"I am an Atheist with the views of an Atheist & it's your position to make that a viable business. I do not have a problem with that because it is a capitalist approach but I would rather put my money into the Humanist Association, as it supports the law for human right's & not self centered capitalist ideology in my opinion. Science is an obtainable knowledge so is Atheism."

Huh? viable business? capitalist? huh?

'Capitalist ideology' is the ownership of means of production and the surplus of labour. Your analogy doesn't make sense?

The AFA put in a submission to the human rights commission, as did Atheist Nexus btw, there was a lot of work done on both by volunteers that are members of the AFA.

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/frb/submissions/Sub032.Atheist_Foundation.doc

http://www.atheistnexus.org/about/member-articles-research

*shrug* everything you said you could say about the humanist association. Whatever fits you best I suppose :) maybe I am just missing what your trying to say?

Good excuse David but I know your character & there's nothing you can sell me.

Woot,
Note that the AFA made that submission to the 'Human Rights Commission'.
The AFA "put in a submission to the human rights commission, as did Atheist Nexus btw, there was a lot of work done on both by volunteers that are members of the AFA."

" 'Capitalist Ideology' " the analogy does make sense, the ownership of the production has become the AFA and the surplus of labour is it's
tax exempt volunteer work force.

Thanks
From Dave

" 'Capitalist Ideology' the analogy does make sense, the ownership of the production has become the AFA and the surplus of labour is it's
tax exempt volunteer work force."

No it doesn't. The means of production are the only way to do something. The AFA do not own the means of production, they are a combination of people working together. Those same things can be done outside the AFA, such as the Atheist Nexus submission I linked too.

What ARE you talking about with tax exempt workforce? WE are the AFA. The AFA is not 'them', and us working for them.

Surplus is what is left over after the labourers are 'paid' for using what is owned by the capitalist, and is then owned by the capitalist.

The analogy does not in any way make sense.

lol...<<<Kind regards, Matthew Meurer.
Posted by Atheistno1,..Sunday,..25 October..2009..10:36:57/PM


Atheistno1,

./..I’m still at a loss as to what you are on about.

And you haven’t written to me
to identify yourself.>>>>lol

<<Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc/Sunday/25 October>>

dont sweat on it...david/head..dorkinesque/athiest in waiting..is as think as a plank

susswoosgee/quote..<<What..stops speciation>>darwin said general populations remain in stacis...but as usual you ask the incorrect question

see speciation is..The formation of new biological species..by the development or branching of..one species into two...or more genetically distinct ones...

but mate..they are yet within their same genus...

like i repeatedly..need to..explain to you
...speciation means nothing...
it happens intra genus...

a new spcies of finch...or seagull..or whatever...is still
...in...its own genus...get it yet..

stop counting words...and read...the words...for a change

evolution means..fish genus..mutated into mannal genus...

in ways science cannot prove...lol..only theorise's about ...via endelessly quoting micro..evolution/...of..species..to validate...lol...macro...new/..genus

but you lot/imbisile athiest's..are so ignorant..
you admit to not even...reading my replies...
so keep falling into the same...err..a/..thiest..err..a/...holes

<<and further diversification in evolution>>...mate any retard can confirm change..within the species..

but NO-ONE has EVER validated/recorded/observed...any change of genus...but you retards..refuse to read...im over writing

its self evident..this a/thiest/foundation..is about self agrandisenent..not offering any evidence..certainly not about educating ...

its like as not..a political ploy..to get some seats in the senet...to play thier games/

likely..as a sttooge/or front party..like family first..or just a new way..to get a govt pension

your futile childish demands...lol..<<..If you cannot provide that,..you cannot disprove evolution..>>...reveals the extent of..the mindless dolts..running their athiest scam...speciation is your con-cept...

when it gets ignored you presume a win/..when ya all just ignorant/loosers

they/you..stand revealed..
..by your own recorded words...
enjoy that you didst sow...

i write..knowing...even the simplest things..
are too difficult...even for the high/priests..

for the..latest athiest..cult

ROFLMAO :) I see your keeping up just using ad hominem attacks :) all you really have isn't it?

Umm OUG you sure don't understand evolution and the tree of life, or you are deliberately trying to misrepresent aspects of it.

This argument is a standard creationist one built totally on ignorance of how taxonomy works and that it is most importantly a dynamic nomenclature built to describe expanding groups from our most recent position in time. any new species will remain part of whatever Order/Phylum its ancestors are in, because of its heritage. It's a nameing convention OUG.

Creating an entire new genus, to say nothing of new family, or order, or class, takes thousands if not millions of generations. It is not linear, it is a tree, an expanding tree, a nested hierarchy, and in itself is a powerful indication that macroevolution is true. This is also why humans are apes. Humans aren't evolved from apes; they are apes, in the same way that they are primates, mammals, amniotes, vertebrates, deuterostomes, and eukaryotes.

If some mammals were protostomes, if some birds were arthropods, life would not be organized into nested hierarchies, common descent would be impossible, and macroevolution could not have occurred. It would only take one to do destroy evolution. There is not one.

29 evidences for common descent : http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

So, can you answer my question. What barrier is in place that stops speciation and further divergence in the higher taxa that you are claiming exists?

You state that diversification exists below the genus level. What is in place that stops continued diversification, such that all the evidence for common descent is false OUG? What is in place that is going to stop diversification to such an extent, that creatures will look, and be, radically different in all aspects, that is confirmed by scientific evidence?

Where is all your evidence to compare, for creationism? Or is that something you don't want to focus on? ;)

One big conspiracy this science is it? Just out to destroy religion is it? lol

sigh