On Thu, 05 May 2005 09:44:26 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

On Wed, 4 May 2005 11:20:49 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

Dave Hall (N3CVJ) wrote:
Quite contrary. Logic supports the existence of
a creator or, more generally, the concept of

intelligent design.


Science is based on logic. Nowhere does science support your position.

Well, one of two possibilities exist. Either the earth cooled, formed
water, created primordial amino acids which somehow morphed into
single celled life, which then somehow determined the need to further
specialize and diversify, and all species evolved from there. Somehow
they knew that we'd need plants to make oxygen, for the animals that
need it. Some species would become food for others. All of this raises
many questions, the biggest of which is what force drove these single
celled organisms to improve and specialize themselves? What drives
evolution? Can accidental random mutation answer these questions
satisfactorily.


That's about the most ignorant pseudo-scientific argument I have ever
heard in favor of creationsim. If you are going to play biochemist at
least show a little knowledge of the subject. You could at least
address the fact that an imbalance in a complex equilibrium will
result in a more complex equilibrium. Or that an ocean full of
primordial soup doesn't just sit there and stew in a state of
homeostatis -- it's under a constant barrage from a large number of
ionizing radiations that can change it's chemistry. After a couple
billion years it's hardly inconceivable that symbiotic relationships
not only could exist on a planetary scale, but that a threshold of
self-sustaining complexity could occur. In fact, it's far more
plausible than concluding that everything was willed into existence by
some super-ghost.


The other possibility is that our existence was carefully guided by an
intelligent force. Applying Occam's razor, which scenario is easier
to believe?


See above.


snip
But keeping with that, who said it was random? Natural evolution and
selection explains away any coincidental occurrences that you may
mistake for "random".


But what drives evolution? If random mutations are the basis for
evolution, then what prevents "bad mutations" or several different
mutations from leading us down even more diverse paths?


A little concept called "survival of the fittest".


Natural selection only answers some of those questions.


Only if you slept through the class like you did during American
History and Social Studies.


There is simply not enough order in chaos for
this to happen.


You are claiming this oxymoron (chaos in order) does not exist. I
agree.
Whiole Darwin's theory has yet to be proved because of a single missing
link, it is the most widely accepted scholarly and scientific (IE:
logic, logical) belief.

There is much scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution.
I am not trying to discount it at all. Quite the opposite, I totally
endorse the concept of evolution. The difference is that I believe
that evolution was "helped" along by an outside intelligence.


Instead of being wishy-washy about the issue, why not consider the
possibility that evolution is, very simply, one of God's creations?







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Dave Hall Jr. (N3CVJ) wrote:

(I see you slept through history -and- science.)

No, actually those were my strongest subjects.
I had to explain to my 4th grade teacher how

nuclear fission worked.


Oh brother!

I have also studied the intricacies of our planet
and its ecosystem.


Self taught based on nothing more than personal thought you mistakenly
refer as empirical observation isn't a valid method.

It is far too complex to have evolved totally

randomly.

(That's an argument used by primitive civilations to explain things
which they do not understand. If you want to be a part of an enlightened
society, the first thing you need to learn is that complexity does not
require divine providence. But if that concept is beyond your level of
comprehension you can always take up astrology, voodoo, crystal ball
gazing..... or even republican economics.)



The ancients sacrificed each other to the "Gods" of the sky when they
were angry (thunder, heavy storms)...same goes for the Gods of the sea,
the four winds, etc. St. Elmo's Fire was attributed to the Gods by the
old salts and still is in superstitious circles of the old time
fishermen...

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 4 May 2005 11:43:08 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 3 May 2005 09:39:13 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:
(The car, as is the radio spectrum, mine!!! My car is NOT the DMV's, my
radio spectrum is NOT the FCC's.... )

The FCC owns the rights to the radio

spectrum in this country.

That is ludicrous. They do not. They merely are charged with
administrating such. The spectrum does not stop at the borders.

.No, but while inside the borders, you will pay

(Sometimes dearly) the FCC for the right to

play on the airwaves.



So you have been mistakenly telling us for years, yet, there is no
damper affecting those of us who play on it regularly for free or a few
paltry bucks..

Ask any cell phone company

owner/administrator.


Your selection of cell phone admins does not discount the countless
freebanders, cbers or hammies who play on it for free or on the extreme
cheap.

They are the ones authorized to sell spectrum

to people with a legitimate need. It's no

different than government owned land.

Again, it is very different for many reasons, several of which you were
already taught.

Yes, it is different in some ways, but the ways

that are similar are what I am talking about. It's
a fact that the FCC sells off chunks of

spectrum to commercial interests, sometimes

for outrageous amounts. If the FCC was not in
the position to claim "ownership" of that

spectrum, how could they auction it off?



By virtue of administration. Auctions are held daily all over the place.
They do not own what they auction, but like the FCC, are merely charged
with the administering of such.

Your car is yours as is your radio gear. But the
privilege to operate both is granted by the

government, and can be revoked for the

proper cause.

Wrong again. The government has absolutey zero authority how I operate
my vehicle on my own lan and can not revoke my privilege to do so.

Right! On you own land. But venture out on

.the public street, and they have all the

authority. Same goes for radio. If you can

somehow prevent your signal from escaping

the borders of your property (Which is covered
by FCC Part 15), you could do what you want.


Know of any test cases pushing the limit on this law?


Once those signals escape into the public

venue, they are under the control of the

federal government.



How is such defined? If a church camp own 2500 acres and broadcasts over
such, and I sit on the public lake adjourning their property and can
tune in their broadcast..is it now simply approached as a public
broadcast?

Another way to look at it, You own your car,

but not the roads you drive on.

Public means owned by the public,,,paid for by tax dollars.

And administered by the government.

You may own your radio, but not the airwaves

you broadcast on.

Neither does the FCC like you mistakenly believe.

For all practical purposes, yes they do in this

country.

You do not have a "right" to transmit beyond

the confines of your own property.

That is what the cb does.


You are granted a "privilege" to do so by the

government in the proxy of the FCC.


This "privilege" is availabe to anyone, so how can it be referred a
privilege? I know you elitist hammies believe this to be true about your
ticket, but it simply does not apply to cb, as practically any American
citizen is granted the "right" to broadcast, via a cb, simply by
ownership of one. This does not exactly equate to any "privilege".


As a

condition of that privilege comes your

responsibility to abide by the rules set fort in

various FCC parts depending on which

service you are using.

You may not like it, but that's the way it is.



Actually, I love the manner in which the FCC enforces radio law right
now and have said so on many occasion. They rightly and deservedly go
after those they deem the most important and damaging to our hobby. It
is yourself that does not like the "way it is" nor agree with it.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

n3cvj

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 4 May 2005 11:11:27 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
Dave Hall (N3CVJ) wrote:
Most cops would not bother to write someone

a ticket for not coming completely to a stop

and waiting the required 3 seconds before

proceeding at a stop sign.

They will bust your ass here in the high tourist area for that exact
offense. There are way too many bicyclists and pedestrians around here
and the cops vehemently enforce what is commonly known as the
"California Stop" or the "Rolling Stop" through a stop sign.

No argument (and I'll keep that in mind for the

next time I visit there). I'm sure it is very much

"area dependant". It is also at the discretion of

the cop.



Not always. For example, in Ybor City, an area of Tampa, There are
cameras on the poles that record every move. This led to remote-sent
traffic tickets, such as are found at many toll booths around the
country. Run the toll, get a ticket in the mail.


The letter of the law gives them the

authority to be as strict as they want in

applying the law. But just like speeding, there

are enough blatant violators out there that

they don't have to nit pick with those

borderline cases. Cops don't want to risk citing
someone like Landshark who actually is savvy
enough to win his case. At least not in my

area. But I live in a semi-rural area, where

there is more likely to be horse drawn wagons

than hordes of pedestrians.

Yea,,,those Mennonites and their charmed ways.

Dave

."Sandbagger"

n3cv

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 4 May 2005 11:20:49 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
Dave Hall (N3CVJ) wrote:
Quite contrary. Logic supports the existence of
a creator or, more generally, the concept of

intelligent design.

Science is based on logic. Nowhere does science support your position.

Well, one of two possibilities exist.


Why are you limiting yourself to two possibilities? There are a myriad
of possibilities and a certain amount of fact to support more than two
possibilities.

Either the

earth cooled, formed water, created primordial
amino acids which somehow morphed into

single celled life, which then somehow

determined the need to further specialize and

diversify, and all species evolved from there.

Somehow they knew that we'd need plants to

make oxygen, for the animals that need it.




Ummm,,,in all bio classes, we learn plant life was here before primates.

Some species would become food for others.

All of this raises many questions, the biggest

of which is what force drove these single

celled organisms to improve and specialize

themselves?


Natural selection,,,bio-evolvement.

What drives evolution? Can accidental

random mutation answer these questions

satisfactorily.



Science can. If a culture is underground for years and years, they will
take on a different appearance. Their skin would be fairer. Their eyes
would be slightly larger...and so on it goes.


The other possibility is that our existence was

carefully guided by an intelligent force.

Applying Occam's razor, which scenario is

easier to believe?


Depends if one places their core belief in faith or science.

Our whole ecosystem, the intricate

specialization of the various functions of our

bodies and other aspects of nature are far too

complex to have occurred and evolved at

random.

Now THAT is one hell of a subjective opinion.

Yes, but it based on probability.



So were the human sacrifices to the Gods, in their time. You can't
possibly believe we reached the pinnacle of all intellectualism and
physical traits. People continue to live longer, grow larger and
stronger, etc.
But keeping with that, who said it was
random? Natural evolution and selection
explains away any coincidental occurrences
that you may mistake for "random".

But what drives evolution? If random

mutations are the basis for evolution, then

what prevents "bad mutations" or several

different mutations from leading us down even
more diverse paths?



Nothing, There are plenty of "bad mutations" running around...screwed up
or damaged or incomplete chromosomes, sequences, and gray matter.
Mongoloids are but a single example..


Natural selection only answers some of those

questions.

There is simply not enough order in chaos for

this to happen.
=A0
=A0You are claiming this oxymoron (chaos in order) does not exist. I
agree.
Darwin's theory has yet to be proved because of a single missing link,
it is the most widely accepted scholarly and scientific (IE: logic,
logical) belief.

There is much scientific evidence to support

the theory of evolution. I am not trying to

discount it at all. Quite the opposite, I totally

endorse the concept of evolution. The

difference is that I believe that evolution was

"helped" along by an outside intelligence.


Christians do not believe cavemen existed as science depicts. Do you?

Dave

"Sandbagger"

n3cvj

Well, unless I am mistaken, the following appears in our constitution:
". . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . ."
Now, I am an AMERIAN with GREAT respect for the founders and traditions of
this country--if the "rule of God" was good enough for them, it is good
enough for me, end of story!!!!

Regards,
John


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 05 May 2005 09:32:11 -0400, Dave Hall
| wrote in :
|
| snip
| No it doesn't. It only takes one exposure to get the bug.
|
| And if you and your partner are monogamous, this is highly unlikely.
|
|
| Unless your partner is infected.
|
|
| snip
| Not just the First Amendment, Dave. The concept is reflected in the
| main body of the Constitution; "...no religious test shall ever be
| required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the
| United States," a clause which was unanimously adopted by the
| Constitutional Convention.
|
| Yet the democrats are using this exact criteria to DENY appointees to
| the court. In their minds, a strong belief in faith should be regarded
| as a reason to disqualify someone from serving in public office.
|
|
| You are -totally- off your rocker, Dave.
|
| Am I? I guess you haven't been following the struggle for the
| appointment of judicial nominees. It is quite obvious that the ones
| who the dems oppose the most are people with a strong religious
| faith.
|
| Some light reading for you to come up to speed on this issues.
|
| http://www.federalistjournal.com/fedblog/?cat=3
|
| http://quante.blogspot.com/2005/04/y...-morality.html
|
| http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/...l_politics.php
|
|
| Blog, blog, blog. If you think that Democrats are godless heathens,
| maybe you should take a second look at the Carter administration.
|
|
| snip
| The USA is not, nor has it ever been, a Christian state.
|
| Not "officially",
|
|
| Or "unofficially".
|
| The majority of Christian citizens would probably disagree.
|
|
| Despite the fact that this majority of Christian citizens is not a
| majority of American citizens, seperation of church and state is not
| subject to a majority vote.
|
| I think this page says it best:
|
| http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues
|
|
| but our whole government is littered with Christian
| references. The ten commandments in judicial buildings.
|
|
| As well as religious symbols of other faiths.
|
| Such as?
|
|
| Go search the net for a picture of the wall behind the Supreme Court
| bench.
|
|
| The swearing
| on the Bible,
|
|
| And here's proof that you have never read the Constitution -- the
| passage I quoted above is in direct reference to the requirement for
| an Oath of Affirmation.
|
| What passage have you quoted?
|
|
| Don't you know? Haven't you read the Constitution?
|
|
| And how does that diminish the fact that
| swearing on the bible is a confirmation that Judeo-Christian
| influences have been intertwined in our government from the beginning?
|
|
| Swearing on a bible is -not- required to take an oath of affirmation.
| The clause forbidding a "religous test" was added to -prevent- exactly
| what you claim. It was added because, at the time, some states had
| oaths that required the person entering office to declare a belief in
| God or a "divine inspiration". Such an oath was a "religious test"
| that was required to qualify for the office, and excluded anyone that
| didn't share the same religious beliefs. This violated the seperation
| of church and state, so the clause was added to prohibit such tests,
| and the office would be available to any citizen -despite- religious
| beliefs.
|
| And once again, the clause was added by unanimous consent.
|
|
| snip
| Unlike you, I believe in the Constitution.
|
| No, you don't. Like other leftists, you wear the constitution like a
| badge of honor when it suits you, but conveniently ignore the parts
| that do not further your agenda.
|
|
| What parts do I ignore? Let me clue you in here, Dave: Many years ago
| I took an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution against all
| enemies, foreign and domestic". I took that oath seriously. In fact, I
| took it so seriously that I took the time to learn more about what I
| swore to defend with my life. Maybe if you had taken that oath
| yourself you might have done the same. If you had, we wouldn't be
| having this conversation right now.
|
| And although I was discharged 20 years ago, I still hold myself to
| that oath. Meaning that I will still defend it with my life if it
| comes under attack -- even if that attack comes from a large group of
| people claiming to be Christians.
|
|
| snip
| If you are so worried about the "institution" of marriage then you
| have bigger issues than gays. In case you haven't noticed, nearly half
| of all marriages end in divorce,
|
| Not true. You are not keeping current.
|
| http://www.census.gov/population/soc.../tabA1-all.xls
|
|
| No, it's very true. You skipped right over the line, "The U.S. Census
| Bureau does not collect the number of marriages and divorces that take
| place in a given year." That statistic is collected by the CDC. And
| for the year of 2003, the divorce rate was -almost exactly- half the
| rate of marriage:
|
| http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_22.pdf
|
|
| and a large number of people get
| married more than once. There is also the issue of polygamy -- if you
| are going to claim that marriage is a religious value or that it is
| traditionally monogamous then you better change your tune because
| that's not the case. For example, King Solomon (a "servant of God")
| had 600 wives and 900 concubines... or was it 900 wives and 600
| concubines.... whichever, it doesn't really matter. The point is that
| the "traditional Christian marriage" is just as much a farce in
| definition as it is in practice; and gay marriage has far less impact
| on it's "value" than legalized divorce, secular ceremonies, Joseph
| Smith, or even the holy doctrine of your own faith.
|
|
| Typical tactic. Justify a particular abhorrent behavior by making
| unrelated comparisons to other abhorrent behaviors.
|
|
| It's a very logical and justifiable tactic, Dave. If the foundation of
| your argument is that gay marriage weakens the value of marriage, it's
| both fair and reasonable to compare gay marriage to other factors that
| would affect the value of marriage. And after such a comparison, gay
| marriage is -barely- significant, if at all. Yet you are whining about
| it like a stuck pig while denying those other, much more significant
| factors. The conclusion is obvious: this has absolutely nothing to do
| with the value of marriage. You simply hate homosexuals.
|
|
| snip
| The fact that polygamy might have been acceptable once does
| not mean that a gay marriage should be now.
|
|
| I never suggested it did. I was pointing out that your "traditional
| Christian values" regarding marriage are, at best, hypocritical.
|
|
| snip
| Referring back to your "college degree" analogy, if the standards are
| lowered then my degree becomes more valuable.
|
| Only to you.
|
|
| Hardly. If the standards are lowered then I have an education that
| meets a higher standard, and I am therefore more qualified -- out of
| the gate -- than someone with a lesser education.
|
|
| After a few years go by, everyone will then consider a BS
| degree to be a 2 year course. You will have to remind people (and by
| doing so be construed as bragging in much the same way that a 20 WPM
| Extra reminds people that he passed a tougher code exam than the
| current 5 WPM extra) of the fact that you had an additional 2 years of
| study, thereby propping up your perceived value. The public at large
| will not be immediately aware of your "extra" work. Therefore it has
| diminished in value.
|
|
| Because people like you exist, some will undoubtedly see it that way.
| But some, like myself, will already understand that those two extra
| years mean the difference between 'good' and 'better'.
|
|
| Here's another analogy:
| If some of the auto makers start making cars of lower quality, what
| happens to the value of the vehicles made by other manufacturers? Duh.
|
| That's not a good analogy in this situation. For this analogy to be
| applicable, you would have to offer 2 different "marriage systems".
| One allowing gays, and one not. Then a relative value comparison
| between two distinct entities can accurately be assessed.
|
|
| I'm not going to make justifications for your bigotry, Dave. How you
| feel about your own marriage is not dependent upon anyone else but
| yourself. The Constitution is not going to change just because a
| couple gays getting married affects the way you feel about your own
| marriage.
|
|
| snip
| I also noticed that you snipped the part of your last response where
| you called me a "holy roller religious wacko". After retrospection,
| I'm sure you realized that in making such a statement, you are
| practicing the very same intolerance and bigotry for other viewpoints
| as you had accused me of doing, thereby exposing your own hypocrisy.
|
| But I did notice.
|
|
| I snipped a lot of stuff. Unlike you, I have to work for a living, and
| I simply don't have the time to play your game. So if you want to
| start whining about my dumping the excess baggage you add to your
| posts then feel free -- it will get snipped just like all the other
| crap you use to water down the topics.
|
|
| snip
| Yep, you're one of those guys who believes that change is always good,
|
|
| Wrong. I believe that change is inevitable.
|
|
| Even if it's bad?
|
|
| Moron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
| http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
| ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----

On Fri, 6 May 2005 11:00:49 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote in
:

Well, unless I am mistaken, the following appears in our constitution:
". . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . ."


You -are- mistaken -- that's from the Declaration of Independence.


Now, I am an AMERIAN with GREAT respect for the founders and traditions of
this country--if the "rule of God" was good enough for them, it is good
enough for me, end of story!!!!


But it -wasn't- good enough for them, which is why Madison and
Jefferson fought so hard against the Conventicle Act and the Test Act,
and why the Bill of Rights includes a clause that establishes both
freedom of religion and the seperation of church and state.








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

You are right, that is the bill of rights--the two documents are inseperable
in my mind--I often refer to them both as one...

And, you are right again, we do indeed have freedom of religion--the "state"
cannot establish a "state religion" is what that means... I didn't want them
to anyway ... with my luck they'd pick the "Jehovah Witnesses"--I'd have
gov't people knocking on my door on the weekend!!!! grin

Regards,
John

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
| On Fri, 6 May 2005 11:00:49 -0700, "John Smith"
| wrote in
| :
|
| Well, unless I am mistaken, the following appears in our constitution:
| ". . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . ."
|
|
| You -are- mistaken -- that's from the Declaration of Independence.
|
|
| Now, I am an AMERIAN with GREAT respect for the founders and traditions
of
| this country--if the "rule of God" was good enough for them, it is good
| enough for me, end of story!!!!
|
|
| But it -wasn't- good enough for them, which is why Madison and
| Jefferson fought so hard against the Conventicle Act and the Test Act,
| and why the Bill of Rights includes a clause that establishes both
| freedom of religion and the seperation of church and state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
| http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
| ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----

On Fri, 6 May 2005 14:07:53 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote in
:

You are right, that is the bill of rights--the two documents are inseperable
in my mind--I often refer to them both as one...


That's because they -are- one. The Bill of Rights is just a name used
for the first ten Amendments to the Constitution. Actually, the bill
contained twelve amendments, but the first two didn't pass. One of
those two amendments passed 150 years later. The other one deserves
reconsideration -- it would establish an upper limit on the number of
people that can be represented by a member of the House of Reps.


And, you are right again, we do indeed have freedom of religion--the "state"
cannot establish a "state religion" is what that means...


Absolutely right. Religious freedom is for -everybody-, not just the
majority. If the government starts playing favorites then the freedoms
enjoyed by the minorities are stifled, and we regress back to the same
type of government that ruled over the colonies until they declared
independence from Britain.


I didn't want them
to anyway ... with my luck they'd pick the "Jehovah Witnesses"--I'd have
gov't people knocking on my door on the weekend!!!! grin


Hmmmm..... Jehovah's Witness IRS agents..... now -that's- scary!






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Fri, 6 May 2005 10:40:38 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

Self taught based on nothing more than personal thought you mistakenly
refer as empirical observation isn't a valid method.

Why not?


It is far too complex to have evolved totally
randomly.

(That's an argument used by primitive civilations to explain things
which they do not understand. If you want to be a part of an enlightened
society, the first thing you need to learn is that complexity does not
require divine providence. But if that concept is beyond your level of
comprehension you can always take up astrology, voodoo, crystal ball
gazing..... or even republican economics.)



The ancients sacrificed each other to the "Gods" of the sky when they
were angry (thunder, heavy storms)...same goes for the Gods of the sea,
the four winds, etc. St. Elmo's Fire was attributed to the Gods by the
old salts and still is in superstitious circles of the old time
fishermen...

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic....

The more answers you learn, the more questions you discover. It's a
never ending quest.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj