natural process capable of generating vast amounts of new,bio-functionally significant,coded information.

To watch natural selection sifting and sorting through existing information,deleting chunks of it,begs the question of the origin of all that information.>>..<<What a pity that neither the researchers nor Weiner appear to understand the logical fact that,while natural selection may be an intrinsic part of a particular evolutionary model,

demonstrating it does not of itself demonstrate the‘fact’of evolution—if by that you mean a one-celled organism becoming today’s complex biosphere.>>..<<Weiner recounts how Darwin was able to apply selection to breed pigeons so different from each other that if found by biologists in the wild, they would not only have been categorized as separate species,but even separate genera.

This is of course a marvellous demonstration of the amount of variability built into each created kind,allowing it to respond to changing environmental pressures and thus conserve the kind.>>

<<After all the‘hype’about watching‘evolution’,one reads with amazement that the selection events observed actually turned out to have no net long-term effect.

For example,for a while selection drove the finch populations towards larger birds,then when the environment changed,it headed them in the opposite direction.>>

<<Evolutionists have long argued the opposite—that evolution is invisible in the short term, but would become visible if we had enough time. Yet according to Weiner, we can see evolution happening in the (very) short term, but any longer and it becomes ‘invisible’! The mind boggles at how evolutionists can be blind to this inconsistency.

Weiner quotes a researcher as saying that:

‘A species looks steady when you look at it over the years—but when you actually get out the magnifying glass you see that it’s wobbling constantly.’>>

YET ALL WITHIN THE SPECIES/genus MEAN

more at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2411

David,

I do not believe in a young earth.
I wouldn't categorically claim that less-advanced organisms are less likely to survive climatic change. That'd depend on what "less advanced" means. I would merely say that evidence suggests many less-advanced organisms could not make it.

It is my suspicion that in the pre-human days, the earth was much more abundant and diversified with life-forms compared to today. As time goes by, those that could not survive, (due to various reasons including climatic changes) disappeared from the scene. I'm suggesting a nett reduction in species over time, not an increase. If true, a reduction in species diversity does not bode well for the evolution theory.

One dimension that scientists will not research is spiritual. When I was young I was once involved in playing with a
QUIJA/WIGGY-board-like device. Even today, I am convinced something unknown/unseen was there driving the little saucer to move.
Why is there no scientific research into the spiritual world?? I think any scientist who tries to do such a research would be seen as mad and be discredited before he could blink his eyes.
Such is the bias of scientists.

The assumption is always an evolution one and all the scientific resources are around fitting zigsaw puzzles within the framework of that assumption.

Anyway, the main reason why I do not believe in evolution is that I see no natural process that can transform non-life into a lifeform.
If life cannot naturally arise from non-life, then there would be nothing to evolve from, in the first place. Survival of the fittest argument is a mere red-herring.

Looks like you'd have more arguments with one-under-god though.

( I didn't know we can post to the same thread more than twice in one day).

bushbasher: << there goes the neighborhood >>

Yup. The lunatics have taken over the asylum again.

Bet we don't see Porky again on this thread, and also that he still hasn't read the article on which it was based.

CJ, from your posts i take it poly-boaz has a habit of simply disappearing when perhaps cornered? cute.

So also do some posters turn to ridicule when cornered. Cute!

To atheistic evolutionists the idea "evolution" has some intrinsic inherent power to create new more developed genes, or that the genes themselves develop more comples organisms. I would like to know how we can breed humans from monkeys? If such were the case then why the concern over the reduction in species other than human. Evolution will work things out in the final scheme. No the atheists become all moral when it becomes other species. Yet claim those consistently moral with regard to purpose and design as lunatics.

one under god,

Because of gaps in knowledge about evolution, that is absolutely no reason to rely axiomatically on a creator god existing to fill them. That’s guessing and is not science.

What came before the metaphorical big-bang and how life originated is unknown presently. But science is working on it.

The fossil record rightly sustains acceptance of the theory of evolution but also its uniformity with other scientific disciplines is that which builds an undeniable picture.

We would have to discard or totally revamp palaeontology, genetics, biology, astronomy, etc if discovery demonstrated that nature wasn’t natural in some instances.

It is quite unreasonable for a god to make some parts of the universe follow consistent natural laws and in other parts we have not yet fully investigated, a supernatural element is present.

The reliance on the god guess depends on which god is presently in vogue. It also relies on interpretation of the qualities of that god. Some people believe a personal god exists but created the universe and does not interfere, others believe in a creation event and intervention, others in a young earth and others in an old earth. A growing number do not accept a god exists at all and the universe is a mindless part of an infinite nature.

The problem here is whom do we accept as being correct. People can be such liars, delusional or gullible and open to believing in all kinds of fanciful stories. (No news there)

Then came the historically recent enlightenment and scientific method took root. It is the best by far way of ascertaining if a proposition or statement is correct, incorrect or indeterminate. It has inherently honest checks and balances unlike any other system of discovery. Admittedly, it may not be perfect but it is the best we have for fact finding. To discard its conclusions is the most foolhardy path humanity could possibly take.

Science via scientific method makes no proclamations on the existence of a god but it does emphatically state that the facts supporting evolution are, up to this point in time, irrefutable.

David

dear david, we are on opposing sides of the fence[yet i read every link people post]darwins finches[if fossils]would clearly have been classified as being different[yet we realise they yet are all finches]because we did further study on the living things

but lets talk about fossils[many of them are reconstructs]you need only look at the material to realise that artistic licence is involved,
lucy and many others are now confirmed to be out and out fraud[that lizard bird has been exposed to be a fraud as well[turns out the feathers are from a modern day chicken]

go check out the fossils,you find only plaster casts[there is a claim that many'origonal' fossil constructs disappeared during ww2][lol]look at your evolution THEORY,that seriously postulates so far as alians generating the first biogensis[lol]where did the alians come from?

you have a huge problem with god,based also on much missinformation] going so far as to run the organisation that deneys he even egzists[yet have a certain religious zeal insisting he dosnt,if you were in govt now you have stated to me i for one would be re-educated]

but bro you got no facts to prove he dont egsist[what you will just remove my front brain[or dope me up on drugs;turn me into a zombie[and you think thats better than believing in something YOU CLAIM dont egsist?]

ok here is the deal,you put up a link [that i can visit]that shows me the whole evolution of ONE SINGLE trans genus'evolution',

[previously i wanted the complete evolution step by step[but that dont egsist as a surity[as blind freddy would see the gaps]and i will explain to you where they lied[then you can explain why you believe it is true]

you cant name names david[no one can]but even if you proved it[evolution]to be in any way relivant to belief]it cant disprove god did it,let alone god dont do what seems to be labled as'naturally selecting'

also just for the debate please definativly define'natural',its a buzz word,that science uses when it cant describe how or why what happend when it did or the way your presuming it did]

Dear Philo,

You sound very confused. Your last post was very disjointed.

Evolution doesn’t have a “power” in the way I feel you're trying to imply. DNA mutates, some mutations are beneficial, some are destructive, most are neutral and nature selects which mutations will live long enough to be passed on to the next generation.

That’s it.

Humans don’t come from monkeys, but our genes show that we too are primates and share a common ancestor with them.

I’m curious about this though: “If such were the case then why the concern over the reduction in species other than human.”

Evolution - and all biological sciences for that matter - shows us that nature is a delicate balance and mix of species, each dependant on the others. Where do you get the idea that an acceptance of evolution would cause one to want all other species gone?

I’m also curious about this: “No the atheists become all moral when it becomes other species. Yet claim those consistently moral with regard to purpose and design as lunatics.”

What on Earth does morality have to do with any this?

If you want to know why those who accept evolution, both Atheist and Religious, regard creationists as lunatics, then I suggest you read some books on evolutionary biology the next time you go to the library. Evolution is as much a fact as gravity.

But if I have misunderstood you at all, then I apologise and would appreciate if you could clarify what you mean.

Or is it now your turn for a disappearing act?

AdamD wrote: "Evolution is as much a fact as gravity".

Here we go again...

AdamD, Evolution is not a fact, absolutely not.

Yes, humans don’t come from monkeys.
Yes, our genes show that we are primates, but "share a common ancestor with them" is not a proven fact.

I re-iterate, evolution is a theory, a belief but not a fact.

Carefully read one-under-god's posts. He writes a bit like a lunatic but he makes a lot of logical sense.

GZ,

Less advanced organisms might survive in greater numbers than more advanced ones. Take the influenza virus compared to Polar bear for instance.

Pre human days on the earth is a long time. Stephen Jay Gould put forward the analogy of the Eiffel Tower. ‘Using the total height as a scale for the age of our globe, human life only equals the layer of paint on the top of the monument’.

There were many more species but a number of mass extinctions have occurred but this does not mean evolution is incorrect; in fact, it’s not even pertinent. Something like 90% of species have disappeared forever.

Young people are easily influenced to believe in spooky stuff. How many people had their fingers on the ouija board and how do you know you could trust them. “It wasn’t me” is not good enough an answer to, “did you do it?”

James Randi offers a million dollars to anyone proving supernormal abilities. Why not have a go. Split you halves! There are paranormal investigations in some universities such as Princeton uni and the Amsterdam uni. No results of note that I know of yet though.

Evolution does not work on assumption anymore than a discovery indicates. If a bone is under investigation, the geology and geography of location is recorded, its placement in the strata is noted, it is dated, and its morphology is looked at etc and then placed in an appropriate position in the existing knowledge jigsaw and written up in a journal. Others then can look at the findings and draw the same or different conclusions as those of the original investigator.

Origin of life is a mystery therefore a god did it? Or was it the invisible dragon in my shed? Why not accept it is a mystery. There is no rule that says we have to know everything. Some things will always remain a mystery, so what.

David

one under god,

It is pointless discussing anything with those totally immersed in beliefs about conspiracy hypotheses. Scientific method is trustable – religious belief is not…full stop.

David

The Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg's comments are illogical to say the least. He starts by saying that there are "good" and "bad" people. The Catholic position is that only God is good. We human beings all have our good and bad points.
The Nobel Laureate then concludes with his astounding "but for good people to do evil-that takes religion". What about non-religious people who are 'good' and then go 'bad'? The Gospel and the Church only teach truths about the commandments, virtue, sacramental grace, prayer and so forth. Where is evil or the 'bad' coming from such religion? And further how does prayer and sacraments and teachings on virtue etc encourage 'bad'?

Dear GZ,

OUG is may sound like he’s making some logical sense, but he/she is only repeating misconceptions and old arguments that have been disproven many times over.

Evolution is both fact and theory, just as gravity is both fact and theory.

The fact of evolution is what we observe every day. The theory is the best explanation for the facts that we observe.

Not only do we share 98% of our DNA with Chimpanzees, but the way in which our genetic make-up is coded shows that we share a common ancestor. It even helps to give us an estimate of the timeframe.

A scientific theory is not just a belief. In science terms a theory is the highest order a hypothesis can obtain. A hypothesis becomes a theory when the evidence supports it beyond any reasonable doubt, and by any measure, evolution earns its title of “Theory” with ease. In fact, evolution is one of the most solid scientific theories we have.

There are hundreds of fossils that show transitions between us and the common ancestor we shared with other primates. In fact, there are so many, that scientists have a difficult time trying to decide which are the ones we directly descended from, and which are the ones that died out.

Not to mention the many thousands of other transitional fossils between hundreds of other species - which would be a mere drop in the ocean compared to how many there are out there waiting to be discovered. Let's not even try to grasp how may were never fossilised. It is believed that all the species alive today only make-up 1% of every species that has ever existed.

You can reject evolution all you like, but it will not change the facts.

adamd, you can point out the nature of scientific belief all you like, but it won't alter the fact that these guys are never gonna listen to you.

ADAM LIST YOUR 100's of transitionals ,and your abiogensis[first life from non life]

The Origin-of-Life Foundation,Inc.is offering a million dollars to anyone who can demonstrate that life could indeed evolve spontaneously.

Amazingly,this demonstration only has to be presented in theory[not experimentally.!!
Following are excerpts from their web site at http://www.us.net/life/

"The Origin-of-Life Prize"(hereafter called'the Prize')will be awarded for proposing a highly plausible mechanism for the spontaneous rise of genetic instructions in nature sufficient to give rise to life.To win,the explanation must be consistent with empirical biochemical,kinetic,and thermodynamic concepts as further delineated herein,

and be published in a well-respected,peer-reviewed science journal(s)."

SO GO FOR IT

The erroneous notion of life arising from non-living material is recorded as early as Aristotle's time[4BC.]Recipes exist for the fantastic,natural,spontaneous generation of mice from moldy grain,worms and beetles from dust,frogs from mud,and flies from rotting meat...

Surprisingly,in contradiction to the established law of biogenesis,spontaneous generation is still considered to be a valid tenet of current evolution theory.It is commonly known as abiogenesis(life origin without pre-existing life),which is a field of research in evolutionary biology.The recipes are much more sophisticated,but the results are the same: nothing.

that in spite of millions of dollars,high tech equipment,carefully controlled research,and thousands of man hours spent on experiments to determine how life could arise naturally from non-living materials,not a single life form has been created.[LOL}

http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/life.htm

>>Having presented the evidence ...it is'reasonable'to predict the finding of evidence for a'natural'origin of life'.Such an origin would be consistent....the basis that the material makeup of life was of supernatural origin.

The evidence of the supernatural origin of life can be classified into three categories:1)law of science,2)law of probabilities,and 3]experimental observation.

The law of science that has stood the test of time being verified thousands of times[without exception since Louis Pasteur's swan neck flask experiment is the Law of Biogenesis[This law states that,"Where a cell exists,there must have been a preexisting cell,just as the animal arises only from an animal and the plant only from a plant"(Biology,Helena Curtis,second edition,Worth, p.90).

David,
I played the "ouija board" (Chinese variant) when young, on numerous occasions with different friends.
I also played with my younger brother and sister. As the big brother, it would be me if anyone were to be a cheat. But no, I did not trick anyone.
I recall we stopped due to too many scary talks and have not tried that stuff ever since.
I really wonder why there is a lack of interest. Is anyone on OLO playing "ouija" board??

Don't write off OUG ("one under god"). Seriously, he makes a lot of sense !!
I only noticed his existence when he posted after me yesterday. I didn't even take him seriously yesterday. But now I do !!

Dear AdamD,
(1)..."The fact of evolution is what we observe every day."
No, I swear I have not observed actual occurrence of evolution today, any day.

(2)..."The theory is the best explanation for the facts that we observe."
Yes, the best "explanation". But only an explanation, not a fact.

(3)..."...we share 98% of our DNA with Chimpanzees."
That much is a fact. But claiming human and Chimpanzees have the same ancestors are only claims, not factual.

(4)..."In science terms a theory is the highest order a hypothesis can obtain. A hypothesis becomes a theory when the evidence supports it beyond any reasonable doubt..."
No, theory is not the same as theorem. A theory is unproven, whereas a theorem is proven.

GZ,

The Ouija board with hands not operating under the control of your mind is suspicious. If it did something without any hands on it, then that would be interesting. Why were you frightened by the occasion? Could it be you were primed to think if anything without an immediate explanation happened, (Such as someone not owing up) it would be ‘supernatural’, that is, demonic? If I played such a game and it appeared to produce results unexplained, I would not forget the whole thing, but would investigate further. Such as change friends, make moves myself; consult the science teacher at my schools etc.

I have not written off ‘one under god’, it is just our interaction is not productive. She/he is welcome to believe whatever she/he wishes. When total disregard to what is written is the case, then there is no point in continuing. If you will notice the last post of OUG was just cut and pasted from ‘dubious’ websites. I believe only the uppercased belongs to her/him. (Or close to it) When she/he does write her/his own words, it can be very jumbled and incoherent.

A number of people on the OLO forum persist in forgoing rational thought in favour of prejudices place in their minds as children and they don’t recognise it. Even knowing other cultures produce the same results is not good enough evidence. Those who, ‘Celebrate reason’, find that hard to take. I am amazed the cordiality afforded them.

The very interesting thing is that as one thread shows them to be wrong, another will starts and the like mistakes reappear. That is not rational discourse; it is reiterating the previous prejudices time after time. Surely a god supposedly who created a rational universe, could not possibly abide such behaviour.

I would say to them that if Atheists have somehow got it wrong, when they die, they will know. Those who are religious, if they are wrong, will live a delusion until they die and never find out. The latter circumstance in an infinite blink in infinity is totally untenable to me.

David

GZ dont sweat on it bro[david and i have a history]he is the dude hoping to build the new athiest belief system[then take over govt and get the theists reducated]

he knows a lot about nothing[atheism is about deneying what they definativly state to be[not be?]nonegsistant god afterall,

we had a short debate on the god topic before he began ignoring questions he could not respond to[and he does the same here]

you will note he avoids replying any questions needing him to name names[he talks in generalities,because he isnt able to find specifics]

[i am quite used to him not responding

[so now he responds with other destraction[but still no fact]i think that he thinks having the final say means he has proved his disbelief[its a sad affair]

i use the cut and pastes because i want the debate on facts[so he cant say i dont present any[not so much hoping he will change[he clearly has formed who he is on his own disbelief]

ok i know its a sword that cuts both ways[my name clearly elivates my own belief upfront as well[but when he asked me to give rreasons i did, he just shutsdown when cornered or sprouts his generalities as if they are beyond dispute[but then we both smell as bad as each other

dont sweat about it

i will keep doing what i do[as will he]i hate not posting info[so here is a site he might react to[if only he would try to see beyong himself,

maybe if he realises spirits egsist next he will see a bigger picture[who knows a change of topic might encourage him to respond with his proof? on the evolution topic[or snap back at my belief in spirits/god]either way he can respond or be seen avoiding responding by those he wishes to lead[but lead to where?]

http://www.angelfire.com/ne/newviews/wslded.html


http://www.angelfire.com/ne/newviews/wsltoc.html
and more
http://www.angelfire.com/ne/newviews/gonewest.html
http://www.angelfire.com/ne/newviews/life.html

David,
I don't know "Ouija board" in the west. Let me describe the "Ouija board" (Chinese version) I had played.
It consists of:
(i) square paper with some graphic patterns and possibly the words YES/NO.
(ii) little chinese saucer (approx 8 cm diameter). The saucer had an red arrow on it.
We bought it from a local shop. It was said to have been "blessed" at a temple, something like that.
To "play", place the saucer upside down on the paper, in the middle.
Each person places one finger on the saucer. Usually 2-4 person. Chant together as per instructions. Once the saucer starts moving, you can start asking a yes/no-type question. The saucer will move towards YES or NO on the paper.
It had been known if an inappropriate question is asked, the saucer might moved to the edge of table, fell off and broke.
Sometimes the saucer moved at a fast speed and that'd be a little scary. Sometimes it takes quite a long time to start moving.
I think we played that over a few months probably between year 4 and year 6 of primary school.
There was no scientific curiosity at that time. Just some fun times. Our teachers were not aware.
Everyone got scared and stopped playing when we made wild guesses about the intention of the spirit in the saucer, such as that could be a blood-sucking spirit that drew blood through our fingers while we played. Some stopped playing when they believe that was evil spirit.

If I ever find out where/how to obtain that thing, I will buy a few sets and let people know.

OUG,
No worries. I thought David comes across as more open-minded than many atheists.
btw, do you think using round brackets () will make your posts more readable, as compared to square bracket [] ??

GZ,

That sounds like the Ouija boards I know of. Some people when they are young and full of ideas about ghosts and goblins might wish to keep their fantasy alive by moving the cup and never owning up. Now, this may not have been the case, but as there is no solid evidence for anything supernormal ever having happened in the history of humanity, it has to be one of the strong probabilities. You can say there are spirits etc but again, I caution you, there is no evidence apart from very flimsy anecdotes about such alleged creatures.

The indoctrination of religion as an early age can reinforce the notion that there is a spirit world of some kind and it is a small step of the imagination to believe such things to be true. It possibly starts with The Tooth Fairy and then Santa and when these are discovered to be cultural hoaxes, a retreat into spooky stuff not so easily dismissed can occur.

The big difference between Atheists and those of faith is that we require evidence, not just for that a plane or a car we travel in will not crash or that our mass produced food will not poison us, but for everything we do in our lives.

The religious indoctrination process, as is seen in other cultures, interferes with human evidence seeking and allows us to accept propositions without evidence. A special case is made for religious concepts and as others seem to believe them, we are influenced to believe likewise.

But the truth be told, most people rely on the fact that others apparently do believe in a superman in the sky and we can feel left out and maybe a little fearful if we do not, because of the negative consequences most religions overtly or subtly say result. The main penalty is no heaven for not accepting a god’s existence or even ending up in a hell for eternity.

You must remember this. There has never been a reliably recorded supernatural occurrence, ever. Do your own impartial investigation about this.

David

David: "There has never been a reliably recorded supernatural occurrence, ever."

I find that very very puzzling, especially when I'm sure what we played was something that is repeatable and verifiable.

I shall say no more until I get my hand on those "Ouija boards", and persuade some people to get involved :-)

a good suggestion(GZ)its more difficult for a one finger typer leaning on his other arm,but i will keep it in mind in editing

i will respond to the Athiest,who are so clever they need the word theist for their name recognition(lol)

i will post a bit of'davids'post to make a point...>>a retreat into spooky stuff not so easily dismissed can occur.>>

this for aTHEIST is a big admission[im not sure he will go so far as to prove it(of course]but he put it in writing,that it is not''SO EASILY DISMISSED'(LOL)

at least he recognises the satan-clause/easter-bunny delusion,thus has got some logic(even if he dosnt have any responses to questions when he is asked to name/names]but back to david the a)THIEST

>>The big difference between Atheists and those of faith is that we require evidence<<<..thats a great one..you are great at demanding proof(from others)yet are unable to prove your own case(LOL)its sad how we can so easilly and glibly an'aTHIEST'can put others down and yet not reply their'opponants'reasonable request for proof

The ANTI_religious indoctrination process,as is seen in other posts david has made,interferes with his evidence seeking and allows him to accept aTHIEST propositions such as evolution,without evidence.

A special case is made for'ANTI-religious'concepts and as others seem to believe them,also not requiring evolution(et-al)supply proof,others are influenced to believe likewise.[unable to make their case based on'gaps'in their own'proofs')but i will let the a-THIEST have the last word

>>and we can feel left out and maybe a little fearful if we do not,...penalty is no heaven for not accepting a god’s existence or even ending up in a hell for eternity.>>

see how an aTHIEST believes'not'going to a fictitious place,is based on their own fears/delusions(

had he taken time to read the link,he would have seen how even the'most vile'can yet redeem their earned aTHIEST hell

[simply by doing good for others,as opposed to lying to them[with their half-baked unreasoned,created/delusions that they gather from other A-thiests feeding each-other lies based on unrealistic fears,and materialistic perspective]but to davids final say;

>>You must(?)remember this.<< ...>>Do your own impartial investigation about this.<

Early in the thread, Porky mentioned "religious nutters who want it all their way..and want to impose laws on others"

Before he apparently left the discussion in embarrassment, he advocated recriminalising homosexual acts. Apparently he's not the only Christian nutjob wanting to impose their own version of 'sharia' law on us. The odious Fred Nile's currently in the news, wanting to ban topless sunbathing and swimming.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/30/2456656.htm

Fortunately, commonsense seems to have prevailed again. But these Christian fundies increasingly want us to change our laws to accommodate their prudish religious sensibilities.

Sound familiar? As far as I'm aware, there are no fundamentalist Muslims as yet in Australian parliaments - but there's heaps of Christian fundies in them lobbying away all the time.

Dear OUG,

It is not up to me to prove everything to you right here and now. You know this is impossible and I suspect that this is why you ask. There’s plenty of information out there about transitional fossils. If you are genuinely interested, then you should go and investigate them instead of pretending they don’t exist, and expecting others to show you in a 350 word post.

But I must thank you for demonstrating what I was telling GZ about your posts containing many misconceptions:

“Surprisingly,in contradiction to the established law of biogenesis,spontaneous generation is still considered to be a valid tenet of current evolution theory.It is commonly known as abiogenesis(life origin without pre-existing life),which is a field of research in evolutionary biology.The recipes are much more sophisticated,but the results are the same: nothing.”

This entire paragraph is based on a false premise.

The Spontaneous Generation belief was that vermin and maggots spontaneously appeared in their current form. Abiogenesis does not claim that anything just “appeared” - especially not in its current form. Creationism is far more akin to the spontaneous generation.

Dear GZ,

You may not witness evolution happening right before your eyes, but many scientists do.

Do you deny natural selection? Do you deny that bugs become immune to pesticides? What about the mutations in bacteria that immunize them from antibiotics? How about the mutation that allows a very small percentage of women to see some of the ultraviolet spectrum? Or the bugs that have learned to digest nylon? Do you deny ring species and speciation? Not to mention the millions of other examples seen around the world in the distribution of all the species on the planet.

If you can accept the evidence for evolution, concede that the Earth is billions of years old, but then reject the theory of evolution on religious grounds - saying that they are only “explanations” and “claims” - then please don’t be surprised the next time you hear someone say that religious belief is irrational.

Why would a god want to deceive by creating all life precisely as though it had evolved from simple beginnings? Why would a god want to hide themselves, then punish non-believers for an eternity, simply because they used the reasoning abilities that he/she/it blessed them with?

You were correct when you said that a theory is not a theorem. In fact, the two are so different from each other, that they cannot even be compared in the way that you are comparing them. You're implying that a theory, once proven, becomes a theorem. This is not the case. A theorem is deductive, and a theory is empirical.

In short, a theorem is not an “upgraded” or more proven theory. Nor can one say that a theorem is better than a theory since they are two totally separate things.

Apples and oranges.

GZ,

At the moment I have a little green monster, obviously not of this earth, siting on my lap. It can appear and disappear at whim. There it is now, no, it’s gone again and now it’s back. Do you take my word on this? The answer is of course not!

However, you could put together a team of psychologists, psychiatrists, and a variety of other experts including filmmakers, eminent judges, and persons of standing in the community etc to investigate if the little green monster is real. One criterion would be you would have to make sure they are impartial witnesses and are not of a little green monster cult or have a personal or any beneficial kind of relationship with me. You would have to place special emphasis on looking for fakery and the tests would have to be of the highest order to disallow this. Your team of experts would have to include scientist of various disciplines to look at the evidence, evaluate it and then write their conclusion in an accredited scientific journal.

Do you see what I am saying here, GZ? Because people can say anything they want, it does not necessarily make it true, but it is very difficult to dismiss spooky claims.

Actually, this whole affair is the wrong way around on purpose. If I say I have a little green monster sitting on my lap, then I have to prove it. It is not up to you or others to disprove it. And it certainly is not up to anyone to take my word for it.

It would be an interesting exercise to have a group of Atheists experiment with an Ouija board because my guess is the cup would not move at all. Only a guess mind you. Might try it one day, just for fun, if ever I get the time. Just a thought, if you obtained an Ouija board, I could arrange for some Atheists/sceptics to do the test and you could look on as a witness at a location of your choosing.

What do you reckon?

David

adamD;quote>>you deny natural selection?>>NO..[apes mate with the best'ape'[of the same genus]that it can find..or to use your egsample apples mate with apples..[result apples]

..>>..bugs become immune to pesticides?>>>NO..but bugs are still bugs..[get it yet]..one thing proves only the one thing..speciation[not evolution]are you saying natural selection IS evolution?

>>...mutations in bacteria that immunize them from antibiotics?>>it dosnt'change/evolve'bacteria..some BACTERIA adapt an'enzyme'that breaks down the poisen..ie'natural-selection'[not'evolving'..a new TYPE of genus..thats'NOT'a bug

>>..the mutation that allows a very small percentage of women to see some of the ultraviolet spectrum?>>[HUH?}if you have proof woman mutated into not woman..please produce evidence

>>..bugs that have'learned'to digest nylon?<<they are still bugs?..did they'evolve'into'not'bugs?

>>..you deny ring-species and speciation?>>NO..ring species reported are gulls breeding with gulls resulting in gulls..or salimanders mating with the species salamander..making[you guessed it salamanders(lol)not'evolution into a new'genus'NOT'salamander'.

>>Not to mention the millions of other examples seen around the world in the distribution of all the species on the planet.>>all of like breeding like..not one'new'genus resulting from an intra-species mating..EVER

accept the evidence for evolution is FLAWED[not proving evolution in the'macro'sense[into a new'genus'type]..OF course the Earth is billions of years old,how dare we think a god'day'equals a man'day'

i reject the theory of evolution on logic grounds/saying that they are only'species'specific“explanations”and spurilous unsubstantiated“claims”expoliated into genus'evolution'[when its not]

hear someone say that religious belief of evolution[based on species speciation into new genus is irrational.

>>Why would a god want to deceive by creating all life precisely as though it had evolved from simple beginnings?>>if not how did he do it then..logiclly so we can find the clues?

>>Why would a god want to hide themselves,<<would you have the freewill to debate about it?

for some reason people got'god'totally wrong
as your WRONG QUOTE reveals[by its ignorance

you insult pure living loving grace..but here is what you said
>>punish non-believers for an eternity,simply because they used the reasoning abilities..?<<

god dont judge[think how you wrong him;simply by saying he does when he dont..you dont know him[so stop'speculating'lies about'him'..you claim'he'dont egsist[YET...<<because they used the reasoning abilities that he/she/it blessed them with?<<lol

In fact speciation – the evolution of new species – is being observed right now among cichlids in Africa's great lakes. Here is a link to just one paper on the topic. (Subscription required but you can read the abstract)

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/40/15475.short

David,

Those who are blinded by ideology or religion will always find ingenious rationalisations that, they believe, explain away inconvenient facts. This leads me to postulate the existence of an element called "IMPENETRATIUM." Impenetratium exists in the atmosphere. It is colourless, odourless and invisible.

Impenetratium has the property that it is opaque to new ideas.

The brains of some people, for reasons yet undetermined, attract impenetratium. Such people suffer from a disease I have called ICES for Impenetratium Cerebral Encasement Syndrome.

New ideas literally never reach the brains of these unfortunates. Instead their brains go into a sort of a loop in which they have to invent ever more improbable and elaborate rationalisations to explain away evidence for ideas their poor brains are unable to process.

There is no known cure for ICES.

Happy new year everyone.

I thought 'impenetratium' was the result of modern and post modern education whereby insufficient or non -existent treatment is given in secondary and tertiary level history lessons, about the necessary gratitude and debt that one must show towards Judaism and Catholicism for providing the world with science, scientific method and innovation.

There is indeed a cure for impenetratium and is Catholic Faith and reason, taken either singly or in combined dosage.

Stevenlmeyer,

I think there is enough evidence around concerning “IMPENETRATIUM” for the initiation of a significant official study. The ‘Impenetratium Cerebral Encasement Syndrome’ has been known about and in existence for a very long time but at last science has found a cure if inoculation is administered at a young age. More mature adults do not necessary respond to the ANTI-PENETRATIUM treatment.

Those poor unfortunates who are stuck with the disease must be coddled to a certain extent but it is important they are kept away from impressionable children and moved out of the political sphere when the disease is running rampant.

Another method of controlling ICES is to show the effects, something akin to smoking or car accident adverts, in public forums. This way, young observers will see the awful damage reeked on its victims and rush to their local inoculation centre for advice on how not to catch it. Exposure to the devastation in itself works in most instances.

I think the message is getting through that mental condoms, which allow for a wide knowledge base are an essential item in young people’s repertoire. We must encourage that they should be worn always as a protective measure against the PENETRATIUM virus.

There should be a slogan such as, “Penetratium is everywhere, be careful it doesn’t get you”.

Webby,

The Catholic faith is one of the carriers of the disease.

David

Stevenl and David -

How about those who are affected by Variable Impenetratium Encasement Syndrome - i.e. those whose condition allows the pentration of new ideas but is limited exclusively to those which have the same properties as the ones already held?

Could such persons be said to have VICES?

Dear OUG,

Yes, nylon digesting bugs are still bugs, but given the fact that the earth is billions of years old, there is no reason why mutations couldn’t eventually result in a different species over time, especially when you take into consideration what we witness with speciation and ring species.

But with all due respect, I don’t have the time to be continuously correcting you, particularly when you’re not going to listen anyway. So I’m cutting this conversation off now.

Happy new year.

David wrote:
Yes indeed. When I mentioned I would persuade "some people" to get involved, I had Atheists/skeptics in mind.

But like I mentioned, I've only played Ouija boards of the Chinese type. I did a quick search on eBay but don't like what's there because they don't seem to suggest something will actually physically move. Like one OUIJA BOARD GAME BY PARKER BROTHERS that provides a message display window. That electronic stuff seems dodgy. The other thing is--they cost quite a bit.
I'll first try to source the Chinese ones (must be cheap) that I had played. Importantly, something is expectedly to physically move around after chanting !!

AdamD,
"Natural selection" seems to be the public face of the evolution theory because it helps to make evolution theory that much more believable.
Well, I believe "Natural selection" had played a part in many phenomenon, and possibly explains why there are so many different races, colours and why human of different races dispersed to different part of the globe.
But "Natural selection" only attempt to explain "evolution". "Natural selection" does not prove "evolution" and "Natural selection" is not known to produce new species.
OUG has dealt with much of what you mentioned as genetic changes, but that's not evolution. No new species are produced.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, there's no known natural process, whether physic or chemistry that can turn non-life into a lifeform. Actually "Natural selection" is only a red-herring. For evolution to be true, there must be transformation of non-life into life.
It does not matter how old is the earth, actually. If non-life can never become a life by natural means then all bets are off, seriously... Evolution never got started.

On your questions regarding God. Why would a god want to hide, deceive us, punish us??
Well, I'm not qualify to answer those.
But it's helpful to me in dealing with such puzzles by imagining if I were God, what would I actually do?? Will I hide, trick my creation and be a nasty God??

Everyone,
Happy New Year to you all !!

adamD>> there is no reason why mutations couldn’t eventually result in a different species over time, especially when you take into consideration what we witness with speciation and ring species.>>

mate i rebutted that your last post

but i see your quiting the debate[you poor deluded aTHIEST]
you cant prove your believing a lie [so run away]
clever debate tactics[no proof just run]

sephenmeiyer here is a link that works
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WNH-4N2KTG2-7&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f3d7593790e2e4561251a3bf9c819b81

but its typical of you unthinking athiests to claim evolution when fish are beeeding the same type of fish
no matter how many childards beeed chiltards none is yet a pilchard[evolution postulates chiltards can EVOLVE into non chiltards ,yopur link proves no evolution into a new genus[thats what evolution is really saying [but cant proove]

but i see your reeason for posting was to make a funny DESTRACTION[allowing the 'aTHIEST 'to make further put down and distraction]

and you people just think you proved something
[and maybe you have ,but not what you think]


you may think you invented the term[but it was invented in 2003]
http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answers/80934-density-suns-surface.html

quote>>Density of the Sun's Surface - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum
... at which point an impenetratium spacecraft would disappear from overhead view.<<

so your such a clever boy with your desctraction(BUT DESTRACTION isnt proving evolution to be based on fact
[only on plagerism it appears] but it proves how many athiest 's ALSO ARE UNABLE TO RESPOND with fact either

you can of course not see the joke you reveal yourselves to be[lol]

A-thiest's travel in self sustaining ignorant packs
[thinking each other so clever in their total pack minded ignorance]

you prove you collectivly have no proof for your delusioned'science'theory
proving even unable to evolve your own cleverness into provable fact

your links are as useless as your proof
there must be a sign there for a thinking thiest

you poor a-THIEST's ..[LOL]

so clever but unable to reveal any fact to prove it
# [lol]

Dear GZ,

You are now doing what many creationists eventually do when they're running short of arguments – you’re moving to abiogenesis. And no, stating that evolution has not been “proven” is not an argument since no scientific theories have been “proven” in the way that you’re using the term. But that doesn’t mean they ever will be, or could be disproven. That doesn’t mean that they cannot be facts. By this reasoning, you should be rejecting all science.

You are only half correct in saying there are no known processes that can turn non-life into a lifeform. There are several know processes that could have attributed to the forming of the first living cells.

But when you consider how much we already know, and that the study of abiogenesis is still in its early days, then the fact that no known chemical/natural processes make abiogenesis impossible, is far more significant, and your point is relatively meaningless.

The following statement is a fallacy:

“For evolution to be true, there must be transformation of non-life into life.
It does not matter how old is the earth, actually. If non-life can never become a life by natural means then all bets are off, seriously... Evolution never got started.”

What if a god - or something else that we cannot yet explain - started the process of evolution? The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming, that you could disprove abiogenesis, and it still wouldn’t disprove evolution. So natural selection is certainly not red herring you claimed it to be.

Sorry, GZ, but if the reasoning behind your belief in a god and rejection of one of the most solid and widely accepted scientific theories we have lies on the non-life to life argument, then that’s pretty weak I’m afraid.

Dear AdamD,

My logical deduction leads me to a position that echoes that of creationists.

I have no problem with "Evolution is a theory".
But unless and until evolution is proven, "Evolution is a fact" is either (i) a false statement, or (ii) a statement of faith.

As David implied "...then I have to prove it...", the burden of proof is actually on evolutionists. (It's a tough life).

Also, you mention many times "evidence" of evolution. A problem is people use the word "evidence" too flippantly. Seriously mate, is any of them truly evidence/proof of evolution?? Is any of them scientifically verifiable??

It is a scary possibility, but nevertheless one that Atheists need to ponder-- Evolution is not true and that's why verifiable evolution process can never be observed and replicated.

GZ,

If you are suggesting that after chanting some object will move independent of fingers on it, then don’t waste your time. That is not going to happen and as I have said, it never has…ever!

Have you ever read the book by Carl Sagan – Demon Haunted World? It is a must read for everyone and it may put you on the path to understanding that nothing supernatural/supernormal. is credible in our natural world. I urge you or anyone who is plagued with doubts about this kind of spooky stuff being real to read it.

You have to realise your luck in someone giving you this advice, for only a century or so ago it was not available and people were trapped within the thoughts they were indoctrinated with and had no chance of escaping into reality. And let me assure you, reality isn’t that bad.

This is your only chance at life, it is short and not repeatable as far as is known, so don’t waste it in fantasyland. This is just a suggestion and I hope you take it but it is your life to do with, as you will.

May the New Year bring about to everyone a world less self indulgent in seeking after unobtainable and highly improbable notions, the products only of highly imaginative thinking.

David

ADAMD>>You are only half correct<<LOL>>in saying there are no known processes that can turn non-life into a lifeform.There are several know processes that could have attributed to the forming of the first living cells.>>

well feel free to list them[name names]
anyhow the head a-thiest needs proof
lets see if david [meaning;be-loved]lol]; reads it

http://www.victorzammit.com/book/4thedition/index.html
http://www.victorzammit.com/book/4thedition/chapter01.html
>>I am stating that the evidence taken as a whole constitutes overwhelming and irrefutable proof for the existence of the afterlife.
There have been millions of pages written about psychic phenomena and scientific research into the afterlife.Using my professional background as an attorney and my university training in psychology, history and scientific method,I have very carefully selected aspects of psychic research and afterlife knowledge that would constitute objective evidence.

This evidence would be technically admissible in the Supreme Court of the United States,the House of Lords in England,the High Court of Australia and in every civilized legal jurisdiction around the world.

When the objective evidence,near death experiences,out of body experiences,after-death contacts,voices on tape,psychic laboratory experiments,the best mediums,the Cross Correspondences,the Scole Experiment,proxy sittings,poltergeists and all of the other evidence contained in this work is seen collectively,the case for survival after death is absolutely stunning and irrefutable.

The evidence presented in this work also proves the existence of so-called'psychic phenomena',which are interconnected with the afterlife and can only be explained satisfactorily by survival of the individual soul and personality after death.

In absolute terms the evidence presented in this work will convince the rational and intelligent open-minded skeptic or the genuine searcher about the existence of the afterlife.>>....but we know thats not you(a-thiest)

Further reading

A most comprehensive overview of the work of researchers into life after death
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org.uk/investigators.htm

The American Society for Psychical Research
http://www.aspr.com/index.html

The British Society for Psychical Research
http://www.spr.ac.uk/

To get some idea of the number of eminent professionals involved in these investigations see Gustav Geley’s article“Experimental Demonstrations by Dr. von Schrenck Notzing”where he gives the names and positions of 100 prominent scientists
who witnessed materialization experiments/conduced by Dr.von Schrenck Notzing with medium Willy Schneider.
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org.uk/articles/geley/notzing.htm.

updates on Dean Radin’s work
http://deanradin.blogspot.com/

quote from your link>>That's it.A series of oddball assertions with nothing to back them up,and most of them are just nuts.>>

as usual name calling but no rebuttal
preaching to the converted[as the responses confirm,clearly he deletes rebuttals[remind me to test this theory]

but'his'rebutal'][?;lol]goes on

>> It is a common trope[?]among the New Age crowd to babble about"vibrations"<<

ok i know he isnt rebutting,but later he states these cant be explained,let me explain

electrons circle the atom,at definitive speed and depending on the amount of protons/electrons orbiting the atom[according its atomic number

the actual orbit is a alternating polar orbit,but the thing is their orbits set up the very vibration that makes'reality'seem that which it is[but that is too much extra info for your little brains]

thing is look at your hand,it feels real
[but we KNOW its made up of atoms[electrons/protons etc

in its combined vibratory effect[according to the amount electron/protons etc is a combined field[of affect]that makes up the hand[the vibration of the electrons'protons,give the effect we know as reality[but is really all just the vibrational fields of the electrons/protons orbiting the atom's that make up your hand[and everything else in this'reality'its all vibrating[light is vibration[sound is vibration, matter IS vibration]

>>"planes" and "spheres" and "energy">>
the universe is only one vibrating plane/phere[there are very many more,different planes of vibratory affect]but i have posted about that previously[and still you would say you dont get it]

anyhow[a closed mind is impossable to open]aTHIEST's have very closed minds[its the group think mentality,the group superiority complex[that claims science method but is unable to explain or apply it[lol]

>>but I don't think a one of them could actually define any of these things,let alone measure them.>>

and if we did you would claim it nonsense

BUT science has measured the ammount of atoms[lol][thus expoliates the ammount with its affect[read your atomic number chart dude]

your link proves nothing as usual in the way of proof
thus
rebuts nothing
it is in generalities as usual

[take out what he'quotes'there is nothing left]

my quote was the bulk of his response[rebutal?]lol

Happy 2009 !!

Great OUIJA news !!
More than a year ago, a lady (very close to me) mentioned that she played in school (in the 70's) something similar, not with a Chinese saucer but with a coin.

I have just checked with her to confirm that. Her's was called "Spirit of the coin". 2-3 players were involved in each session. Apparently any coin will do. Each time, she thought the other player was pushing the coin. This remark is important-- It indicates she did NOT deliberately push the coin to move, (and I KNOW she wouldn't lie to me).
Will she play that again?? No, she insists.

Getting excited, I googled and found plenty of information. But better still, I found "Spirit of the Glass".

I would definitely be interested in "Spirit of the Glass" because a glass is much less likely to accidentally move by the players' finger, as compared to a coin.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_play_spirit_of_the_glass
http://www.baguio-city.net/2005/05/spirit-of-glass.html

It's time to do some scientific research, guys !!

Honestly, I'm not scared of this stuff and I hate superstition.
If the existence of spirits (ghosts, evil spirit...whatever) is real, then they are all around us anyway, what can you do. Let's take advantage of them to do some research then.

"...the Truth will set you free." -- Jesus

Hi David,

Can you do a favour by persuading some Atheists/Skeptics to give that a go??

GZ One Under God, its strange I do not support David, I am not a Christian.
I am not interested in formal things like his group.
While I understand and agree with him , there is and never was a God, I do not think its worth the effort trying to convert each other.
My reason for entering your discussion is this, you both make claims to that appear you have the high ground under your feet, you are right, others must except it.
Why then do you need forums such as this to tell us about your God?
Church's are empty, in my area closed and selling coffee or tea ,not God.
Could it be that your product needs salesmen and women who can sell?
Why?
Why does nearly every school teach us evolution if its lies?
Clutch your straws but let others swim in a life to good to waste

GZ,

I suggest that when you have obtained an Ouija board, you do the following. Gather three or four friends or acquaintances and have a session. It won’t matter if they are religious or not. Below are a series of question you can ask it. There are, apparently, three basic things you cannot ask the ‘spirit’ in the Ouija board.

Never ask about God.
Never ask when you are going to die.
Never ask where the gold is buried.

So here are the questions assuming the particular ‘spirit’ can travel all over the planet:

1. At what hour did David Nicholls awaken on New Years Day 2009?

2. What did David Nicholls have for breakfast on New Years Day 2009?

3. What important change to all documents regarding Atheism did David Nicholls make beginning on New Years Day 2009?

4. Which direction was the wind blowing when David Nicholls went outside immediately after wakening on New Years Day 2009?

When you are about to try the ‘experiment’ with the Ouija board, give me warning and I will transmit the answers to Foxy if she is willing to supply an email address for me to do so.

Do you agree, Foxy? If not, then some other member of OLO.

Foxy, I apologise if this seems presumptuous but you are possibly one of the most trusted persons on the OLO forum.

GZ, you then come back to the Forum after your encounter with the ‘spirit’ and place your answers on a post. Foxy or other will then place my answers on a post. After this, if it is successful, we incorporate Atheists/sceptics in the equation and try again with a new set of questions.

Does that all seem fair to you?

David

David,

I know what you mean.
But you're already making assumptions about what a spirit may or may not do. And they may be wrong assumptions.
What if a spirit is actually quite stupid?? What if a spirit is not able to correctly answer those questions??
I would suggest something simple, like asking the spirit for your age, or anyone's age for that matter.

The first scientific objective would be to analyse the very basic thing that a spirit may do-- Can we prove a glass is moved by an unnatural mean??

I know I have difficulty finding someone in Australia who will play this with me... So may be this will take time.

Belly,
If you read my very first posts, you'd know I'm merely here to refute Islam as a religion based on Mohammed's lies. (Mohammed never encountered an Angel).
I have strayed away from that at times.

Belly wrote: "Why does nearly every school teach us evolution if its lies?"
The theory of evolution is not a lie. But to say "evolution is a fact" is false, (ie. a lie).
But what else would the schools teach, if not theory of evolution??
You're begging the question.

Logic must not be emotional and truth judgement is not based on the population size of believers.

GZ,

I don’t think you want to call some poor innocent ‘spirit’, stupid. It may be offended.

How about ask the ‘spirit’ my age, weight, height and shoe size. Can’t get much simpler than that. Do you agree?

If you cannot find anyone who will be involved, might I suggest you are hanging around with a lot of superstitious people and you should expand your relationships to those not so encumbered?

David

GZ's just playing games. It would be very easy to set up a controlled experiment to test whether his belief in Ouija spirits is empirically supportable. Indeed, he'd stand to make millions from it if that turned out to be the case - but of course he won't.

<< I'm merely here to refute Islam as a religion based on Mohammed's lies. (Mohammed never encountered an Angel). >>

Of course, as a creationist Christian, GZ believes in all sorts of similarly fanciful myths and legends, but he won't provide any objective evidence for those - because again, he can't.

As a Malaysian Chinese Islamophobe, his mission is to spread hatred against Muslims at every opportunity. Anything else is a mere distraction.

belly>>,..the effort trying to convert each other...My reason for entering your discussion is this,you both make claims to that appear you have the high ground under your feet,you are right,others must except it.>>

awe come on belly,evolution isnt proven[but to put it in terms a unionist can understand,is a walkout for a union meeting a strike, very clearly they are different[is getting a'date';getting laid[no speciation isnt evolution[in the real evolutionary sense]

god only comes up in these debates when aTHIEST's cant respond with science[had they the science they would respond with science[not ridicule]mate dont you get angry when you been lied to?[well you have'speciation'isnt'evolution',however many people may wrongly believe it is

>>Church's are empty,in my area>>mate you know i say to that'so wha'[religious people saw through the fraud their'messengers'were delivering[but'evolutionists'still swallow lies]

>>Could it be that your product needs salesmen and women who can sell?<<

mate name the group im selling god to,im not selling nothing[just had enough of pimply kids who failed biology telling me its science when its not]if you cant do the job dont be saying the job is done[the evidence isnt in[yea]it looks like but it isnt[you never bought a car all bogged up[it looked good till the bog fell out?its the same with evolution[it looks good[but isnt science[faulsifyable]fact

>>Why does nearly every school teach us evolution if its lies?<<

mate they work to rules[the rules are they dont,so they dont]most science teachers never actually studied science[its straight from the book][they are theorists/teachers not scientists][and i dont want creation taught either[i found'god'after i swallowed the'evolution lie,'a science base is important[but kids should be told to confirm what the teachers is told to teach]but they dont

>>Clutch your straws<<

mate you ever sat though a'foreignmovie[then got lost following the translation[if you believe we can'evolve'a new life,you dont care about what life we allready got[once a life[genus]is gone its going to be gone forever

[but go ahead and waste your'life'not fully'knowing'what your'seeing'is unique]..that science as clever as it is..simply cant do it[cant make a simple cell[let alone'evolve'it]believe in what you want[but i have the same right]

CJ Morgan,

Now, now, CJ, don’t be too rational. Give our spooky believing friends a chance to hang themselves in small steps at a time. The web is awash with claims of the paranormal but strange as it may seem, none of it ever finds its way into reputable scientific literature.

My guess is that it’s not only a god who works in mysterious ways but it is also a devil. He has made all of us Atheists confused and all religious folk clear headed expounders of truth. And he does the same with all the thousands of conflicting religions there are and ever have been. Now that is a clever trick.

GZ has made claims about the capabilities of Ouija boards. We have both agree to a test and considering the monumental finding if it works; there is no reason not to go ahead with the experiment. Information on the web states often with authority, one can make a simplified version of an Ouija board and it will work just as well as the bought product.

Now, if GZ continues to prevaricate, then we will know it is rubbish. That will be one more notch for sanity in the battle against spooky thinking and GZ will have to wear the reduced credibility tag from now on.

So, in summary, the discovery of paranormal abilities of an Ouija board would be a fantastic bonus for a new kind of science (Or whatever) and well worth the experiment. A failure to do the experiment or a failed experiment will not bode well for those with their heads high in the clouds of superstition.

Just to reiterate the questions for the Ouija board: It must accurately tell my age, height, weight and shoe size. My Word document with the answers is all ready to be posted.

Start your engines, gentlemen please, the test is about to begin. Or so I believe!

David

David,

I'm excited about scientific research into spirits. What got me really excited though, was your earlier suggestion:-
"....to have a group of Atheists experiment with an Ouija board..."

Well, obviously you've reneged on that, and make me the one to prove the spiritual world exists.
What are you scare of? The glass may actually move??

Please note:-
(1)...You don't know my personal circumstances. So don't assume it's easy for me to find someone that will co-operate.
(2)...I will satisfy my own curiosity about "Spirit of the Glass". Not to prove to you, or anyone.
(3)...No one dictates when I conduct MY OWN experiment. But if/when one is completed, I will certainly reveal that.

On CJMorgan's points:-

(1)..."...creationist Christian...believes....similarly fanciful myths and legends..."
I don't know any Christian believing in fanciful myths,legends. They seem to resolve around Bible, Jesus mostly.
I know CJMorgan does NOT understand Christianity/Christians, even though he actively attacks both.

(2)..."...he won't provide any objective evidence..."
False. I would indeed provide objective evidence within my limits.

(3)..."...Malaysian Chinese Islamophobe..."
Name calling yet again, CJMorgan style.
I'm no longer a Malaysian. I'm not easily phobic, based on my ability to analyse logically.
A few months back, I commented that CJMorgan's ability to learn new concept terminated years ago.
Proof-- Here CJMorgan uses the word "Islamophobe" again, despite having read Nick Haslam's article.

(4)..."...his mission is to spread hatred against Muslims...at every opportunity..."
I only have opinions, not a "mission". My presence as an anti-Islamist is actually very limited, I come and go, unlike CJMorgan's constant presence on OLO, attacking Christians at every opportunity.
I don't spread hatred against Muslims "people" per se. My target is religion Islam as a false ideology.

CJMorgan has not come clean. He failed to address my suspicion he is actually in bed with Islam...(Muslim-by-association; Muslim-in-disguise)
He's never critical of Islam, other than making disingenuous token remarks that he hopes will mislead others into thinking he is "fair-minded" (puke...)

Someone who averages more than 3 posts a day, must have an agenda!!

I think his mission is to discreetly defend Islam, posing as non-Muslim.

allways about you'david'the[aTHIEST]<<ask the‘spirit’my age, weight,height/shoesize<<lol

you reveal how weak your'measure'of proof really is

but enough about you lets check out your foundation[with over 900.000 visits][yet i see no reply[answer]or questions asked of you[;lol]

>>The AFA recognises scientific method as the only rational means towards understanding reality.>>

yeah aint that just a hoot[rational scientific method you cant affirm
[but you will entertain spirit comunication[lol]

>>To question and critically examine'all'ideas,<<

you got the questioning thing down pat[but you got no answers]but you dont test your athiest belief do you[thats one more thing you cant do

>>testing them in the light of facts<<YET you simply remain silent or avoid reply till the next destraction and your off again as if nothing happend[you work so hard at remaining ignorant as if that>>,leads to the discovery of truth.<<lol

you cant handle the truth,athiests arnt looking for proof[only avoiding it]

>>The universe,the world in which we live,and the evolution of life are entirely'natural'occurrences.<<

DEFINE natural[for the third time]how was'natural'life begun?

prove>>No personality or mind can exist without the process of living matter to sustain it.<<,what of nonlife into life[the process]'lol'

just your usual nothing statements..that you cant validate with science fact

>>This life,here and now,is the only one we have.<<

prove it mate

<<All that remains after a person dies is the memory of their life and deeds in the minds of those who live.<<PROVE IT>>

>>Atheists reject superstition and prejudice,<<
yet believe the science'theory'based on faith[as is being here;now revealed...as your unable to confirm the science you claim underpins YOUR reality/evolution or abiogensis

<<along with the irrational fears they cause.>>

yet you care not about putting fear into thiests of little belief[children]eh if they get comfort from their'belief'its your mission to take what little faith they have AND REPLACE IT WITH WHAT?fear?santa clause?

>>We recognise the complexity and inter-dependence of life on this planet.<<yet not one of you can debate a'thiest'on the science of the matter..LOL...you just avoid answering'any'questions whatsoever

>>we accept the challenge of making a creative and responsible contribution to life.<<
yeah how?
by attacking thiests beliefs?..or avoiding reply to specific questions

So GZ apparently wants somebody else to do his Ouija experiment for him... somehow his claims about "spirits" aren't smelling too good.

<< I would indeed provide objective evidence within my limits >>

OK, so if you're unwilling to do your own experiment to prove your claims about Ouija "spirits", please provide objective evidence for some of your other fanciful beliefs - you know, stuff like Jesus' purported miracles and resurrection - albeit "within your limits".

Please ensure that your evidence is more verifiable and valid than the "lies" told by Mohammed, and on what basis you make that assessment.

<< CJMorgan has not come clean. He failed to address my suspicion he is actually in bed with Islam...(Muslim-by-association; Muslim-in-disguise) >>

I confess. I'm actually an al-Qaeda operative masquerading as an atheist. How did you guess?

CJMorgan,

First, check your comprehension, then read my posts carefully, again and again.

There are already two objective evidence within my limits, staring you in the face.
You have failed to even realise they are there, haven't you??.
(1)...My very own experience. ( I wasn't dreaming, you know)
(2)...One lady who played "Spirit of the coin" in the 70's.
Both experiences are independently verifiable by friends who participated then, hence they are objective evidence.

If Atheists are willing to replicate my experience, I look forward to their findings !!

Do I care about convincing close-minded individual like you?? Absolutely not !!
You can remain ignorant, uninitiated and uneducated, for all I care.

Regarding your request that I provide evidence Jesus is more verifiable and valid than the "lies" told by Mohammed...well, here is a BAD NEWS for you.

Have you forgotten that I dealt with you on same issue on 3/May/2007 ??

Search for this line under "GZ Tan" comments history:-
--> "CJMorgan, It's not that bad- FH's a fool too, albeit a very well-mannered one."
Or click this: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5742&page=0#79189

It was your turn to provide evidence against Jesus, but you ran off with tail between your legs... Ooop... wasn't that embarrasing??

Like to continue where you left off?? Then, please tell us how is Jesus stories a lie that is same as Mohammed's lies.

Alternatively, here is your BIG opportunity to refute my arguments against evolution, by providing TWO EVIDENCE on evolution, within the narrow limits of your scientific knowledge, of course.
I am counting how quick you can respond with your science knowledge...Clock is ticking...tick...tick...
.
.
.
Sigh... Just like I said, CJMorgan's ABILITY TO LEARN had ceased years ago.
He certainly has not learnt from what I told him about Mohammed's lies, back in year 2007.

One Under God! in terms a unionist can understand!
Lets talk about your posts, include GZ,s too, if I sold my movement in the way you try to sell your fantasy's I would be barred from every lunch room in Australia.
The fact is, your view is the minority view, look around the world, every country every religion, yes every one of them.
Can you not see the lower the education the more followers of that religion?
And isn't it clear even to you both that more than one religion exists?

GZ,

Me reneging, not at all. I merely do not wish to put Atheists out until there is good reason to do so. Let’s be real here. Ouija boards do not work. The proof would be clear if you attempted to find out my age, height, weight and shoe size even if using people who think they do work. You could do it yourself without anyone else involved.

http://www.museumoftalkingboards.com/Witchboard.html
“Sometimes it is hard to find partners. Is it OK to use the Ouija board alone?”
“Absolutely. Many people have great success using the Ouija by themselves.”

It would be a lot easier if after you make or buy the Ouija board for you to do a quick experiment yourself or amongst people you know. But if you cannot arrange that then send me an email when you are ready through the AFA website and we will work out a time and place.

But you are hardly likely to involve Atheists if the answers are not obtainable by people who actually believe in supernormal/supernatural palaver.

I’m unsure if “Spirit in the Glass” supposedly works the same way as an Ouija board.

David

Adam D,
Evolution is a descriptive term to outline a theory of progression, it is not the power of the progressin. Yet the word is used as fact while it is merely the theory. It is better to use the word mutation of the gene. Then define the examples of mutated genes that have created better adaptation to environment or species roles i.e. monkeys to humans. In the 99.9 % known cases of mutation is is a retrograde step and not an advancing progression. Such being the case the species on Earth are mainly devolving into lesser environment capability.
Prove otherwise!

David wrote: "The Catholic faith is one of the carriers of the disease."

David, your statement can be refuted out of hand as your above statement is made without proof. Nevertheless, what I said before still holds true historically, that is, Judaism and Catholicism have produced great culture, arts, cathedrals, hospitals, basic level through to tertiary levels of education and the great universities.
David, I really think you need to have your secualr university fellow post modernists( or perhaps they are just timewarped modernists) apologise to you for providing you with a revisionist and doctored version of history that causes your irrational anti religion ( most likely more hostile to the Catholic religion)prejudices.

For someone who claims to be "logical". poor old GZ's thinking seems to be a bit scrambled. In his version of rationality, apparently his personal recollection counts as objective evidence.

Sorry old chap - I'm afraid that you'll have to do better than asking us to take your word that these supernatural events occurred, even if you claim that your unnamed friends witnessed them.

<< Regarding your request that I provide evidence Jesus is more verifiable and valid than the "lies" told by Mohammed...well, here is a BAD NEWS for you.

Have you forgotten that I dealt with you on same issue on 3/May/2007 ?? >>

How strange that you should point us to an earlier discussion where you again failed completely to provide proof that Christian fairy stories are any more factual than what you call Mohammed's "lies". In that thread you made a complete idiot of yourself, as you are doing here.

Instead of providing positive, objective evidence for your fanciful claims, you demand that others prove that they are untrue. If you knew anything at all about logic and scientific method, you'd know that it's impossible to prove a negative.

Which is, of course, why it's impossible for you to prove that Mohammed's purported conversation with an angel is a "lie". Just as nobody can prove that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, turn water to wine or walk on water.

I guess that's why you need "faith", eh?

webby, did judaism/christianity historically contribute to the development of science and mathematics?

Webby,

You appear to be under the spell of Catholicism. Our present society evolved with religion and slowly the bad parts of that system have been weeded out. These include inquisitions, slavery, rejection of scientific findings, crusades, destruction of New World populations, and support of Monarchies etc.

But here and now in the actual world we inhabit using available knowledge Atheists are in opposition to the indoctrination of children with unproven religious (All religions) notions before they are mature enough to evaluate them. Atheists don’t care what beliefs an adult chooses as long as those beliefs are not imposed on all by law. If those beliefs tie up with rational evaluation, then well and good, but often they do not.

You just happen to believe your religion is the correct one, an arrogant assumption without evidence, and all the others are wrong. You won’t even entertain the idea that the religion you consider is the correct one is the same religion you were indoctrinated with as a child. Of course, this is not always the case but statistically it is undeniable.

That is why indoctrination is wrong because it depends on the beliefs of the indoctrinator. Children can be made to believe any ideology is correct. History and the present are resplendent with examples.

David

belly>>Lets talk about your posts,include GZ,s too,if I sold my movement in the way you try to sell your fantasy's I would be barred.<<

i cant talk for gz,but i know im not a movement[im not an xtian[not a muslim][though ON MY OWN i do follow what could be'called'islam[gods way,]not the religion.prayer/companionship or the religion[but the fact i live in gods creation]taking the cards as if god dealt them.dont'unionism'seem more the fantasy?[note im not offereing proof EITHER]

>The fact is,your view is the minority view>>

my vieuw is a vieuw of one[me],so i cant argue about that[but cz may be an xtian,i understand in the many different sects of xtiananity they are'far'from'few'[same with muslim-sects they are not'a'minority either,but then many religions[as in god-head belief egsist arround the world

>>Can you not see the lower the education the more followers of that religion?<<

oh mate please dont go there
i been a'unionist'remember

if you took the education of the unionists bro
versis'theists'of all religions[mate dont go there

>>And isn't it clear even to you both that more than one religion exists<<

reading the posts abouve yes i will presume cz to know at least cj morgan's egsists,as for me i agree with much they both say
[but disagree as well]

[i have heard people'experimenting'with the occult,and spirits are just like us[they know'truths'[but also are capable of believing and explaining many lies...[dying dosnt all of a sudden make you wise]

i love jesus and mahamoud[could make a case to'support or rebut'both of my teachers]but people called to their'message'i love as well[i can love anyone not self_obsessed as'david']this self_obsession is the'messiah_complex']

but even the 'a]thiest'i have learned to love[i see them as an ant standing before a bull-dozer saying your not real,your not real..[man even my'belief'isnt that strong[BUT you gotta love that]

your a good unionist[and wise too belly]but you got no idea about those who got real belief[faith]ZEAL to know[and not know[god,but then as a unionist you cant 'work' by/for 'faith' alone
[love you bro;you 'serve' others too]

David,
I see you have done some research. That's good information.
Now my last hurdle is preparing the material and getting family agreement I can hide in a room alone, doing my "research". Like I said, it is my own initiatives.

CJMorgan,
You are wrong on all counts.
(1)...Personal experience, independently verifiable by others, is objective evidence (within one's limits). You limitation is an inability to grasp that concept.
(2)...I see you won't believe, even if I name my witnesses. That's your problem. I don't care to convince you.
(3)...On Jesus versus Mohammed's lies. It wasn't about proving a negative. I asked you to provide evidence that, lies about Jesus are at the same level of deception as Mohammed's lies. I was asking for "positive" evidence, not a "negative" evidence. You've failed to provide any "positive" evidence to compare Christianity with Islam.
You're the one erred in logical reasoning, not me.
Please try again, match the points I raise about Mohammed's lies on that thread.

Also, please provide TWO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE on evolution, within the narrow limits of your scientific knowledge, of course. Still counting how quick you can respond with your science knowledge... Clock is still ticking...tick...tick...
Or, perhaps you need FAITH to believe in evolution??

Belly,
I'm not preaching or selling a fantasy.
Show evidence by quoting a statement from ANY OF MY POSTS, that I've been preaching a religion.

Belly wrote: "Can you not see the lower the education the more followers of that religion?"
If you were referring to Islam only, then I agree totally.
But from what I see so far, Atheists probably don't fair very well in this score. All Atheists seem to have failed to even grasp the fact that "Evolution is a fact" is a false statement.

What's more astounding, Atheists are foolishly attacking Christianity, indirectly strengthening Islam. When Islam takes over a country, tell me how you can setup an "Atheist Foundation Inc" in Islamist land.
I really don't have to be nice and sweet when I tell people how stupid they are. It's up to them to see the light.

Dear David the Atheist,

It has been claimed that Europe ‘slumbered through the centuries of the Dark Ages’, while today’s level of Western science has been attributed to Islamic scholars, physicians and apothecaries. Obviously, history has been a badly neglected subject in our educational establishments.
Virtually all historians of science, including Crombie, Lindberg, Grant, Jaki, Goldstein and Heilbron, have concluded that the Middle Ages produced a scientific revolution, and that the Catholic church was its main instigator. Many medieval scientists were priests: Fr Steno is often identified as the father of geology, Fr Riccioli was the first person to measure the rate of acceleration of a falling body, while Fr Boscovich is often credited with being the father of modern atomic theory. Jesuits dominated the study of earthquakes to such an extent that seismology became known as “the Jesuit science”. Besides, monks gave medieval Europe a network of model factories, centres for breeding livestock, places of scholarship, and a preparedness for social action.
Is it not high time to reserve the term “Dark Ages” for the 20th and 21st centuries? Last century saw the brutal killing of around one hundred million fellow human beings, while the 21st sees a continuation of the annual slaughter of tens of millions of the world’s unborn.

"Virtually all historians of science, including Crombie, Lindberg, Grant, Jaki, Goldstein and Heilbron, have concluded that the Middle Ages produced a scientific revolution."

webby, the middle ages lasted a thousand years. i'm not sure how you can attach the word "revolution" to any period of that length.

no matter. i'm skeptical but generally curious. if you provide me with one (and please, only one) good reference on this, i'd be very keen to read it.

GZ: << Personal experience, independently verifiable by others, is objective evidence >>

What rubbish. I think you just made up your Ouija spirits story. The fact that you can't/won't produce any verification just adds to your lie.

<< I asked you to provide evidence that, lies about Jesus are at the same level of deception as Mohammed's lies. >>

GZ, that was in response to me asking you to demonstrate why the fairy stories you believe about Jesus are true, when it is your self-stated mission to prove to the world that Islam is based on what you call a "lie". To me - and any other atheist - they are of exactly equivalent validity and credibility, i.e. zilch. They are myths and legends written down thousands of years ago and fought over by credulous zealots ever since.

You can't prove that the Jesus myths have any more veracity than the Mohammed myths, simply because they don't. They're all fairy stories.

<< please provide TWO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE on evolution, within the narrow limits of your scientific knowledge, of course >>

Another well-worn tactic of the prevaricator - change the subject. I have no intention of attempting to educate you about the theory of evolution, if for no other reason than you don't seem intellectually capable of understanding it.

You're just another dishonest, Islamophobic Christian idiot. Fortunately, like the others who infest this site, nobody in their right mind believes anything you write here.

Dear GZ,

If your powers of logical deduction lead you agree with creationists, then what objective evidence are you basing this on?

By stating that you have no problem with evolution as a "theory", you are going back to the old and fallacious argument that evolution is “just a theory”. May I remind you that a theory is the highest order a scientific hypothesis can obtain. Even gravity is a theory. The term “theory” is used differently in science terms than it is in every day terms. Even so-called Creation “Scientists” will tell you not to use this argument, as it is invalid.

I could just as easily argue that the Earth is flat; gravity is just a theory; that what you observe as gravity is merely my god pushing the earth upwards and that all the pictures you see of a round earth are an optical illusion. By doing this, I would be no better or worse than creationists.

There is an overwhelming amount of scientifically verifiable evidence for evolution - I’ve mentioned some of it here. There is nothing “flippant” about the use of the term “evidence” in regards to evolution. As I have said a couple of times before, it is one of the most solid scientific theories we have. Try finding something, anything that disproves it. It would earn you a Nobel Prize. Many scientists both Religious and Atheist have tried, but none have ever succeeded.

But again, please state your evidence for creationism? Why is evolution false? No one else has been able to disprove evolution. Perhaps you can earn yourself a Nobel Prize here.

Dear Philo,

Thank you for clarifying what you meant by “power”. I could agree with that.

As I said earlier, most mutations are neutral, a small percentage are bad, and a small percentage are good. Your 99.9% figure is absolutely incorrect and sounds made-up.

A human zygote averages 128 mutations alone. If 99.9% of them were bad, we wouldn’t be here.

Sorry Philo, but if evolution was that easy to disprove, then it would have been abandoned many years ago.

Webby and BB,

Please forgive my interruption here, but if you are going actually to do some research, can I just point out something that might save you looking in the wrong places?

What were previously referred to as The Dark Ages date from around the fall of the Roman Empire (approximately 400CE) to approximately 1,000CE. However, historians no longer use the term Dark Ages for many reasons - one of which being that there was indeed a great flowering of Monastic art, education, music, and in husbandry.

The Middle Ages (or Medieval Period)is the term usually given to the period dating from the Norman Invasion in England (1066) until the Fifteenth Century. The Sixteenth century to the Eighteenth Century is referred to as the Early Modern period and preceded the Industrial Revolution.

I sincerely don't mean anything more by this post than perhaps narrowing your search down a little for both of you.

hi romany,

i did a quick wikipedia to check on "middle ages", but take your word for it. but i think the relevant period is not "middle ages", but the *long* period in which europe was under strong christian rule. say 500 to 1500, give or take a century or two? you can divide the period 500-1500 into large sub-periods, but i would then ask the same question of those sub-periods. in any case, the use of the word "revolution" seems out of place.

the question as i see it (paraphrasing my original question to webby), was there significant scientific or mathematical progress in europe during the long period of strong christian rule? it would seem that webby says yes. i presume the answer is no (and would then ask why), but am genuinely interested to hear what webby has to say.

bushbasher>>if you provide me with one (and please, only one) good reference on this, i'd be very keen to read it.>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_inheritance

The laws of inheritance were derived by Gregor Mendel a 19th century MONK conducting hybridization experiments in garden peas (Pisum sativum).

Between 1856 and 1863,he cultivated and tested some 28,000 pea plants.From these experiments he deduced two generalizations which later became known as Mendel's Laws of Heredity or Mendelian inheritance.

He described these laws in a two part paper,"Experiments on Plant Hybridization"that he read to the Natural History Society of Brno on February 8 and March 8, 1865,and which was published in 1866.[2]

Mendel's conclusions were largely ignored. Although they were not completely unknown to biologists of the time, they were not seen as generally applicable, even by Mendel himself, who thought they only applied to certain categories of species or traits.

A major block to understanding their significance was the importance attached by 19th Century biologists to the apparent blending of inherited traits in the overall apperance of the progeny, now known to be due to multigene interactions, in contrast to the organ-specific binary characters studied by Mendel.[1]

In 1900, however,his work was "re-discovered" by three European scientists,Hugo de-Vries, Carl Correns, and Erich von-Tschermak.The exact nature of the"re-discovery"has been somewhat debated:De-Vries published first on the subject,mentioning Mendel in a footnote,while Correns pointed out Mendel's priority after having read De-Vries's paper and realizing that he himself did not have priority.

De-Vries may not have acknowledged truthfully how much of his knowledge of the laws came from his own work,or came only after reading Mendel's paper.Later scholars have accused Von-Tschermak of not truly understanding the results at all

but here is only one of many

http://www.mendelweb.org/MWolby.html

recall we have our days marked in the'gregorian'calender

[maths to verify'holy-days',writing to record'sacred/texts';education has its roots in the many'educational/churches'at the time[later the stars were discovered[the earth'rotating'around the sun etc[all by priests

[ok they got'disbarred'for hericy[but]were priests none the less when they founded the \'roots of science'and'WROTE'it down[so that even now we can'READ'what they'wrote';..whilst they too were figuring it all out,from the limited'human'perspective

Dear AdamD,
I have said before I have ruled out aliens.
Please tell me another theory. Otherwise, I shall stick with Creationism or Evolution.
I cannot repeat over and over, all your so-called "overwhelming amount of scientifically verifiable evidence", when carefully examined, are not evidence/proof at all. No, not one of them.
OUG has comprehensively dealt with you all on that. But you guys keep coming back like a broken record.
.
.

CJMorgan,
Whether you like it or not, I have provided objective evidence, independently verifiable by others, WITHIN MY LIMITS, (ie. a limitation that I cannot yet replicate that experience).
I merely stated a fact, a fact about my past experience. That cannot be a lie.

On Jesus versus Mohammed, have you forgotten:-
(a)...I never claim a miracle is true, can be proven, or I intend to prove it.
(b)...I never told anyone to believe a religion
That's why I never provided evidence to prove veracity of Biblical miracles. I don't need to...It's completely irrelevant.
(c)...I tell people NOT to believe religion Islam
That's why I provided reasons why Mohammed was a liar.

Since you challenged (c) and also challenged about Jesus, the onus is on you, NOT to prove Jesus is a hoax, but at least LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD by arguing why Jesus stories are EQUALLY IMAGINARY as Mohammed's lies.
You failed to do that in 2007 and you are obviously unable to that, even today. So my challenge to you still stand.

Now...please:-
(1)...analytically explain a few reasons why Jesus stories are EQUALLY IMAGINARY as Mohammed's lies.
(2)...provide TWO EVIDENCE on evolution, within the narrow bounds of your scientific knowledge.

In additional,
(3)...provide evidence that MY CLAIM about my past "Ouija" experience is actually a LIE.

Above are challenges that are very fair, because they have emerged as a direct consequence of your belief system.

Failure to meet my challenges will reveal your futility and foolishness!!

BB,

I think there is just a bit of a mix-up in terms, which is why I posted above.

The Danish naturalist Nicholas Steno indeed converted to Catholicism in the later years of his life - but he was around in the mid-Seventeenth century - the Early Modern period -(you'd have to look up dates).

Giovanni Riccioli is the earliest but, as he was born in 1598 he is usually regarded as an Early Modern too. I've never heard of him being called the "father" of astronomy as I've always thought that he based his work on Kepler and Copernicus and that much of it was flawed - but then Astronomy per se is not my field.I do know, however, that he and someone else (can't remember who) produced a lunar map.

As to Boscovich - well, he was an 18th century Jesuit - almost a contemporary in terms of history.

So in a way you are both right: these three people were indeed part of the priesthood, as Webby says, but BB is correct in that they didn't contribute to any scientific revolution in either the so-called Dark Ages or the Medieval period.

Most students of history regard the period of the Church's rule across England, Europe and The Continent as remarkable for its artistic endeavours as I mentioned before.

hi again, romany

i forgot before to thank you for your first "interruption", and thanks now for the further details.

"So in a way you are both right: these three people were indeed part of the priesthood"

no, i'm sorry but i don't see how the information you've provided supports webby's claim whatsoever, at least to the extent that he was responding to david's (my?) question. ditto OUG's example of mendel.

i don't for a minute deny that devout christians can also be great scientists. at least not in the (extended) modern era. the question is, how did science and mathematics fare when european society, law and education was christian dominated?

i'm also not doubting that there was great thought and great art during this period. but i do doubt that there was great science and maths. and if true, and especially if other areas of human creativity (eventually) flourished, it certainly is reasonable to ask why.

ADAMD>>May I remind you that a theory is the highest order a scientific hypothesis can obtain.>>

lol define hypo-thesis ;hypothesis

A tentative explanation for an observation,of a phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.{LOL}

The antecedent of a;'conditional'statement.

conditional on the Web:
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&rls=MEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB&defl=en&q=define:conditional&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

qualified by reservations
imposing or depending on or containing a condition; "conditional acceptance of the terms"; "lent conditional support"; "the conditional sale will not be complete until the full purchase price is paid"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

A statement that depends on a condition being true or false; The conditional mood; A statement that one sentence is true if another is ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/conditional

conditionally - under specified conditions
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/conditionally

A construct much like that used in C that allows a makefile to be configured on the fly based on the local environment, or on what is being made by that invocation of PMake.
elibrary.fultus.com/technical/topic/com.fultus.freebsd.books/books/pmake/glossary.html

A data element requirement designator, which indicates that the presence of a specified data element is dependent on....continued at link

<<Even gravity is a theory.>>LOL#

>>The term“theory”'is used differently in science terms than it is in every day terms.>>LOL~

>>Even so-called Creation“Scientists”will tell you not to use this argument,as it is invalid>< LOL:LOL:LOL

Dear GZ,

I can understand this must be getting frustrating for you. It’s frustrating for me too when you’re dodging and weaving all over the place. But please do try to keep up.

Somehow, with all the dodging and weaving, we’ve arrived back at abiogenesis and the presumption that there can only be two possibilities – evolution and creationism. This is a false dichotomy. If you can believe that a magical being can start life on Earth, then why not an alien race? The concept of aliens is at least more scientifically plausible. Of course, this doesn’t provide a solution to the question, “Where did the aliens come from?” But neither can religion provide an answer to the question, “Where did god come from?”

Now, you may want to assert that god is eternal. If so, then there is no reason why I can’t assert that physical matter is eternal. After all, science at least shows us that energy can never be destroyed, it only changes forms.

On the subject of evidence, I have already given you one example of why OUG’s posts are misconceptions and debunked claims. OUG most certainly has not dealt with anything. I don’t have to time to go through every point in every one of his/her posts and links, but if you would like to pick out anything from his/her posts that you would like to challenge me with, then be my guest.

You still haven’t given me any evidence for creationism though. Again, could you please supply some? After all, if your powers of logical deduction really do lead you to agree with creationists, then you should be able to demonstrate with some objective evidence. Blind faith is not logical deduction.

Also, if you believe that the evidence for evolution is found not to be evidence when carefully examined, then please give an example.

I await your response.

adamd>>evolution and creationism... is a false dichotomy...If you can believe that a magical being can start life on Earth,..then why not an alien race?>>

what created the alian-'race'...[present evidence]

..<< But neither can religion provide an answer to the question,“Where did god come from?”>>.

HE WAS HERE BEFORE WE WERE
[et-ernal get it?]

omnipresent; omnipotant [cause of causes]
[a logical 'beginning' till science validates it]
or invalidates it

[if you claim invalidate PROVE IT]

>>Now,you may want to assert that god is eternal.<<YES>>If so,then there is no reason why I can’t assert that physical matter is eternal.>>

your quite correct you can ASSERT ANYTHING

but the science says it was created with a HUGE BANG from nothing in an instant
go debate the science[or rebut it]

but science says pre big_bang no time[no_space-time]
AND..no matter only energy...[logical energy]...[LOGUS]

>> After all,science at least shows us that energy can never be destroyed,it only changes forms>>

nor does the logic that gives that energy logical form [lol]

your saying science is wrong thus you need to rebut the science facts
[you just proved if energy is eternal so is energy/logic ie god]

>>OUG most certainly has not dealt with anything...I don’t have to time to go through every point..in every one of his/her posts and links,..but if.."you"would like to pick out"anything"...from his/her posts that you would like to challenge"m"with,...then be my guest>>

interesting if you dont rebut its because you cant rebut...yet still expect others to pick one[so you can not reply them?2]

if you had guts you would challenge me...one to one...[to my face
not by[a possable]proxey set up
[sorry GZ..but this is him and me]

....pick one adam....

>>Blind faith is not logical deduction.<<

...reveal your facts[or rebut mine]

your avoidance is obvious

>>Also,if you believe that ...the evidence for evolution is found..not to be evidence ..when carefully examined,..[then please give an example.]>>

I WOULD LOVE TO..

where is your evidence?

>>I await your response.<<

and I AWAIT YOUR EVIDENCE !

Dear OUG,

I have already mentioned some of the evidence for evolution in this thread. I’d rather not repeat myself.

Science does not say that everything started from nothing with a “huge bang”. The Big Bang was not an explosion but an expansion of spacetime.

As I have said to you before though, I do not have the time to sit here and correct you all day long. You can believe that I am too afraid to “challenge” you all you like. It makes no difference to me. But if you want to know the main reason why I’d prefer not to discuss this with you, then please, see a psychiatrist.

BB and Webby,

I don't want to be seen to be taking any particular stands on this subject as it has developed.

Webby hasn't been here to interact but I reiterate that really, this is as much of a semantic problem as anything else.

BB:- you are referring to the period in which the Catholic Church (at that time the only Church) had total control, yes?

Webby:- This period covers from about the 6th century until around the time Henry Tudor officially broke away from the Catholic Church in the Sixteenth century.

At this time he began the dissolving of the monasteries - which was completed in the mid-Seventeenth century by Oliver Cromwell – which broke down the Monastic system.

O.K. - there was a scientific "revolution". Revolution here means that many old ideas (flat earth, the five humours of the body, the properties of minerals etc.) were revolved: turned on their heads, as it were.

This "revolution" The Enlightenment, happened following the Renaissance, at the end of the Seventeenth and during the Eighteenth century . This more than a hundred years after the Monastic period ended.

Of course many Scientists (Bacon et.al) and philosophers (Locke et. al) were Christians as BB allowed, but generally, as I pointed out, the Monastic period is celebrated as the flowering of culture rather than science.

Yes, there were some monastic scientists but, generally speaking, their science was flawed or disproved during the Englightenment.

Um..and yes, actually, people like Bacon and even DaVinci were regarded as Heretics or wizards by the Church for their scientific work. It really was in the Far and Middle East that science and maths flourished during the European monastic period. Sorry.

(And now I'll take off my cap and gown!)

Webby,

How selective is your history. There were great works of mainly religious flavoured art and wonderful cathedrals built by the peasantry who lived in hovels. Some of this paid for by indulgences which turned into a wide-spread scam.

Interestingly enough, the materialistic grandeur did not carry over to making the lives of people any better. One reason for this was that Freethought writing nearly ceased from around the 2nd century CE until about the 16th when appeared Montaigne. Read, Human Anthology by Margaret Knight. It’s educational.

The priestly class were mainly afforded an education and one would expect them to be involved with fledgling science. (As long as they kept it ‘fledgling’, for the sake of their lives and property) We all know the well known examples of scientific detractors and their fates.

You think it noteworthy that religious people were scientists. Or you are trying to cause a deception. Everyone was religious and to not be was outright dangerous. One example of the fear of the time is recorded in the book, My Testament by Abbe Meslier, a French priest and social reformer in which he contemptuously denounced Christianity. . His parishioners discovered the book after his death. He hid it because, as he said, “I did not wish to burn until after my death.”

You even use a hackneyed version of recent history with the 20th Century atrocities. Despotic ideologically driven tyrants committed these. Stalin, for instance, trained as a priest and took control in a country of Tsarist oppressed religious people. Hitler was a Catholic and Germany a Christian nation. The motto of the belt buckle of Wehrmacht (German Armed Forces and not the Waffen SS) was, “Gott mit uns” (God With Us). The dictators you mention killed anyone in opposition to their power and not under the name of Atheism.

You show your ignorance in not knowing these things and you demonstrate you are just parroting propagandist rubbish for effect. Your ideas on abortion are naïve and dangerous. That is one reason why we must be eternally vigilant of you and your kind.

David

Dear David,

How wrong is your history. In fact it isn't even selective as what you think are choice pickings are actually wrong. For example "peasantry living in hovels" is wrong. It was artisans, tradesman as members of guilds, NOT living in hovels, who built the cathedrals. Indulgences do not account for ALL of the periods of cathedral building. Indulgences exist today MINUS the MISUSE. In fact indulgences are part of practice in the Archdiocese of Sydney; there is no money to have an indulgence by the way. Also it is not to absolve any sins; never was. It is for the lessening and remission of the temporal punishment due to sins. If anyone refuses to confess their sins with prefarably true sorow at having offended God or at the least for fear of Hell ( imperfect but sufficient in the Confessional)the indulgence has nil effect. That is Catholic teaching.

Dear David,

Yes it was dangerous as you say to be anti or irreligious or non religious. For those non religious( very few of them existed then) who didn't attempt the sort of liberal and libertine revolutions we have experienced in the twientieth century eg no fault divorce, lowering of the age of consent for males and females so as to make them prey to the lusts of adult perverts who devalue the unity and goodness of marriage etc. No decption David. I hold that the Church was right to plce qualifications on imprudent or offensive irreligious people ( not the self controlled and respectful non-religious...a big difference). I say this because God has rights over man and the Church through the successors to His appointed Apostles have spiritual jurisdiction over all mankind.
Abbe Meslier's parishiones obviosly didn't share his loss of faith in God.
Stalin trained as a priest. Yes but so what? Hitler was baptised a Catholic but once again, so what?! You've lost the argument for trying to make out that their former religion, in Stalin's case Russian Orthodoxy and in Hitler's the Catholic Faith , meant anything to them. How silly David. These guys rejected Christ and His teachings; they went on to behave in total opposition to all that Christ is and all that Christ teaches through the Church.
What happened if these dictators had been true Christians? If they had not murdered or taken power by murder, torture and had been social democrats instead according to Catholic social teaching. You would have even less of a case.

Webby,

Where do you think the rock came from and by whom and who did the labouring, the levelling of the ground and digging, the scaffolding, the mixing of mortar and all the hard yakka involved in such huge enterprises. Your rosy eyed view of history is disturbingly simplistic. The records are not too good considering the indulgences were a scam so the real facts will never be known. Try guessing intelligently! Even those purporting to be genuine were and are a scam. Money to lessen ‘spiritual’ suffering? That is hogwash.

I noticed you steered well away from my comments about the wrongness of indoctrination, having the correct religion, how you consider other religions wrong, what Atheism is really about, lack of Freethought writing, etc etc.

I don’t even think it has dawned on you that the overt religious on this Forum have views that are not compatible. The reason they have this variance is because of their specific indoctrination, just the same as other cultures imprint a different range of religious beliefs.

Your last post is what is known as empty rhetoric. There are more people in Australia now who ‘reject the Christ’ than there ever has been per country in all of history. The figure is somewhere around 50%. No this in not from the Census and any clear thinking person knows those figures are botched. Leading question, 20% of children or 4 million under 14 years old parroting parents beliefs, answering with religion of Baptism not of present status etc.

Can you name a religious country where most people are religious, where you would rather live? There isn’t one so don’t answer. You somewhat annoy me and I suspect other Atheists, that you reap the benefits from a secular society with its multitude of freedoms not allowed in religious regimes and you would change it and impose your personal religious views given the chance.

I think I will have to place you in the basket with ‘one under god’. I do not intend to waste time dodging around your prejudices. I have better things to do.

David

david the claytons a-thiest,[the one who religiously believes a-thiesm can have its own'god-head'[hiom]and its a-thiests too,the one who avoids explaining egsactly how his'own'disbelief is based on science he cant explain[and avoids replying or explaining]

his latest quote extract is a hoot>>Can you name a religious country where most people are religious>>tibet,israel,butan..mate there is heaps,or;are you claiming an athiestic victory in eliminating religion from the world[lol]

<<where you would rather live?There isn’t one so don’t answer.>>ah the clatons non-question that matches the claytons non-response to my questions

<<You somewhat annoy me and I suspect other Atheists,>> mate even at the origonal post i thought who is this'you'you fail to name,that yet'annoys'you[what you feel unconfortable about luvie,the fact you cant reply my questions[or that your disbelief is based on fear/lies,avoidence of responding and delusions?

<<that you reap the benefits..and you would change it and impose your personal religious views given the chance.>.

mate your nuts

i dont have a web site[you do]i dont get 13,000 search results for my name[i dont run a sect based on belief,or rather a belief based on disbelief[or is that a dis-belief based on faulty faith in science over faith in god?]whatever

<<I think I will have to place you in the basket with‘one under god’>> wow its getting that the basket of people you cant reply[thus avoid responding to]is getting pettilly full in here

<<I do not intend to waste time dodging around your prejudices.>>

interesting use of dodging[why cant you use the true word avoiding because you cant explain your own disbelief..[dismissing a thing isnt proving its not there..[i guess we should be honoured your avoiding[sorry'dodging'us like your'dodging'god[lol]

your an artfull dodger,the master at mind-less a-thiesm

<<I have better things to do.>>

wont ask[cause i cant care]

look bro i wish you could prove god dont egsist[i got a lot of vile im pushing back],trying to be nice[my natural inclination is to tear off head's[but god wouldnt like that[cant wait till you prove god dont egsist[get it?]

but he does
so all you get is my words of love

but i can still'hope'you prove it

hi romany,

thanks for the details. i'm not knowledgeable on this stuff and i do really appreciate your input. it appears, however, that webby is otherwise engaged.

one point. you suggest that the problem is one of semantics. i disagree. it seems clear what webby is claiming. i suggest the problem is actually that webby writes prima facie nonsense and, when someone politely asks for some authoritative reference, webby simply ignores the request.

feel free to continue your attempts at diplomacy, but i'm getting kinda bored.

dear OUG,

this may sound strange coming from a guy who seldom uses the shift key, but for your own sake would you *please* format your posts differently? they are virtually impossible to read.

clearly, i'm not likely to agree with much, if anything, of what you write. but at the moment i'm not substantially agreeing or disagreeing with you: i'm simply not reading you. i suspect i'm not alone.

OK OUG, let's cut to the quick.

Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that there exists a creator of the universe. I doubt it. But, for the sake of argument only, I am going to pretend such an entity exists.

In following with tradition let us call this (probably mythical) creator "God."

Most religions believe there is some sort of "holy book" or "holy recitation" that is in some sense the "word" of "God."

Now do you have any evidence that your particular holy book is the "word" of "God?"

Because, let's be clear on this, it is quite possible to believe that "God" exists while nonetheless concluding, as did Albert Einstein, that "the Bible [is] a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

So where is your evidence that your so-called "bible" is the "word" of "God?"

You do not have to prove that "God" exists. For the sake of argument I'll concede that.

But demonstrate that the "bible" really is what you believe it to be, the "word" of "God."

Because you know what, OUG, I suspect that "God" agree with Einstein about the bible. It IS a collection of primitive legends and it is pretty childish.

Let's see your evidence OUG.

Here's your chance to prove Einstein wrong!

oh steven einstein is in my 'holy' books
the bible is a mere collection [of books]
as is the quran a mere collection[re-collection] of the verbal stories of the bible ,to name but one is absurd

the evolution of ther SPECIES is in my book[my book would be called the tri-ble[the bi-ble is only two books] i dont have many religion books[but heaven and hell[by swedenborg is in my 'book' ,as is mary baker eddie]

it is perhaps easier to say what ISNT int MY book
the talmud isnt in my book
note my next post at the one israel war post about gaza
see you there[in about 3 hours]
revealing why the talmud isnt in my book

but here is a sample as to why[so you can respond to it then]

from
http://www.biblestudysite.com/factsarefacts.htm
I apologize..for the'language'which will appear'here-UNDER'

from The official unabridged'Soncino'Edition of the'Talmud'published in 1935..quotations with footnotes from the Soncino Edition of the Talmud,(Book)

YEBAMOTH,60b."As R.Joshua,b.Levi related:`There was a certain town in the Land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants disputed,and Rabbi sent R.Ramanos who conducted an inquiry and'found'in it the daughter of a'proselyte'who was under the age of three years and one day(14),and Rabbi declared her eligible to live with a priest(15)."

(footnotes)"(13)A proselyte under the age of three years and one day may be married by a priest...(14)And was married to a priest.(15)i.e.,permitted to continue to live with her'husband'."

somehow i dont like that
that sounds like phycopath thinking
phycopaths dont think rational like we do
they blame the victim[as the next bit shall point out]

LOL OUG

You really don't get it do you?

I am not here to defend the bible, koran, talmud, whatever.

If you think the talmud is a collection of twaddle that's fine by me. You're probably right.

I am merely asking whether you have any EVIDENCE that ANY of humanity's so-called "holy books" are the "word" of "God" - assuming that "God" exists?"

If so please present your evidence.

As I wrote, here is your chance to prove Einstein wrong.

Go for it.

Let's see your evidence.

STEVEN
any word is holy
man ALONE makes words [your using gods proof when you have logic[logus means logic]get it

your using the proofs of our divergence from animals everyday[you just dont see the letters make up a complete sentance called god[logic]light sustaining life

see bro how its all about what we believe
i dont believe holy books i read em,
[my advantage is i know the voice of my master [god]

i see HIS proof much like you see and know a work by mozzart[or shaking spear] or remberant

the holy texts reveal god HAS GRACE/LOVE
i see even in the most vile beast a love for their own[this 'love' is my proof

god is living live time all the time
when a holy text says god breathed life into clay [science rev eals that is just what we are [ashes to ashes dust to dust]

science cant explain life[but gods living breath is in all life]
i see life living its foibles and i see god

when you live [i see god living]
when you love i see god loving
when i see logic i see god

love god means loving neighbour
that we did to the least we did to god
but we have life god alone could give
we serve either the lifegiver[god]
or the life taker

yet any life 'taken' takes it from god himself
look i can post now i think at the other conversation

keep giving me logic and i will keep seeing more proof god is in you too[believing god is in israel killing araBS[SEMITES] MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE [BUT ITS TRUE] god lives in our hearts

even if a scientist proved it those who 'war on god' serve satan[sworn to kill all life]currently israel[means wars with god [life] is more important to respond to

so will be back soon[i could use some help
[but then god needs no one
it is we need god] just to live

cheers

seems i still got an hour to go
you ask for proof[feel logic inside your own heart bro]
revelation 21 the first few lines say it all

the quran reveals god has sent many messengers[each generation has its many messiahs [peacemakers] each messenger caused his message to be writen down[mosus had tenb revelations that soon 'evolved' into two law books[not laws of god but laws of men

like the diet foods excluded in the old testiment are a wise thing but they arnt gods law [jesus said it is not what a man 'puts in' to his mouthy that makes him unclean but that which comes out of our mouths

sdee that the fables in the new test-i-meant reveal much about faulty belief[like he said ye unbelieving nation[re needing miracles]
yet his own blaspheme jesus by thinking he makes miracles

but looking at them through judean eyes you see that without they masterialistic faith in rituals many xtian 'beliefs are without grounds'' see thaty a jew wont eat without washing ritual[recall the first miracle wine from hand wash jars[jesus clearly says its NOT YET MY TIME[the baptiser/the light revealer yet lived]

but see that the ritual of hand washing didnt allow the judeans to eat[their belief would rather they starve[but his deciples didnt see it] so he doid it again[how can so many get all they willed [if they didnt 'will' to eat with dirty hands

yet there is much wisdom[but we need to filter out the /belief'
same with our belief in evolution, its the same thing]weak belief creates fanatics[we are seeing it live time in gaza]
but i cant post to end it[too may facts to correct in too little time]yet i gotta try

Dear David,

You appear to be under the spell of atheism. But seriously, I think that it isn't a pure atheism as it seems to have strains of religion of the Calvinist and Lutheran kind by way of the cliches and begging the question type assumptions and statements of feigned exasperation and annoyance you seem to be suffering under.
Inquisitions had rules of law despite some misususes and abuses. Inquisitions of a secular kind exist today where new onus of proof requirements presume guilt. Slavery continues on in parts of Africa and the Middle East whereas the Church never accepted it. Where slavery was already part of the pagan system at least St Paul basically said that all persons are equal under God and all persons have inherent dignity. The Church couldn;t change the existing slavery system overnight like making a cup of instant coffee.
Crusades largely failed but were good in themselves for attempting to protect the Christian Holy Places in the Holy Land. Church doesn't support solely monarchies but was humanely used to and comfrtable with what they knew however, the only remaining and true monarchy is the hierarchy of truths of Faith and the teaching on the Social Reign ( Kingship of Christ). Slavery exists through both the ALP and the Coalition allowing the big banks to keep people as mortgage slaves and credit card slaves to consumerism right now.
'indoctrination' is not a bad word. It simply means to incalcate true teaching and one must know that only one religion can be true, not the many and certainly not none at all as is your unproven supposition Dave.

Dear Romany,

I couldn't agree more. Well said.

I agree that the so-called 'Dark Ages' as a term is misleading. Catholics of the traditional kind have always said this in opposition to atheists( usually using the same texts or coming from a sub-consciously Calvinist background). The Dark Ages were times of hardship because of war and plagues and diseases however, they were an age of great learning and consolidfation of sacred texts by the monasteries which Calvinists and the Protestant De-formation ( not reformation) set about destroying throughout Europe and the the UK.
The only 'historians' who would never give up on the perjorative use of the term 'Dark Ages' are angry atheists and anti-Catholic Calvinists and Lutherans through their 500 year tradition of deep level historical revisionism.
The next age of the Middle Ages and 'medieval' are also terms used perjoratively by anti Catholics eg when making silly trite pseudo intellectual commentaries on SBS and ABC about say Islam not yet experiencing a 'Reformation' or of Islam being stuck in 'medievalism'. Quite a misuse of terms because of the secular disdain,arrogance and hostility to a once Catholic Europe and a mistaken prejudice that to be a Catholic in 'medieval times' was something most horrible and unclean ( which of course it was not).

Webby: << You appear to be under the spell of atheism. >>

Now that's truly funny.

my favourite was the bit about how the crusades were such a great idea.

Personally, I quite liked the slavery-instant coffee simile.

Not to mention the uses and abuses of Inquisitions.

This was my favourite bit: “...one must know that only one religion can be true, not the many and certainly not none at all as is your unproven supposition Dave."

What one must know is that not all religions can be right, but they can all be wrong.

LOL OUG

The bottom line from your last two posts is this:

You have no evidence whatsoever that any of your so-called "holy" books or recitations are the "word of God" – assuming that "God" exists.

Webby,

Do you have any evidence that any of your "holy books" are in any sense the "word of God" assuming that "God" exists?

I suspect that if God exists she finds the propensity of a small part of her creation to believe some books are "holy" a source of great amusement

Oh Steven, don't you know mate that the God of us Catholics DOES have a sense of humour. G K Chesterton thought so and, well, he is only one of the greatest generalists in the area of philosophy, politics, theology and so forth that one would hiope to have had the good fortune to read.
Atheists need to realise that a lot of personal and group baggage they sprout is actually very much puritan and Deist leftovers fro the British empire whose sun now sets on it each day.

CJ Morgan, bushbasher, Bugsy, AdamD, stevenimeyer,

I wasn’t going to reply to Webby. I could see the pointlessness of attempting to bring to reality someone so in love with an idea, that any suggestions the idea might not be so good, is totally dismissed. The Catholic indoctrinations system is to be commended for its efficacy in keeping its image squeaky clean in the eyes of many of its followers by this method.

Because of your short and sharp replies, there is no need to respond anyway. Having said that, my advice for those who consider that the Inquisitions were based in proper law, should read, the ‘Malleus Maleficium – Hammer For Witches’ by the Dominicans Sprenger & Kramer written with Vatican endorsement. (The handbook for torturing Witches and heretics with over 30 reprints) This book did not cause the Inquisition but its widespread use reinforced the views of Catholicism, mainly in non-protestant Europe, that women in particular were capable of intense evil. (Think patriarchal religions)

The Malleus Maleficium is a frightening look at how unimaginably horrible acts can be carried out in the name of ‘truth’. John Paul II apologised for the Inquisitions in 2004. The Catholic Church has apologised for many wrongs, but always decades or hundreds of years after. Next apology, same-sex orientation.

The Crusades killed a quarter (Four million) of the European population of the time for religious zeal. (This included non-combatants) 200,000 were child soldiers who died of hunger, disease and being slaughtered all sanctioned by the Church. Like today, one of the gods looks down and approves of such measures. What’s wrong with that? Seems fair enough, if your mind has been taken over by dangerous fantasy!

Indoctrination means teaching uncritically and is wrong in all instances whether someone thinks they have the ‘truth’ or not. Thinks they have the ‘truth’ is the main problem on the planet today.

The premise of this thread is proven.

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."

David

steven;quote:>>LOL OUG

The bottom line from your last two posts is this:

You have no evidence whatsoever that any of your so-called "holy" books or recitations are the "word of God" – assuming that "God" exists.>>

great we are both laughing
mate there is no proof in dead books

god lives live time all the time

the eternal living/loving one [god] cant be captured in the spell of words[even in holy texts]you see god is live time [living right now]

IM not about to say he is in this book or that book[because he isnt]

god lives in our hearts [i know that makes you laugh] one day you will see he lives in all our hearts[our living hearts in real time] without god sustaining us to live there is no life

see my br-other god is inside tou too [i can read you like a book, but you arnt a book

[a living god lives only in the life he sustains

you may never get that [but by loving neighbour you are loving god] by killing neighbour ,you are killing only that life god sustains to live

,but you cant see that [and any attempt to explain it to you is futile [what guilt do you hold that makes you fear love so much?]

god sees no guilt
god casts no blame
god sustains us our lives [that is it]

there is none so blind as those who refuse to see
but it is us who chose to close our eyes and ears

how can i explain life to one dead inside

how can i explain god to one who fears love

we all dont smell so good at times
[but dont you think our living loving light/life/;creator knows that?

CJ Morgan, bushbasher, Bugsy, AdamD, stevenimeyer,
Regardless of where you stand, it sure looks like Dave is seeking your approval by addressing you all.( I'm only addressing you to solely make that point and not to suck up to you like Dave ...LOL).

Then if we look at David's conclusion, he merely asserts victory for his points of view. Oh duur Dave, we all can do that.

Back to the Inquisition mate. One quarter of the European polualtion wiped out by it. Looks like you've been reading those hardline Calvinist revised edition histories again in which during the first 150 years fromt he time of William Cecil and Cronwell and the other puritans( feared byt he moderate Anglicans-recently created at that time) were engaged in polemics via revised histories to demonise Spain. You are not a pure atheist David but one who is culturally Protestant of the fundamentalist four point sola fide, sola scripture, sola gratia ( forgot the other one).
You theatrics of dismissal aimed at me here I treat like water off a duck's back. It is all an act on your part with traces of snobbery displayed like all 'good' liberals and libertines.

Webby,

“Back to the Inquisition mate. One quarter of the European polualtion wiped out by it. ”

My, you are in a greater panic than I thought! Maybe you can quote where I said that.

David

Would you say that Dave's approval seeking was
a) like the purring of an overfed cat
or
b) not like making a pizza?

Dear David, my apologies mate. Nothing intentional. I was quickly reading your post and now realise your were talking about the Crusades. No panic involved; just me rushing. Sorry mate.
But if you look to the rest of my post....much there for you to focus on.
As for the Crusades, they were a filure for the most part but came from good intentions. Sadly, many of the yobbos who joined in did commit war crimes. But the Crusades in themselves were legitimate and were an attempt to protect and to take back the places holy to Christians in the Holy Land.

Regular posters will know I've got very little patience for organised religion, particularly the "my brand of god is better than yours" spats, but when I consider the opening quote of this thread a little further, I can't quite agree with it.

When I first heard it, I agreed heartily:

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."

But on further consideration, I couldn't help but acknowledge many political movements that based their arguments on faith in a set of principles, which ultimately ended up doing evil.
Consider Stalinism - the faith in socialism, be it devoid of religion, led many to adopt his teachings heartily, before rounding up non-believers to send them to the gulag.
Sure, most would have done so out of fear, but he would have had his true believers.

The key point here, is that it's uncritical, unquestioning 'faith' that leads good men to do evil things.

Something that religion tends to have in spades.

TurnRightThenLeft,

Yes, you are probably correct. But the argument comes down to what constitutes good and bad people. The instances of atrocity in the 20th Century had many of their starting positions from cultures guided by religious principles. I think the corollary of this is that if people are primed to accept on faith simplistic ideas, then there is always the danger that someone will manipulate those ideas for their own ends. This appears to be the case with Hitler and Stalin and their rise to dictatorial power. I know it was a lot more complex than this, but if we look at a hypothetical case in Australia for example, it becomes a little clearer.

Just imagine for a moment, that fundamentalist Christianity is actually dominant in numbers and therefore power. Some respected individual in their ranks comes along and blames the ills of the country on homosexual people. God’s punishment etc. Now most of these people would not be intrinsically bad people but an agreement would not be hard to reach that, yes, it is god’s punishment that we are in such a mess. (Pick your own mess)

It is easy to see how undemocratic laws could be passed to accommodate this purposed fervour. Once a nation takes that first vital step, tyranny and its old mate genocide is not far away.

It is extremely difficult to imagine that Atheists would behave in the same way. Atheists are Atheists because they see no evidence for supernatural phenomena. They are hardly likely, especially without proper evidence, to take any kind of political action, which leads to dictatorship. Vilifying certain groups would not work as a precursor.

Is the so named extremist, fundamentalist, militant Richard Dawkins chaffing at the bit to ostracise or kill Christians for any reason one can think of? Would David Nicholls or any of the Western educated Atheists known about be a part of such a system? Does anyone really believe that we would create gulags and death camps and throw people out of jobs and country? If so, where is the evidence?

David

<< But on further consideration, I couldn't help but acknowledge many political movements that based their arguments on faith in a set of principles, which ultimately ended up doing evil. >>

I would argue, TRTL, that humans always want to take the easy path of giving in to aggression and prejudice rather than dealing with the frustration of exercising tolerance and restraint.

But in order to do that with a clear conscience, we need the permission of a higher authority, such as god, the Socialist ideal, or patriotism. That way we can be aggressive, exclusive and violent while telling ourselves that it's justified and for the greater good.

Comparing atheist vs theist bodycounts is pointless, because if you file the serial numbers off, all genocides share the same features.

As you say, "it's uncritical, unquestioning 'faith' that leads good men to do evil things."

However, I don't see that any solution can be found in a continual politics of suspicion re: objective norms for morality and for society either. If you jettison the teachings of the Catholic Faith, (which actually and in reality began the system of having, and invented the DEVIL'S ADVOCATE), you are left witht eh tyrnanny of relativism. That is what we have today- relativism and its child- political correctness whcih even non-religious people get annoyed with.

William of Young,

Absolutism or relativism is a false dichotomy. Normative ethics contains within its framework of Natural Rights theories (One proponent being Thomas Aquinas), Utilitarianism and Consequentialism etc. Too detailed for here but look them up.

What they really are saying is a compilation of: that all actions have consequences to which we must take heed, limit suffering and incorporate the Golden Rule.

One does not need a university education to understand that these result from evolutionary propensities anyway. They evolved in thought, as Moral Absolutism of religion (Not only or necessarily Catholic) depended on Biblical injunction. (Supporting slavery – in opposition to homosexual acts – second class status of women etc)

But the main point is, is it better for a population to adhere to words in ancient writings and that depends on which writings and their interpretation, or is it better for society to think through problems using the best current advice possible.

David

Hmmmm seems that the air here is getting a bit thick :)

*Time to clear it*

TRTL..you said: <<The key point here, is that it's uncritical, unquestioning 'faith' that leads good men to do evil things.>>

Rather than do my usual 'setting my self up as a teacher' thingy :) which you love to hate.... let me raise a question about that statement of yours.

If.....the set of ideas in which the person has that uncritical faith includes just 2 maxims

1/ "Love your neighbour as yourself"
2/ "Love all animals and care for them"

Of course it's a hypothetical...but can you honestly see anyone becoming a Pol Pot or a Stalin if those 2 points were the sum total of their belief system?

But if a beliefs system includes such things as "Fight those who don't believe our way" :) errr then surely you see where this is going right?

THEN....are you not able to extrapolate from that... into an examination of particular faith/belief systems and evaluate them along these lines?

My obvious choices would be say Islam and Christianity, but you could try Buddhism or Sikhism or Zoroastrianism or Bahaim, or Mormonism, Jehovah's witnesses.

I mean...they are not all the same.. and the differences do have significance no?

Shouldn't your assertion be better put "Uncritical faith in obviously dangerous ideas leads good men to do evil" ?

David
Absolutism or relativism is a not a false dichotomy. You either are a person who accepts or rejects the fact that there is an objective moral order that can be found both in terms of our very nature as human beings eg thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not kill and all of the others that constitute the ten commandments. Further, Divine Revelation has revealed them to all of us. Christ expanded there meaning for example He said "for you ahve heard it said..." in relation to each of the commandments and in the case of lust/adultery expands the commandment on not coveting another man's wife by saying" if you look at a woman lustfully you have committed adultery with her in your heart".

No one has ever said that you need a university degree to understand these things. David, you have falsely juxtoposed slavery with homosexual acts and the treatment of women. The failings of Christians in the ares of say slavery or treatment fo women are related to local customs NOT to Catholic beleifs. This is where your argument falls down due to your prejudice against Christ and His Church.
Slavery and ill treatment towards women still exist and it is NOT the Church that promotes these evils. Look at economic slavery today by you pagans. And look at the worldwide slavery of women who are are prostituted. Once again by you pagans.

Polycarp,

"Uncritical faith in obviously dangerous ideas leads good men to do evil" ?

If all religious people were critical of their faiths, as you are stating that some are, instead of just giving lip-service to that word, they would find the premise upon which that faith is founded, to be nonexistent. Therefore, there would be no religions.

Faith is not a stand alone abstraction; it is formulated in the minds of adherents by accepting a book, the words of someone or a tradition as being true…on faith.

Critical analysis can only be effective on natural systems.

David

Webby,

My, my, you do have it in for ‘we’ pagans. Heavens!

Four of the Ten Commandments (I think because I do not read them that often) have to do with making sure you don’t piss of your god. The others are just rules that most societies have accepted in the name of cooperation and empathy.

As for absolutes, you only mention a few. Maybe name a few more for me. The absolutes you do mention are ‘do not kill’, ‘do not steal’ and ‘do not lust after your neighbour’s wife’ (You forgot about your neighbour’s ass or even her husband etc)

Am I to expect you would not go to a war if your country was in peril and kill the enemy or maybe even kill someone who is attacking you if you had no other choice? And if you were hungry and broke, you would you not steal food to survive. And what are your views on the death penalty, say for crimes of ‘terrorism’.

And shortly after the Ten Commandments, didn’t Yahweh stop the Sun and the Moon so the Israelites could slaughter the Amorites to posses their land.

Oh, I see the absolutes are not really absolutes; they have provisos in the sub print.

Not lusting after your neighbours wife and can I add again, her husband, in the right circumstances, is impossible for humans to do. A bit of lusting after is not that bad a thing, to which any normally hormoned person will testify. :))

David

poly-boaz, i ask again:

1) why is your desire to re-criminalize homosexuality different in principle from a muslim's desire to impose koran-based law?

2) what do you regard as the appropriate criminal penalty for homosexuality? why not levitical-style punishments? how do you choose to ignore clear biblical direction?

3) would you seek to criminalize other biblically proscribed behaviour? should it be a crime to eat shellfish? why not?

Yes, welcome back to the thread, Porky.

You never did respond to those questions asking what's the difference between your desire to make homosexual acts illegal for religious reasons. and the identical prohibition of homosexual acts under Sharia law.

How about it - what's the difference?

Good to see that you have been reading the Catechism David.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc2.htm
Close enough; the first three of out ten; the others on how we relate to our brothers and sisters as members of the human race.

They are absolutes. We are called to work towards perfection , although we all fail in varying degrees.
To kill in self defence and in war is not murder. Killing isn't always murder. Now to kill any person for no reason that is moral eg killing for fun, revenge, hate- is murder. To kill to defend one's country and in self defence or if one is a police officer doing his/her duty is killing but is not murder.
You also wrote 'terrorism' in quotations. You err. It is terrorism without the quotation marks as it is real and it is a crime that needs to be punished.
To sin is not human. Christ says we must be perfect as the Heavenly Father is perfect. This is the perfection of compassion which helps us to fulfill the ten commandments.

William of Young,

No, the fourth is about the Sabbath. That is about not upsetting dear old god who is very sensitive about human habits on that day. So I was correct in my guess.

May I remind you that the injunction is not about murder, you have added that, it is about not killing.

It is ‘terrorism’ to those with the physical capacity to wreak mayhem with modern weapons but to those without such an advantage, it is not.

So is the penalty death for them. Do you think the death penalty is required? It would be nice if I didn’t have to drag these answers out of you.

“To sin is not human. Christ says we must be perfect as the Heavenly Father is perfect. This is the perfection of compassion which helps us to fulfill the ten commandments.”

Sorry, but this is meaningless religious gobbledygook. Could you explain in language we can all understand?

I think you should try landing on this planet if you wish to converse with the locals. Speaking from an orbit away from reality makes for very difficult conversation.

David

yes the fourth is about the Sabbath. I should know that. A bit rusty however, at least the reality of it is clear for me as I go to Mass each Sunday. Good guess.

You may remind me about killing. Problem is that you are only looking at the word and not at the context. The context requires definitions and also issues like murder, manslaughter and even killing where it is not murder and so on. In society the Divine law is mirrored whereby not every police officer is charged with murder after killing people eg criminals who are going to shoot others or the cop. You're a smart athiest; work it out.

It is not ‘terrorism’ to kill those with the physical capacity to wreak mayhem with modern weapons such as rockets that come from southern Lebanon or from Gaza. Any nation would retaliate whether they be high tech armed or low tech. Advantage is not part of the equation. Civilians are not killed intentionally as I see you have your mind on the situation in Gaza. In fact civilians are unintentionally killed in many wars since time immemorial. Today we have international agreements but the possibility cannot be eliminated and can be made worse when groups use civilians as human shields and bargaining chips on the altar of world uninformed mob opinion. You don't give two turds about that anyway David, so spare us your atheistic 'sanctimony'.

Don't be sorry. Use the public resources of traditional and magisterial Catholic Faith to learn about alleged gobblydegook.
Say "I" not "we" concerning what you say you cannot understand.

The Church is after all public and its resources, if sincerely sought can help you. Be humble though; not just thoughtful.

the athiest<<God’s punishment etc...Now most of these people would not be..intrinsically bad people..but an agreement would not be hard to reach that,..yes,..it is god’s punishment that we are in such a mess..(Pick your own mess)

It is easy to see how undemocratic laws..could be passed to accommodate this..purposed fervour...Once a nation takes that first vital step,..tyranny and its old mate genocide is not far away.

They[athiests?]are hardly likely,..especially without 'proper evidence',..to take any kind of political action, which leads to dictatorship.

Does anyone really believe that we would create gulags and death camps and throw people out of jobs and country?..

If so, where is the evidence?>>

to quote your own reply's from
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2251

<<Allow me to make it crystal clear so there is no confusion.

I am saying that the influence of genes and influences on memes produce the ideological positions humans take...It is therefore wise to use reason in establishing if those influences deliver good or bad results and are justified and reasonable...If they are not,..then we must alter the influences.>>

<<an even playing field is the way to go...As I have explained,..this does not exist at the moment.>>WHAT YOUR PLANS to correct this LIMITED TO?

<<i was also referring to fairness in the way children are educated, as they are future adult members of society and if indoctrinated to think certain unproven propositions are beyond questioning>>

<<if anything,..we are anti specific religious indoctrination. Christianity just fits into that description amongst the 20,000 others we reject>>

<<I’ve always wanted to change my Biblical name to one more universally acceptable...Then I always come down to the fact that it was a David who sorted Goliath out,..wasn’t it? :)??>>

sheds light on this?..these..throw away lines?
who can tell
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2251#49145

you sure got the religious ZEAL of the darwinian adgenda's from eugenics to permissive sex education..[even in one previous post threatening me with 're-education']but mate i took that personal.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/books/2004129030_darwinday20.html
http://biofractalevolution.com/Malthus.pdf

http://www.abebooks.co.uk/products/isbn/9780297643364/Peter-Singer/Natural-Politics-Darwinian-Agenda-for-the-Left/

William of Young,

I rest my case. The absolutes you say you follow are not absolutes at all.

Thank you, it took some.

David

Still no reponse from Porkycrap about his call for the introduction of Christian Sharia law against homosexuals.

Surprise surprise - not.

You spent all dreaming that up to post first thig Sunday morning!
You see God as harsh angry "pissed off" ( your own words).
Your atheist position is stuck in the mud in that you refuse to discern the difference between murder and killing and but your poor psychological hangups upon God.
Rest you case, if you will. If it helps ease your mind.
It is no solution though to your atheist dilemma.

William,
On the Fourt Commandment.
Of course the atheists have Biblical religion to thank for giving them a holy day in every seven as a day free from labour to recover our spirituality. Of course they are slaves to an economic system while we take a break from the slavery to reflect on the purpose of our life and destiny. We are freed men - thank God!

The Fourth comandment was to remind us we are more than things we posess, we are a spiritual being designed to bear the image and character of God.

William of Young,

No, you give yourself too much credit if you think anything you have stated needed thinking about for a long time. If I don’t post it is because of post limits, other stuff has me being busy or I cannot be bothered replying to rubbish.

And please don’t use quotation marks as though I have made a statement. This seems a complete wast of time to say as the Catholics have made you impervious to logic, but I did not say a god was “pissed off”. I said, “…making sure you don’t piss of your god.” (Should have been ‘off’ by the way) Even though the Old Testament Yahweh is a nasty piece of work by any ethical standards and apparently was “pissed off” on many occasions. You being a Catholic and having never read your Bible are possibly not aware of that.

Please quote where I do not know the difference between ‘murder’ and ‘killing’. And I have no hang-ups about your invisible friend anymore than I have hang-ups about alleged fairies at the bottom of the garden.

You refuse to answer direct questions, mumble on about the infallibility clause of the Catholic faith and generally utter incoherent ideas. Never do you allow your inner thoughts to escape that the Catholic faith is the only true religion and the rest are just wrong. Mustn’t let on about the divisive nature of the RC religion, now, must we. (Think Africa - for starters)

It seems you wish to place yourself in the same basket as ‘one under god’ and ‘Webby’. OK, that’s your choice.

I hope you enjoy your stay in that close proximity with like but dissimilar thinkers.

Yes, and I just see that Philo is another contender for the already bulging basket. “…spiritual being…” and “….bear the image and character of God.” Fancy knowing this without a skerrick of credible evidence and fancy a god only allowing certain people with dubious reasoning ability access to this wonderful information. It’s not fair really! No wonder Atheists feel cheated. :))

Oh well! Suppose we’ll get by.

David

THE a-thiest missquotes as usual>>..the already bulging basket.“…spiritual being…”and“….bear the image and character of God.”..Fancy knowing this without a skerrick of credible evidence>>..

dear A_thiest;..man is created in gods image..[dont add your delusion..'character'..to the end of that definiative statement,..please prove your adden-dumb.

further please prove darwin was an athiest[or declared himself to be one of those delluded types..with belief in evolutionary A-thiesm

darwin quotes..<<Though reticent about his religious views,in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God,>>..

..<<In uncharacteristically bold discussions after dinner Darwin asked his guests"Why do you call yourselves Atheists?",

saying that he preferred the word"Agnostic".Aveling replied that"Agnostic was but Atheist writ respectable,and Atheist was only Agnostic writ aggressive".

Darwin responded"Why should you be so aggressive?"...Freethought is"all very well"for the educated,..he argued,..but are ordinary people"ripe for it?">>...

..<<In 1879 a letter came asking if he believed in God,and if theism and evolution were compatible...He replied that a man"can be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist",..citing Charles Kingsley and Asa Gray as examples,

and for himself, he had "never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God".He added that "I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older),but not always,that an Agnostic would be a more correct description of my state of mind>>..

//<<Darwin responded that he could "hardly see how religion & science can be kept as distinct as he desires, as geology has to to treat of the history of the Earth & Biology that of man.—

But I most wholly agree with you that there is no reason why the disciples of either school should attack each other with bitterness, though each upholding strictly their beliefs>>..

yet you and your fellow delusional athiest dorkinsian,god-heads keep facilitating gross distortion and invention upon his name... grasping at ever more delusional strawman inventions to decieve the gullable and ignorant.

evoluttion is not true validatable science ,thus remains a science fraud[a mere theory] and dispirited groundless assumpotions deluding to be a mountain of fact.