Brian Oakley wrote:

SNIP huge amounts of nonsense

And PLONK.

tom
K0TAR

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:43:23 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Off-topic question: Should we stone adulterers or
not? :-)

Toss a coin:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/bible_adultery.htm
(Note that the above web page is from the Islamic point of view).
Various parts of the bible offer different answers. The church still
hasn't officially recognized divorce, making half the US also
adulterous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Adultery
"In Judaism, adultery was forbidden in the seventh commandment of the
Ten Commandments, but this did not apply to a married man having
relations with an unmarried woman. Only a married woman engaging in
sexual intercourse with another man counted as adultery, in which case
both the woman and the man were considered guilty."

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 10:54:17 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Jeff wrote:
It is highly unlikely that Newton would have known Old English which went
out of use in the 12th Century, he probably would not have even known Middle
English, unless he was a avid reader of Chaucer.

In what English is the King James version of the
Bible written?

There's quite a bit on the topic he
http://www.bible-researcher.com/kingjames.html
Basically, it was called "Elizabethan English". The 54 authors of the
1611 Authorized Version (there were several subsequent mutations and
revisions) did an excellent job of translation, organization, and
keeping the Anglicans, Puritans, and other cults from dominating the
final product.

In college, I read Chaucer in the original "English". It was painful
and only vaguely resembled English in any recognizable form.

Newton's Principia was published about 75 years after the King James
Bible, in 1686. All of Newton's scientific papers were in Latin. For
example, Principia:
http://books.google.com/books?id=WqaGuP1HqE0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Isaac +Newton%27s+Philosophiae+naturalis+principia+mathe matica#PPR1,M1
However, his correspondence was in fairly readable English, and not at
all like Olde English. There are several fragments at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing_of_Principia_Mathematica
which show really weird punctuation and sentence structure. I guess
extra long comma spliced sentences were fashionable at the time. It's
difficult reading, but if one chops up the sentences into smaller
pieces and translated the idioms, it looks almost like modern English.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
I guess
extra long comma spliced sentences were fashionable at the time.

Heck, they were still fashionable when I was in
high school.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Brian Oakley wrote:

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:
"Tom Donaly" wrote in message
...
Brian Oakley wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message

Darwin makes quite a leap from finches to "primordial ooze".

He makes no such leap.

No that was left to the pseudointellectuals.



Even in the
simplest of life forms an orchestra of machinery sustains the life.
If any
piece is missing, the life can't be supported.


No. There are many processes that make up portions of life forms that
are quite complex, yet still function if portions go missing the Blood
Clotting cascade is one such example.

But those processes are complex in themselves and will fail if reduced
any further.


The eye has been a poster child of Creationists, yet it is at root a
reaction to an energy input. There is a clear progression from simple
bacterial to raptor vision (we humans do not have the "best eyes" in
creation)

But that doesnt prove the human eye evolved from one a bacteria had.
Even that sensory cell that the bacteria had would cease to function if
the components of that cell were not all present and functioning.



So to believe that all
sprang up by accident, ready to reproduce from a rock seems to be an
unsupported religious belief in itself.

There is a straw man for sure. Life such as it is never sprung from a
rock. A lot of things had to happen first.

But it had to. If there were something there that was strictly mineral
that somehow, some way, in some miraclulous way turned into a living
organism, then it still originated from minerals.


But the Atheist will say this is
proof there is no God and leave it at that.

Straw man again. Atheism is not in any way shape or form a requirement
to support the idea that evolution is the method in which life forms
adapt to their surroundings. There is no proof that there is no God.

He didnt say that atheism is a requirement. He said that atheists will
say that.




Seems unscientific at best, but
then Hitler, Marx, The Columbine Kids and Manifest Destiny all
embraced it.
Who's next?


Good heavens JB!. Could you provide the citations about the Columbine
kids views on Evolution? Shame. May they rest in peace.

This might interest you:
Eric -- Black fatigue-style pants, a white T-shirt inscribed with the
words Natural Selection on the front, black baseball cap with the
letters "KMFDM" on it (worn backwards), and a black trenchcoat (duster).
Wore a black fingerless glove on his right hand and black combat boots.


Hitler was interesting here are a few quotes:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
fighter."

Munich, 1922

"We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith
conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is
whether Christianity stands or falls.... We tolerate no one in our
ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is
Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants
to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people."

Passau, 1928

Read "Hitlers Cross" by Lutzer to understand that Hitler was a
manipulator, especially of the Church. Also read the following:

Matthew 7:15-23, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's
clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by
their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even
so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree
bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit,
neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that
bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith
unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that
doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in
that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy
name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye
that work iniquity."

I guess he didn't care for the Sermon on the Mount!

That quote is from the same One who gave the Sermon on the Mount.
Hitler was NOT a Christian.

There are many people today who profess to be Christains, yet most of
their beliefs are straight old testament.



And the roots of Manifest destiny can be traced John Winthrop's "City
upon a Hill" sermon in 1630.

If you choose to believe that evolution is false, that is fine, but we
are at the point in the argument where the statement is sufficient
argument of disbelief. There is too much evidence supporting
evolution, and no science disproving it.

If you would be intellectually honest, you would see that there is a lot
of evidence that goes against evolution.

It takes almost as much faith to not believe in evolution now as it
does to believe in a flat earth.

An ad hominem attack.

No, it isn't ad hominum. Put another way, there is a lot of evidence
that points to the theory of evolution as fact. Things change. The
related disciplines that verify the concept are likewise wrong if Evo
is. All it will take to prove evolution wrong is if say modern humans
are found in very early sediments along with the critters we've found
there to date. But the evidence shows a forward movement of time, and
never backwards. Modern animals only appear in recent times. Ancient
ones show a terrmination. Those anomalies such as animals that haven't
changed much, or "rediscovered" animals once thought extinct are just
wonderous additions to life.



Creationists have unwittingly be one of the greatest forces in
research in evolution, as their searching for "faults" in the theory
have served as a spur to scientists and research.

Too often, Creationists assume the binary decision, in that anything
that is not presently explained by science relating to evolutionary
processes means that Evolution is wrong, so the only other choice is
Creationism.

Ok, what other mechanisms do you think there are? Aliens??

Ohh careful there. Creationists who use the weak form of Intelligent
design claim the possibility of aliens creating life here.

But the entire argument in that regard is specious anyhow. Evolution has
not one single thing to say about the ultimate beginning of life. It
only deals with what happens afterward.



But seriously the religious argument can be summed up in a
satisfactory manner by saying "I do not believe in evolution, I have
faith that God created everything in it's present form." And that is
okay. I respect your faith.

But you pretend that it is a blind faith, and that is also
intellectually dishonest. There are many reasons for that faith, and
intelligent design is a very good one.

Okay, you have no blind faith? Do a lot of investigating of the physics
and chemistry and paleontology. Come up with experiments and refute it.

Intelligent design has performed no science, no peer reviewed research,
with the exception of one report that was immediately refuted.

Instead, the Intelligent design folks want to debate. Strangely enough,
that debate is envisioned as proving something. If evolution loses the
debate, is there no evolution. If it wins, is their no God?

Here's a good idea. Instead of taking peoples money and trying to get ID
insertd into schools curriculum, take that money and do good research!

Most distressing howevwer is the duality of the IDer's approach. the
switching between the weak ID that is brought out when trying to sneak
their belief into school science programs, (teach the controversy) and
the very same people saying that they want to replace the system as
taught now with science that is in alignment with the Christian faith.

I don't think God needs or wants anyone lying for him.



But insisting on s literal translation of the two different accounts
of creation in Genesis,

Ther are no two different accounts. Its one in the same account. The
Bible is not always cronological.

Don't know what to say here, Brian. Some times it's literal, some times
it's not, and sometimes we just pick and choose.


is just as wrong as the flat earth of four corners,

Ancient civilization knew the earth was spherical. The Egyptians
understood this.

The spherical earth concept started around 330 B.C. It was well known
during the middle ages. Oddly enough the resurgent Flat Earth, promoter,
Samuel Rowbotham, came up with his "Zoetitic Astronomy" system, in
around the mid 1800's which depended on his particular interpretation of
the Bible. Interestingly enough, in the 1800's he engaged in public
debates with leading scientists. One doesn't prove the other, of course,
but it's interesting to see that the more things change, the more they
remain the same.

I really don't want to belabor the group with much more of this, we need
to get back to discussions of Art's antenna designs.

All I would say is that I would suggest some personal research, and
repeat that evolution doesn't have a thing to do with origin, so just
perhaps, there are people out there who might want to manipulate others
with a red herring of an issue.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Brian Oakley wrote:

Seems everyone has an opinion, and they sure dont mind voicing it. But
if it goes in a direction they dont like, they are quick to point that this is
not the place. I guess your qseudointellectual diatribe is king here. So be it.

Really, it's not that bad. In fact given what happens to sensitive
topics in other newsgroups, I think we've all behaved pretty well in
here. Had some civil disagreements, and I was the only one who got
called any names.

A couple years ago, I cuddnt even spel sudointilectuyal - now I is one!
Take care, and Illegetimi non carborundrum. 8^)


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Michael Coslo wrote:
Put another way, there is a lot of evidence
that points to the theory of evolution as fact.

Rhetorical question: What if evolution is just
one of the tools in God's toolbox?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:
"Tom Donaly" wrote in message
...
Brian Oakley wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message

Darwin makes quite a leap from finches to "primordial ooze".

He makes no such leap.

He does make quite a leap to the "family tree". Many such leaps seem to be
accepted as fact. The primordial soup explanation has yet to be proven and
the experiment cited as proof has already been debunked but it still finds
it's way into textbooks as fact. The scientific method doesn't allow us to
make assumptions then try to back them up in further investigations. It
seems that our course of institutional investigations have lead to
censorship through active measures against those who don't fully buy into
it.

Even in the
simplest of life forms an orchestra of machinery sustains the life. If
any
piece is missing, the life can't be supported.


No. There are many processes that make up portions of life forms that
are quite complex, yet still function if portions go missing the Blood
Clotting cascade is one such example.

That isn't what I meant. I was speaking of those functions without which
the organism is not viable. Your choice of a life form without the Blood
Clotting Cascade is an example of a life form that perhaps was designed as
food or at least highly expendable otherwise it would have been designed
with self-repair and defensive mechanisms in mind. Even if you don't
believe in ID, you indicate some knowledge of the kind of complex processes
I allude to.

The eye has been a poster child of Creationists, yet it is at root a
reaction to an energy input. There is a clear progression from simple
bacterial to raptor vision (we humans do not have the "best eyes" in
creation)

I didn't mention the Eye. How is it relevant? Bacteria is still life and
still highly complex at the molecular level.

So to believe that all
sprang up by accident, ready to reproduce from a rock seems to be an
unsupported religious belief in itself.

There is a straw man for sure. Life such as it is never sprung from a
rock. A lot of things had to happen first.

How is this a straw man? What "things had to happen first" for any life?
You justify my argument that it takes a leap of faith. Do you mean to say
that life cannot be created if we can't do it?


But the Atheist will say this is
proof there is no God and leave it at that.

Straw man again. Atheism is not in any way shape or form a requirement
to support the idea that evolution is the method in which life forms
adapt to their surroundings. There is no proof that there is no God.

Darwin was a devout Atheist and that was the basic a priori of his
investigations and theory. We know that life forms adapt to their
surroundings. It is obvious. We don't find them changing from one species
to another. We don't even find fossil evidence of "missing link" organisms
that prove the great transitions of DNA between species.

Seems unscientific at best, but
then Hitler, Marx, The Columbine Kids and Manifest Destiny all embraced
it.
Who's next?

Good heavens JB!. Could you provide the citations about the Columbine
kids views on Evolution? Shame. May they rest in peace.

So you do believe in heaven? Or not? The shooters at Columbine where
wearing T-shirts that said "Natural Selection" and spent lots of time on
neo-Nazi web sites. It is a matter of evidence. We can't cross examine
them under oath (?) so they can't answer for their actions.

Hitler was interesting here are a few quotes:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter."

Munich, 1922

This was bull crap propaganda so that he would have less trouble with
Christians, Like Obama, who is obviously preaching Marxist Secular Humanism
in his speeches, and evidence suggests, sought out his home church as a
forum for his political advancement after he lost to Bobby Rush for "not
being black enough" as his constituents put it. I don't think it imparts a
benefit of the doubt if he is a Christian for fleeting moments when he finds
himself in a church.

Not only was Hitler a known liar, he actually invoked a half-baked pagan
religion to support his Aryan beliefs.


"We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith
conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether
Christianity stands or falls.... We tolerate no one in our ranks who
attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian.
We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover
one another in the deep distress of our own people."

Passau, 1928

I guess he didn't care for the Sermon on the Mount!

And the roots of Manifest destiny can be traced John Winthrop's "City
upon a Hill" sermon in 1630.

Manifest Destiny and Evolution come together as justifications of the
westward movements, genocide of the indigent American population, as well as
most of the genocides, mass murders and revolutions in the 19 and 20th
centuries.

And Jeremiah Wright gave sermons too. Citing preachers tells more about
you. Let's not go there because Jesus himself stated that "there will come
false prophets". You need to work on your discernment.

If you choose to believe that evolution is false, that is fine, but we
are at the point in the argument where the statement is sufficient
argument of disbelief. There is too much evidence supporting evolution,
and no science disproving it. It takes almost as much faith to not
believe in evolution now as it does to believe in a flat earth.

"Flat earth" is nowhere in the Bible. What evidence supports that all life
is an adaptation from a single organism? What evidence supports that DNA
can change radically and be viable. Indeed prove that genetic mutation
actually can result in anything but a loss in material, thus result in a
De-evolution instead of evolution? Perhaps we are all adapted from ferns.
There is significantly more genetic material in ferns than most in the
animal kingdom. What can the new life form viably reproduce with. This
would seem to be most possible with reproduction by cell division, but
individual survivors would seem to be food at the point it emerged. Where
are the new single celled species that have sprung up spontaneously from
existing species?

Creationists have unwittingly be one of the greatest forces in research
in evolution, as their searching for "faults" in the theory have served
as a spur to scientists and research.

Hold the presses! You mean they aren't just idiot superstitious morons?
But have actually researched the Macro Evolution theory as it applies to the
emergence of life and found it lacking?

Too often, Creationists assume the binary decision, in that anything
that is not presently explained by science relating to evolutionary
processes means that Evolution is wrong, so the only other choice is
Creationism.

But seriously the religious argument can be summed up in a satisfactory
manner by saying "I do not believe in evolution, I have faith that God
created everything in it's present form." And that is okay. I respect
your faith.

That isn't my argument. Please don't assume that the above Blog "Either-Or"
arguments are the only ones out there. Is it your argument that no matter
how life came to be at all by any means could not have been spurred on by an
unseen force? Or that every miracle can be explained by accident or natural
progression of events? Perhaps the predictions that were fulfilled in the
Bible were simply intelligent assessment by natural progression. Although
you could point to those, it doesn't explain it all away.

Here is the philosophical problem. If the Universe follows a purely
predictable mechanism, or a combination of predictability and seemingly
random events, It does not prove or disprove a design. At this point, I
can't pose a definitive theory of how the Earth, Solar System, Universe or
Life came to be. The Bible is not a scientific journal, It is a historical
journal penned by those who didn't consider a scientific approach to
explaining any event. In many cases it is a narrative and in others it is a
legal documentary record of events, observations and inspirations. It is a
fascinating concept that it could have actually been orchestrated by the
Divine. Perhaps we could agree that although the scientific explanation is
lacking in scripture, we shouldn't dismiss the idea that there is no truth
underlying the explanations that is yet to be revealed. Once upon a time,
one could investigate while still believing in a creator. That seems to
have lost ground to Political constraints. My thought is that Macro
Evolution has become only one of many thoughts forced on a captive audience
by condescending liberals that are bringing society to crisis.


But insisting on s literal translation of the two different accounts of
creation in Genesis, is just as wrong as the flat earth of four
corners, the shape of the world as witnessed by T-O maps, the church's
shabby treatment of Bruno and Galileo, and other "threats" to religion,
however. The earth rotates around the sun, just as it always has. The
truth was in fact no threat at all.

Not my argument either. You make a great many assumptions of my arguments
and dismiss them as "straw man".
"There will come false prophets". they will be known by their works.

Back to antennas now.......

JB wrote:
The scientific method doesn't allow us to
make assumptions then try to back them up in further investigations.

Sorry, that's exactly what the scientific method allows
us to do.

1. Form an hypothesis
2. Compare it to reality
3. If it doesn't fit, fine tune the hypothesis
4. Then goto 1, Else it is true

The fact that we humans share 95% of a chimpanzee's
DNA is proof enough that evolution is valid and we
are literally a "Monkey's Uncle". The only question
left is: "Did God cause that evolution?"
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:
The scientific method doesn't allow us to
make assumptions then try to back them up in further investigations.

Sorry, that's exactly what the scientific method allows
us to do.

1. Form an hypothesis
2. Compare it to reality
3. If it doesn't fit, fine tune the hypothesis
4. Then goto 1, Else it is true

The fact that we humans share 95% of a chimpanzee's
DNA is proof enough that evolution is valid and we
are literally a "Monkey's Uncle". The only question
left is: "Did God cause that evolution?"
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

OK, so what other primate shows at least 90% Ok so what other organism
shares 95% of a human's or Chimpanzee's DNA. And now show that a chimpanzee
did not evolve from a human. So maybe you're a monkey's daddy. Maybe they
evolved from each other. Of maybe there are similarities that just worked
out and perhaps one didn't come from the other at all. Lots of speculation
here. Speak for yourself.


"Evolution
Further information: RNA world hypothesis

DNA contains the genetic information that allows all modern living things to
function, grow and reproduce. However, it is unclear how long in the
4-billion-year history of life DNA has performed this function, as it has
been proposed that the earliest forms of life may have used RNA as their
genetic material.[84][96] RNA may have acted as the central part of early
cell metabolism as it can both transmit genetic information and carry out
catalysis as part of ribozymes.[97] This ancient RNA world where nucleic
acid would have been used for both catalysis and genetics may have
influenced the evolution of the current genetic code based on four
nucleotide bases. This would occur since the number of unique bases in such
an organism is a trade-off between a small number of bases increasing
replication accuracy and a large number of bases increasing the catalytic
efficiency of ribozymes.[98]

Unfortunately, there is no direct evidence of ancient genetic systems, as
recovery of DNA from most fossils is impossible. This is because DNA will
survive in the environment for less than one million years and slowly
degrades into short fragments in solution.[99] Claims for older DNA have
been made, most notably a report of the isolation of a viable bacterium from
a salt crystal 250-million years old,[100] but these claims are
controversial.[101][102]" --from Wiki DNA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA