Science > Abortion > Elementary schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Rob Wade" |
| Date: |
22 Aug 2005 05:39:14 PM |
| Object: |
Elementary schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality |
Elementary schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality
By Al Kinght
Denver Post Columnist
A controversy in Lexington, Mass., over when and how elementary school
children should be taught about homosexuality has, for good reason,
begun to attract national attention.
The dispute occurred in the only state that allows for same-sex
marriage, but the elements of the underlying cultural and educational
controversy could easily be duplicated in hundreds of American school
districts.
On April 27, David Parker, the father of a kindergarten student in
Lexington's Joseph Estabrook Elementary School, was arrested on a
trespassing charge and jailed overnight. Parker had gone to the school
to meet with administrators after his son had brought home a book
titled "Who's in a Family?" The book ostensibly teaches the young about
"multicultural contemporary family units," a category that prominently
includes gay and lesbian arrangements.
Parker objected and sought assurances he would be notified before the
school attempted to teach his child about homosexuality or related
topics. The school officials first indicated a willingness to do so,
but later refused. Parker insisted and refused to leave.
He was then arrested, and will be tried Sept. 21.
Gay and lesbian advocacy groups claim Parker set up the arrest in order
to make an anti-gay political statement, and they downplay the
importance of the book, saying its inclusion on a reading list doesn't
constitute actual instruction. School officials have taken the position
that they had no choice but to have Parker arrested once he refused to
exit the meeting without the assurances he had been seeking.
There are people in and around the edges of this case who have adopted
a "who me?" attitude and wish to pretend this controversy doesn't have
anything to do with larger issues.
Well, it didn't just happen, and it isn't just about Parker and the
so-called bookbag at the Estabrook Elementary School which includes
"Who's in a Family?"
The plain truth is that there has long been a national campaign to
transform the atmosphere of the nation's schools. The book "Who's in a
Family?" is a small part of that campaign.
The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) has been busy
for 10 years offering help to those educators who want to create what
is called a "more affirming" environment for gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgendered students.
Up until now, much of the organization's efforts have gone to creating
gay student groups at hundreds of high schools and passing laws or
regulations that limit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
or eliminate harassment aimed at homosexuals. GLSEN reports that 70 or
so Colorado high schools have gay student clubs (usually called
gay-straight alliances).
The organization has also used part of its $4.3 million budget to
promote a reading list for students as young as those in kindergarten.
"Who's in a Family?" is one of the books on the GLSEN list, as are
"Heather has Two Mommies," "Daddy's Roommate" and "Going to Fair Day."
As students move up in age, they are invited to read "Love Makes a
Family," "Is it a Choice?" and similar tomes.
At the high school level, some of this indoctrination might be excused
on the grounds that students are old enough to make personal choices
and maybe some of them can define terms like "sexuality" and "gender."
No such excuse can be made for this kind of social indoctrination at
the elementary level.
The very idea that GLSEN and other groups are busy offering
"educational resources" or training programs to elementary school
teachers in order to create a more "affirming environment" for gay
students is appalling.
The good news is that Colorado passed a state law last year that
prohibits giving continuing education credits to teachers for attending
the kind of workshops GLSEN offers. In this state, such learning
credits must be "content-related," and most of what GLSEN offers
clearly isn't.
Whatever the state of the law and the outlines of the educational
landscape, David Parker deserves immense credit. His arrest is an
important reminder that some school officials, and not just in
Massachusetts, have become more concerned with political correctness
than sound education.
They have it exactly backwards, and thankfully Parker isn't the only
one who knows it.
.
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Elementary schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality |
29 Aug 2005 04:30:55 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 05:23:35 GMT,
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"Louise Mallard" <readmydigs@books.com> wrote:
John Weatherly ("jw") wrote:
"The Other Donald" <the_donald_13@yeehaw.com> wrote:
"Rob Wade" <rob_c_wade_03@yahoo.com> wrote:
Elementary schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality
They don't, you fucking idiot.
In related news of the ignorant.....no public school should teach the
***** known as intelligent design, whose followers are affectionately
known as IDiots.
Anyone with a brain can look at the universe around us and see
Intelligent Design.
Even I know that's unadulterated horseshit.
Actually, no. There's really no reason to think that there's no God
just because a collection of RRR-Cult-lemming fruitcakes are whining
about evolution.
Evolution is clearly a fact. The evidence for that is overwhelming.
So the RRR cultists are total loons for living in denial of that.
However... the evidence for intelligent design by the spiritual
entity that most people think of as God (whatever name they may a
apply to Him) ALSO is overwhelming.
Oh, really? Like what, for example?
Countless things (literally) could be cited. But consider just two.
(1) Lacking some form of impetus, things **run down**.
Prove that "things **run down**." The laws of thermodynamics do not
suggest that things "run down."
2nd law of thermodynamics.
....does not say that things "run down."
For example. If you have a balloon filled with 1 liter of oxygen, then
stretched the balloon larger, you would still have one liter of oxygen
inside the balloon. However, the pressure inside the balloon will
appear to "go down." But no oxygen was removed. You still have the
same amount of "stuff" inside the balloon.
This is what the 2nd Law states. As the universe expands (like the
balloon), the universe continues to contain the same amount of "stuff."
It's just spread out more, so it *appears* to be "running down," but,
in fact, it is not.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "If God had intended us to walk, he wouldn't *
* have invented roller skates." --Willy Wonka *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Elementary schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality |
29 Aug 2005 10:00:56 PM |
|
|
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 05:23:35 GMT,
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"Louise Mallard" <readmydigs@books.com> wrote:
John Weatherly ("jw") wrote:
"The Other Donald" <the_donald_13@yeehaw.com> wrote:
"Rob Wade" <rob_c_wade_03@yahoo.com> wrote:
Elementary schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality
They don't, you fucking idiot.
In related news of the ignorant.....no public school should teach the
***** known as intelligent design, whose followers are affectionately
known as IDiots.
Anyone with a brain can look at the universe around us and see
Intelligent Design.
Even I know that's unadulterated horseshit.
Actually, no. There's really no reason to think that there's no God
just because a collection of RRR-Cult-lemming fruitcakes are whining
about evolution.
Evolution is clearly a fact. The evidence for that is overwhelming.
So the RRR cultists are total loons for living in denial of that.
However... the evidence for intelligent design by the spiritual
entity that most people think of as God (whatever name they may a
apply to Him) ALSO is overwhelming.
Oh, really? Like what, for example?
Countless things (literally) could be cited. But consider just two.
(1) Lacking some form of impetus, things **run down**.
Prove that "things **run down**." The laws of thermodynamics do not
suggest that things "run down."
2nd law of thermodynamics.
...does not say that things "run down."
Yes it does.
For example. If you have a balloon filled with 1 liter of oxygen, then
stretched the balloon larger, you would still have one liter of oxygen
inside the balloon. However, the pressure inside the balloon will
appear to "go down." But no oxygen was removed. You still have the
same amount of "stuff" inside the balloon.
And?
This is what the 2nd Law states. As the universe expands (like the
balloon), the universe continues to contain the same amount of "stuff."
It's just spread out more, so it *appears* to be "running down," but,
in fact, it is not.
So entropy doesn't exist.
Gotcha.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Elementary schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality |
30 Aug 2005 05:34:19 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 05:23:35 GMT,
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"Louise Mallard" <readmydigs@books.com> wrote:
John Weatherly ("jw") wrote:
"The Other Donald" <the_donald_13@yeehaw.com> wrote:
"Rob Wade" <rob_c_wade_03@yahoo.com> wrote:
Elementary schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality
They don't, you fucking idiot.
In related news of the ignorant.....no public school should teach the
***** known as intelligent design, whose followers are affectionately
known as IDiots.
Anyone with a brain can look at the universe around us and see
Intelligent Design.
Even I know that's unadulterated horseshit.
Actually, no. There's really no reason to think that there's no God
just because a collection of RRR-Cult-lemming fruitcakes are whining
about evolution.
Evolution is clearly a fact. The evidence for that is overwhelming.
So the RRR cultists are total loons for living in denial of that.
However... the evidence for intelligent design by the spiritual
entity that most people think of as God (whatever name they may a
apply to Him) ALSO is overwhelming.
Oh, really? Like what, for example?
Countless things (literally) could be cited. But consider just two.
(1) Lacking some form of impetus, things **run down**.
Prove that "things **run down**." The laws of thermodynamics do not
suggest that things "run down."
2nd law of thermodynamics.
...does not say that things "run down."
Yes it does.
It only appears that way. The overall matter/energy stays the same.
For example. If you have a balloon filled with 1 liter of oxygen, then
stretched the balloon larger, you would still have one liter of oxygen
inside the balloon. However, the pressure inside the balloon will
appear to "go down." But no oxygen was removed. You still have the
same amount of "stuff" inside the balloon.
And?
This is what the 2nd Law states. As the universe expands (like the
balloon), the universe continues to contain the same amount of "stuff."
It's just spread out more, so it *appears* to be "running down," but,
in fact, it is not.
So entropy doesn't exist.
That isn't what I said.
Gotcha.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "If God had intended us to walk, he wouldn't *
* have invented roller skates." --Willy Wonka *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Elementary schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality |
30 Aug 2005 12:58:46 PM |
|
|
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 05:23:35 GMT,
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"Louise Mallard" <readmydigs@books.com> wrote:
John Weatherly ("jw") wrote:
"The Other Donald" <the_donald_13@yeehaw.com> wrote:
"Rob Wade" <rob_c_wade_03@yahoo.com> wrote:
Elementary schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality
They don't, you fucking idiot.
In related news of the ignorant.....no public school should teach the
***** known as intelligent design, whose followers are affectionately
known as IDiots.
Anyone with a brain can look at the universe around us and see
Intelligent Design.
Even I know that's unadulterated horseshit.
Actually, no. There's really no reason to think that there's no God
just because a collection of RRR-Cult-lemming fruitcakes are whining
about evolution.
Evolution is clearly a fact. The evidence for that is overwhelming.
So the RRR cultists are total loons for living in denial of that.
However... the evidence for intelligent design by the spiritual
entity that most people think of as God (whatever name they may a
apply to Him) ALSO is overwhelming.
Oh, really? Like what, for example?
Countless things (literally) could be cited. But consider just two.
(1) Lacking some form of impetus, things **run down**.
Prove that "things **run down**." The laws of thermodynamics do not
suggest that things "run down."
2nd law of thermodynamics.
...does not say that things "run down."
Yes it does.
It only appears that way. The overall matter/energy stays the same.
Irrelevant. The ability to do work decreases.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: Elementary schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality |
29 Aug 2005 12:41:32 AM |
|
|
Craig Chilton wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 08:53:39 -0400,
"Louise Mallard" <readmydigs@books.com> wrote:
John Weatherly ("jw") wrote:
"The Other Donald" <the_donald_13@yeehaw.com> wrote:
"Rob Wade" <rob_c_wade_03@yahoo.com> wrote:
Elementary schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality
They don't, you fucking idiot.
In related news of the ignorant.....no public school should teach the
***** known as intelligent design, whose followers are affectionately
known as IDiots.
Anyone with a brain can look at the universe around us and see
Intelligent Design.
Even I know that's unadulterated horseshit.
Actually, no. There's really no reason to think that there's no God
just because a collection of RRR-Cult-lemming fruitcakes are whining
about evolution.
Evolution is clearly a fact. The evidence for that is overwhelming.
So the RRR cultists are total loons for living in denial of that.
However... the evidence for intelligent design by the spiritual
entity that most people think of as God (whatever name they may a
apply to Him) ALSO is overwhelming.
Post that evidence here.
-----> <-------
So the most likely scenario is that God DID create the universe, as
mind-boggling as that feat seems. BUT--- that he *also* created the
process that we call evolution, at or about the same time.
So there *is* a god.
Post your evidence here.
-----> <-------
snipped
--
Jack
Plonked by Native American
bobo1148atxmissiondotcom
http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/xmissionbobo/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Boy Toy" |
|
| Title: Re: Elementary schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality |
29 Aug 2005 10:51:22 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 05:20:03 GMT, Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
wrote in message <vr55h196k5h1grk99ld2b2lftlbgub04at@4ax.com>
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 08:53:39 -0400,
"Louise Mallard" <readmydigs@books.com> wrote:
John Weatherly ("jw") wrote:
"The Other Donald" <the_donald_13@yeehaw.com> wrote:
"Rob Wade" <rob_c_wade_03@yahoo.com> wrote:
Elementary schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality
They don't, you fucking idiot.
In related news of the ignorant.....no public school should teach the
***** known as intelligent design, whose followers are affectionately
known as IDiots.
Anyone with a brain can look at the universe around us and see
Intelligent Design.
Even I know that's unadulterated horseshit.
Actually, no. There's really no reason to think that there's no God
just because a collection of RRR-Cult-lemming fruitcakes are whining
about evolution.
Evolution is clearly a fact. The evidence for that is overwhelming.
So the RRR cultists are total loons for living in denial of that.
However... the evidence for intelligent design by the spiritual
entity that most people think of as God (whatever name they may a
apply to Him) ALSO is overwhelming.
So the most likely scenario is that God DID create the universe, as
mind-boggling as that feat seems. BUT--- that he *also* created the
process that we call evolution, at or about the same time.
That's just personal opinion Craig. You can take any area of sciences
or mathematics (especially the latter) and come up with things which
are ***infinitely*** more bizarre than spontaneous generation of life,
which is actually a pretty simple process (although it takes a long
time.) I like to use the analogy of the universe being governed by a
differential equation admitting a unique solution. We now have a good
unified theory (String Theory, which we old timers recognize as a
extension of Sheaf Theory, i.e., the theory of vector fields on
manifolds, which I studied about 30 years ago.)
Requiring the existence of a supreme being is, in my opinion, the
crutch of people who don't know a whole lot about mathematics or the
sciences. It certainly explains why it is so popular among the
scientifically illiterate (e.g. RRR terrorists.)
Thus, the amazing thing is that RRR cultists claim to believe in
God, but then are so bone-stupid as to mentally LIMIT His capabilities.
Since a God omnipotent enough to create the universe probably
would find it a walk in the park by comparison to ALSO create an
evolutionary process by which it could progress with little or no further
input by Him.
Such DENIAL of God's omnipotence by the RRR cultists not only
comprises unadulterated horsesh*t... but also very **hypocritical**
horsesh*t on their part.
= = = = = = = = = =
So... I looked at this post in an attempt to see who my potential ally
of posts past might be, and look what happened. Found something
else of interest to comment on... and STILL don't know who you are...
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Louise Mallard" |
|
| Title: Re: Elementary schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality |
29 Aug 2005 01:07:59 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 05:20:03 GMT, Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 08:53:39 -0400,
"Louise Mallard" <readmydigs@books.com> wrote:
John Weatherly ("jw") wrote:
"The Other Donald" <the_donald_13@yeehaw.com> wrote:
"Rob Wade" <rob_c_wade_03@yahoo.com> wrote:
Elementary schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality
They don't, you fucking idiot.
In related news of the ignorant.....no public school should teach the
***** known as intelligent design, whose followers are affectionately
known as IDiots.
Anyone with a brain can look at the universe around us and see
Intelligent Design.
Even I know that's unadulterated horseshit.
Actually, no.
It's your opinion it's no.
There's really no reason to think that there's no God
Leave that to the deciding individual.
just because a collection of RRR-Cult-lemming fruitcakes are whining
about evolution.
Evolution is clearly a fact. The evidence for that is overwhelming.
So the RRR cultists are total loons for living in denial of that.
However... the evidence for intelligent design by the spiritual
entity that most people think of as God (whatever name they may a
apply to Him) ALSO is overwhelming.
In the hearts of the believers.
<clip>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: Elementary schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality |
23 Aug 2005 01:35:48 PM |
|
|
jw <jw wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 22:45:07 GMT, "The Other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yeehaw.com> wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
post can be reproduced ANYWHERE else w/o expressed written consent of
author
"Rob Wade" <rob_c_wade_03@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124750354.765173.173720@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Elementary schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality
They don't, you fucking idiot.
In related news of the ignorant.....no public school should teach the
***** known as intelligent design, whose followers are affectionately
known as IDiots.
Anyone with a brain can look at the universe around us and see
Intelligent Design.
It shouldn't be hard to prove, then.
--
James B
aa #944
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence."
-David Hume
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Elementary schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality |
22 Aug 2005 09:06:12 PM |
|
|
jw <jw<no>@yoo.hoo> writes:
Anyone with a brain can look at the universe around us and see
Intelligent Design.
How do you codify design? What distinguishes a "designed"
object from one that occured randomly? With what precision can you
measure design such that you can determine its presence within a given
object or artifact?
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Neinast" |
|
| Title: Re: Elementary schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality |
23 Aug 2005 09:07:12 PM |
|
|
In article <87ll2to19n.fsf@drizzle.com>, says...
jw <jw<no>@yoo.hoo> writes:
Anyone with a brain can look at the universe around us and see
Intelligent Design.
How do you codify design? What distinguishes a "designed"
object from one that occured randomly? With what precision can you
measure design such that you can determine its presence within a given
object or artifact?
Well, snowflakes are clearly designed. They form with such
regularity and beauty that God must be carefully placing
each individual molecule in just the right place.
On the other hand, humans are just as clearly not designed.
There are just so many errors introduced, with such features
as a poorly placed optic nerve, and crap like the appendix
which serve no useful purpose yet can kill the host.
Bob
--
.. . . and shun the Frumious Bandersnatch
Robert A. Neinast
Pickerington, OH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Elementary schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality |
23 Aug 2005 09:10:44 PM |
|
|
"Robert Neinast" <neinast@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d75a0554758c291989711@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
In article <87ll2to19n.fsf@drizzle.com>, says...
jw <jw<no>@yoo.hoo> writes:
Anyone with a brain can look at the universe around us and see
Intelligent Design.
How do you codify design? What distinguishes a "designed"
object from one that occured randomly? With what precision can you
measure design such that you can determine its presence within a given
object or artifact?
Well, snowflakes are clearly designed. They form with such
regularity and beauty that God must be carefully placing
each individual molecule in just the right place.
Scientifically explainable and duplicatable in a lab. No God required.
On the other hand, humans are just as clearly not designed.
There are just so many errors introduced, with such features
as a poorly placed optic nerve, and crap like the appendix
which serve no useful purpose yet can kill the host.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jw" |
|
| Title: Re: Elementary schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality |
23 Aug 2005 10:04:23 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:10:44 GMT, "Andrealphus"
<NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
post can be reproduced ANYWHERE else w/o expressed written consent of
author
"Robert Neinast" <neinast@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d75a0554758c291989711@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
In article <87ll2to19n.fsf@drizzle.com>, says...
jw <jw<no>@yoo.hoo> writes:
Anyone with a brain can look at the universe around us and see
Intelligent Design.
How do you codify design? What distinguishes a "designed"
object from one that occured randomly? With what precision can you
measure design such that you can determine its presence within a given
object or artifact?
Well, snowflakes are clearly designed. They form with such
regularity and beauty that God must be carefully placing
each individual molecule in just the right place.
Scientifically explainable and duplicatable in a lab. No God required.
And how many billions of snowflakes have been "naturally and
artificially produced" in a lab?
You do say some VERY silly things.
And you merely prove that those who WILL NOT BELIEVE will find all
manner of ridiculous reasons for doing so.
jw
On the other hand, humans are just as clearly not designed.
There are just so many errors introduced, with such features
as a poorly placed optic nerve, and crap like the appendix
which serve no useful purpose yet can kill the host.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Elementary schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality |
24 Aug 2005 05:38:11 AM |
|
|
"jw @yoo.hoo>" <jw<no> wrote in message
news:lrong1hcd3febkjoceb9tq53ro12hs1jc8@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:10:44 GMT, "Andrealphus"
<NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
post can be reproduced ANYWHERE else w/o expressed written consent of
author
"Robert Neinast" <neinast@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d75a0554758c291989711@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
In article <87ll2to19n.fsf@drizzle.com>, says...
jw <jw<no>@yoo.hoo> writes:
Anyone with a brain can look at the universe around us and see
Intelligent Design.
How do you codify design? What distinguishes a "designed"
object from one that occured randomly? With what precision can you
measure design such that you can determine its presence within a given
object or artifact?
Well, snowflakes are clearly designed. They form with such
regularity and beauty that God must be carefully placing
each individual molecule in just the right place.
Scientifically explainable and duplicatable in a lab. No God required.
And how many billions of snowflakes have been "naturally and
artificially produced" in a lab?
Quite a few billion, why? High School science classes do this all the
time. A bit of water vapor, and some dry ice, and for a few minutes you can
make it snow indoors. It's a very common school experiment.
You do say some VERY silly things.
And you do say some VERY ignorant things.
And you merely prove that those who WILL NOT BELIEVE will find all
manner of ridiculous reasons for doing so.
And you merely prove that those who DO BELIEVE will endlessly justify that
belief with anything but actual proof.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Elementary schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality |
24 Aug 2005 11:36:09 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:38:11 GMT, "Andrealphus"
<NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
"jw @yoo.hoo>" <jw<no> wrote in message
news:lrong1hcd3febkjoceb9tq53ro12hs1jc8@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:10:44 GMT, "Andrealphus"
<NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
post can be reproduced ANYWHERE else w/o expressed written consent of
author
"Robert Neinast" <neinast@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d75a0554758c291989711@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
In article <87ll2to19n.fsf@drizzle.com>, says...
jw <jw<no>@yoo.hoo> writes:
Anyone with a brain can look at the universe around us and see
Intelligent Design.
How do you codify design? What distinguishes a "designed"
object from one that occured randomly? With what precision can you
measure design such that you can determine its presence within a given
object or artifact?
Well, snowflakes are clearly designed. They form with such
regularity and beauty that God must be carefully placing
each individual molecule in just the right place.
Scientifically explainable and duplicatable in a lab. No God required.
And how many billions of snowflakes have been "naturally and
artificially produced" in a lab?
Quite a few billion, why? High School science classes do this all the
time. A bit of water vapor, and some dry ice, and for a few minutes you can
make it snow indoors. It's a very common school experiment.
And of course ski resorts use giant snow generating machines when
there is insufficient natural snow on the piste. They must generate
billions of snowflakes per hour when in full blow, it is a simple
process after all.
Just a quick trawl with Google using: snow flakes maths computer
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/01/040120035003.htm
http://www.microsoft.com/Education/flake.mspx
http://www2.science.usyd.edu.au/psacis/TSPweb/snowflake.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Elementary schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality |
24 Aug 2005 03:19:16 PM |
|
|
"Les Hellawell" <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:5h7pg1ls4n2soj0be3uhrc04i5rv8ufa9j@4ax.com...
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:38:11 GMT, "Andrealphus"
<NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
"jw @yoo.hoo>" <jw<no> wrote in message
news:lrong1hcd3febkjoceb9tq53ro12hs1jc8@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:10:44 GMT, "Andrealphus"
<NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
post can be reproduced ANYWHERE else w/o expressed written consent of
author
"Robert Neinast" <neinast@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d75a0554758c291989711@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
In article <87ll2to19n.fsf@drizzle.com>, says...
jw <jw<no>@yoo.hoo> writes:
Anyone with a brain can look at the universe around us and see
Intelligent Design.
How do you codify design? What distinguishes a "designed"
object from one that occured randomly? With what precision can you
measure design such that you can determine its presence within a
given
object or artifact?
Well, snowflakes are clearly designed. They form with such
regularity and beauty that God must be carefully placing
each individual molecule in just the right place.
Scientifically explainable and duplicatable in a lab. No God required.
And how many billions of snowflakes have been "naturally and
artificially produced" in a lab?
Quite a few billion, why? High School science classes do this all the
time. A bit of water vapor, and some dry ice, and for a few minutes you
can
make it snow indoors. It's a very common school experiment.
And of course ski resorts use giant snow generating machines when
there is insufficient natural snow on the piste. They must generate
billions of snowflakes per hour when in full blow, it is a simple
process after all.
Just a quick trawl with Google using: snow flakes maths computer
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/01/040120035003.htm
http://www.microsoft.com/Education/flake.mspx
http://www2.science.usyd.edu.au/psacis/TSPweb/snowflake.html
Exactly.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "jw" |
|
| Title: Re: Elementary schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality |
24 Aug 2005 10:27:11 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:38:11 GMT, "Andrealphus"
<NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
post can be reproduced ANYWHERE else w/o expressed written consent of
author
"jw @yoo.hoo>" <jw<no> wrote in message
news:lrong1hcd3febkjoceb9tq53ro12hs1jc8@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:10:44 GMT, "Andrealphus"
<NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
post can be reproduced ANYWHERE else w/o expressed written consent of
author
"Robert Neinast" <neinast@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d75a0554758c291989711@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
In article <87ll2to19n.fsf@drizzle.com>, says...
jw <jw<no>@yoo.hoo> writes:
Anyone with a brain can look at the universe around us and see
Intelligent Design.
How do you codify design? What distinguishes a "designed"
object from one that occured randomly? With what precision can you
measure design such that you can determine its presence within a given
object or artifact?
Well, snowflakes are clearly designed. They form with such
regularity and beauty that God must be carefully placing
each individual molecule in just the right place.
Scientifically explainable and duplicatable in a lab. No God required.
And how many billions of snowflakes have been "naturally and
artificially produced" in a lab?
Quite a few billion, why?
You have missed the point. But then, what else is new?
chuckle.
jw
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Elementary schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality |
24 Aug 2005 03:18:20 PM |
|
|
"jw @yoo.hoo>" <jw<no> wrote in message
news:2d4pg1tiuf7qp7cdgm7j6gpqn2sqrk8m43@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:38:11 GMT, "Andrealphus"
<NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
post can be reproduced ANYWHERE else w/o expressed written consent of
author
"jw @yoo.hoo>" <jw<no> wrote in message
news:lrong1hcd3febkjoceb9tq53ro12hs1jc8@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:10:44 GMT, "Andrealphus"
<NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
post can be reproduced ANYWHERE else w/o expressed written consent of
author
"Robert Neinast" <neinast@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d75a0554758c291989711@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
In article <87ll2to19n.fsf@drizzle.com>, says...
jw <jw<no>@yoo.hoo> writes:
Anyone with a brain can look at the universe around us and see
Intelligent Design.
How do you codify design? What distinguishes a "designed"
object from one that occured randomly? With what precision can you
measure design such that you can determine its presence within a
given
object or artifact?
Well, snowflakes are clearly designed. They form with such
regularity and beauty that God must be carefully placing
each individual molecule in just the right place.
Scientifically explainable and duplicatable in a lab. No God required.
And how many billions of snowflakes have been "naturally and
artificially produced" in a lab?
Quite a few billion, why?
You have missed the point.
Not at all. Snowflakes are not created by God, that is known fact. If you
have evidence to the contrary, please present it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Elementary schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality |
24 Aug 2005 12:53:14 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Scientifically explainable and duplicatable in a lab. No God
required.
And how many billions of snowflakes have been "naturally and
artificially produced" in a lab?
Quite a few billion, why?
You have missed the point. But then, what else is new?
chuckle.
You claim to be a writer.
As I've said and will continue to say, writers must be able to convey
meaning.
If a point was missed by answering your specific question then you phrased
the question wrong.
Your continued inablility to *WRITE* what you mean is not our problem.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Elementary schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality |
24 Aug 2005 10:37:35 AM |
|
|
jw <jw wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:38:11 GMT, "Andrealphus"
<NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
post can be reproduced ANYWHERE else w/o expressed written consent of
author
"jw @yoo.hoo>" <jw<no> wrote in message
news:lrong1hcd3febkjoceb9tq53ro12hs1jc8@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:10:44 GMT, "Andrealphus"
<NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
post can be reproduced ANYWHERE else w/o expressed written consent of
author
"Robert Neinast" <neinast@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d75a0554758c291989711@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
In article <87ll2to19n.fsf@drizzle.com>, says...
jw <jw<no>@yoo.hoo> writes:
Anyone with a brain can look at the universe around us and see
Intelligent Design.
How do you codify design? What distinguishes a "designed"
object from one that occured randomly? With what precision can you
measure design such that you can determine its presence within a given
object or artifact?
Well, snowflakes are clearly designed. They form with such
regularity and beauty that God must be carefully placing
each individual molecule in just the right place.
Scientifically explainable and duplicatable in a lab. No God required.
And how many billions of snowflakes have been "naturally and
artificially produced" in a lab?
Quite a few billion, why?
You have missed the point.
Then was was the point?
But then, what else is new?
Insults don't do anything to advance your argument; in fact, they pull
it down. Restrain yourself from making condescending remarks in the
future, if you wish for people to take you seriously.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Elementary schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality |
23 Aug 2005 10:15:30 PM |
|
|
"jw @yoo.hoo>" <jw<no> wrote in message
news:lrong1hcd3febkjoceb9tq53ro12hs1jc8@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:10:44 GMT, "Andrealphus"
<NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
post can be reproduced ANYWHERE else w/o expressed written consent of
author
"Robert Neinast" <neinast@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d75a0554758c291989711@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
In article <87ll2to19n.fsf@drizzle.com>, says...
jw <jw<no>@yoo.hoo> writes:
Anyone with a brain can look at the universe around us and see
Intelligent Design.
How do you codify design? What distinguishes a "designed"
object from one that occured randomly? With what precision can you
measure design such that you can determine its presence within a given
object or artifact?
Well, snowflakes are clearly designed. They form with such
regularity and beauty that God must be carefully placing
each individual molecule in just the right place.
Scientifically explainable and duplicatable in a lab. No God required.
And how many billions of snowflakes have been "naturally and
artificially produced" in a lab?
According to dumbasses like you, the answer is "God's snowcone machine made
them."
Science, on the other hand, determines that it is water crystallization that
forms snowflakes. I know that learnin' an' ***** runs counter to the way you
morons prefer to live your lives, but...well....here is the kinds of
fancy-schmancy stuff that science gives us:
http://chemistry.about.com/library/weekly/aa121001a.htm
You do say some VERY silly things.
And you continue to say patently stupid *****.
And you merely prove that those who WILL NOT BELIEVE will find all
manner of ridiculous reasons for doing so.
Only an *****-raped idiot like you would come to such an invalid conclusion.
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
.
|
|
|
| User: "jw" |
|
| Title: Re: Elementary schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality |
24 Aug 2005 12:25:33 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 03:15:30 GMT, "The Other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yeehaw.com> wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
post can be reproduced ANYWHERE else w/o expressed written consent of
author
"jw @yoo.hoo>" <jw<no> wrote in message
news:lrong1hcd3febkjoceb9tq53ro12hs1jc8@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:10:44 GMT, "Andrealphus"
<NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
post can be reproduced ANYWHERE else w/o expressed written consent of
author
"Robert Neinast" <neinast@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d75a0554758c291989711@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
In article <87ll2to19n.fsf@drizzle.com>, says...
jw <jw<no>@yoo.hoo> writes:
Anyone with a brain can look at the universe around us and see
Intelligent Design.
How do you codify design? What distinguishes a "designed"
object from one that occured randomly? With what precision can you
measure design such that you can determine its presence within a given
object or artifact?
Well, snowflakes are clearly designed. They form with such
regularity and beauty that God must be carefully placing
each individual molecule in just the right place.
Scientifically explainable and duplicatable in a lab. No God required.
And how many billions of snowflakes have been "naturally and
artificially produced" in a lab?
According to dumbasses like you, the answer is "God's snowcone machine made
them."
And according to dumbasses like you, there is no God.
See how that balances out?
Science, on the other hand, determines that it is water crystallization that
forms snowflakes. I know that learnin' an' ***** runs counter to the way you
morons prefer to live your lives,
Spoken like the true bigot you are. I know MANY professionals with
MUCH education who are Christians.
I am one of them.
but...well....here is the kinds of
fancy-schmancy stuff that science gives us:
Science is the study of FACTS. Atheism is the avoidance of any facts
that point one to God.
jw
http://chemistry.about.com/library/weekly/aa121001a.htm
You do say some VERY silly things.
And you continue to say patently stupid *****.
And you merely prove that those who WILL NOT BELIEVE will find all
manner of ridiculous reasons for doing so.
Only an *****-raped idiot like you would come to such an invalid conclusion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Elementary schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality |
24 Aug 2005 05:40:13 AM |
|
|
"jw @yoo.hoo>" <jw<no> wrote in message
news:r21og1hqht8csglrqiglvr57nan9vo0q5k@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 03:15:30 GMT, "The Other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yeehaw.com> wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
post can be reproduced ANYWHERE else w/o expressed written consent of
author
"jw @yoo.hoo>" <jw<no> wrote in message
news:lrong1hcd3febkjoceb9tq53ro12hs1jc8@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:10:44 GMT, "Andrealphus"
<NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
post can be reproduced ANYWHERE else w/o expressed written consent of
author
"Robert Neinast" <neinast@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d75a0554758c291989711@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
In article <87ll2to19n.fsf@drizzle.com>, says...
jw <jw<no>@yoo.hoo> writes:
Anyone with a brain can look at the universe around us and see
Intelligent Design.
How do you codify design? What distinguishes a "designed"
object from one that occured randomly? With what precision can you
measure design such that you can determine its presence within a
given
object or artifact?
Well, snowflakes are clearly designed. They form with such
regularity and beauty that God must be carefully placing
each individual molecule in just the right place.
Scientifically explainable and duplicatable in a lab. No God required.
And how many billions of snowflakes have been "naturally and
artificially produced" in a lab?
According to dumbasses like you, the answer is "God's snowcone machine
made
them."
And according to dumbasses like you, there is no God.
Prove that there is a God. Can't do it, can you?
See how that balances out?
Science, on the other hand, determines that it is water crystallization
that
forms snowflakes. I know that learnin' an' ***** runs counter to the way
you
morons prefer to live your lives,
Spoken like the true bigot you are. I know MANY professionals with
MUCH education who are Christians.
I am one of them.
You haven't shown this to be true so far.
but...well....here is the kinds of
fancy-schmancy stuff that science gives us:
Science is the study of FACTS. Atheism is the avoidance of any facts
that point one to God.
HAHAHAHAHAHA! Nonsense. You have yet to provide any facts that points to
any God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jw" |
|
| Title: Re: Elementary schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality |
24 Aug 2005 10:24:42 AM |
|
|
x-archive: yes
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:40:13 GMT, "Andrealphus"
<NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
post can be reproduced ANYWHERE else w/o expressed written consent of
author
"jw @yoo.hoo>" <jw<no> wrote in message
news:r21og1hqht8csglrqiglvr57nan9vo0q5k@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 03:15:30 GMT, "The Other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yeehaw.com> wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
post can be reproduced ANYWHERE else w/o expressed written consent of
author
"jw @yoo.hoo>" <jw<no> wrote in message
news:lrong1hcd3febkjoceb9tq53ro12hs1jc8@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:10:44 GMT, "Andrealphus"
<NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
post can be reproduced ANYWHERE else w/o expressed written consent of
author
"Robert Neinast" <neinast@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d75a0554758c291989711@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
In article <87ll2to19n.fsf@drizzle.com>, says...
jw <jw<no>@yoo.hoo> writes:
Anyone with a brain can look at the universe around us and see
Intelligent Design.
How do you codify design? What distinguishes a "designed"
object from one that occured randomly? With what precision can you
measure design such that you can determine its presence within a
given
object or artifact?
Well, snowflakes are clearly designed. They form with such
regularity and beauty that God must be carefully placing
each individual molecule in just the right place.
Scientifically explainable and duplicatable in a lab. No God required.
And how many billions of snowflakes have been "naturally and
artificially produced" in a lab?
According to dumbasses like you, the answer is "God's snowcone machine
made
them."
And according to dumbasses like you, there is no God.
Prove that there is a God. Can't do it, can you?
To an open-minded, rational person, that would be no problem, since so
many open-minded, rational people already believe.
Prove that there is no God. Can't do it, can you?
See how that balances out?
To not believe in God, you have to PRETEND that MILLIONS of sane,
rational, educated professional people are not sane, not rational, and
not educated, or professional.
Since you can't do that, it's right back to the FACT that YOU are not
sane, not rational, not educated.
See how that balances out?
Science, on the other hand, determines that it is water crystallization
that
forms snowflakes. I know that learnin' an' ***** runs counter to the way
you
morons prefer to live your lives,
Spoken like the true bigot you are. I know MANY professionals with
MUCH education who are Christians.
I am one of them.
You haven't shown this to be true so far.
Sure I have.
but...well....here is the kinds of
fancy-schmancy stuff that science gives us:
Science is the study of FACTS. Atheism is the avoidance of any facts
that point one to God.
HAHAHAHAHAHA! Nonsense. You have yet to provide any facts that points to
any God.
I wouldn't even attempt such "proof" or "evidence" to a mind as closed
as a steel vault such as yours.
But to prove that there is no God, you have to know EVERYTHING there
is to, and you have to have read everything ever written.
Atheism is not a mental exercise; atheism is an ego trip-- the notion
that you are autonomous.
And may I suggest that you trim your headers and remove the baptist
group.
I and others are PAYING for your nonsense.
jw
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Elementary schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality |
24 Aug 2005 03:15:04 PM |
|
|
"jw @yoo.hoo>" <jw<no> wrote in message
news:j04pg11vc0f4mevfrnnkvv7ttmlce6mm2l@4ax.com...
x-archive: yes
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:40:13 GMT, "Andrealphus"
<NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
post can be reproduced ANYWHERE else w/o expressed written consent of
author
"jw @yoo.hoo>" <jw<no> wrote in message
news:r21og1hqht8csglrqiglvr57nan9vo0q5k@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 03:15:30 GMT, "The Other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yeehaw.com> wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
post can be reproduced ANYWHERE else w/o expressed written consent of
author
"jw @yoo.hoo>" <jw<no> wrote in message
news:lrong1hcd3febkjoceb9tq53ro12hs1jc8@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:10:44 GMT, "Andrealphus"
<NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
post can be reproduced ANYWHERE else w/o expressed written consent of
author
"Robert Neinast" <neinast@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d75a0554758c291989711@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
In article <87ll2to19n.fsf@drizzle.com>, says...
jw <jw<no>@yoo.hoo> writes:
Anyone with a brain can look at the universe around us and see
Intelligent Design.
How do you codify design? What distinguishes a "designed"
object from one that occured randomly? With what precision can you
measure design such that you can determine its presence within a
given
object or artifact?
Well, snowflakes are clearly designed. They form with such
regularity and beauty that God must be carefully placing
each individual molecule in just the right place.
Scientifically explainable and duplicatable in a lab. No God
required.
And how many billions of snowflakes have been "naturally and
artificially produced" in a lab?
According to dumbasses like you, the answer is "God's snowcone machine
made
them."
And according to dumbasses like you, there is no God.
Prove that there is a God. Can't do it, can you?
To an open-minded, rational person, that would be no problem, since so
many open-minded, rational people already believe.
Using current scientific method, prove that there is a God. If you even
approach this sort of rational, believe me I will listen. Otherwise your
"To an open-minded blah, blah, blah" is nothing but avoidance on your part.
Prove that there is no God. Can't do it, can you?
It's not my burden of proof. You claimed that there is a God, the burden of
proof for that claim is on your shoulders.
See how that balances out?
To not believe in God,
Prove that there is a God.
See how that balances out?
Science, on the other hand, determines that it is water crystallization
that
forms snowflakes. I know that learnin' an' ***** runs counter to the way
you
morons prefer to live your lives,
Spoken like the true bigot you are. I know MANY professionals with
MUCH education who are Christians.
I am one of them.
You haven't shown this to be true so far.
Sure I have.
No, you haven't.
but...well....here is the kinds of
fancy-schmancy stuff that science gives us:
Science is the study of FACTS. Atheism is the avoidance of any facts
that point one to God.
HAHAHAHAHAHA! Nonsense. You have yet to provide any facts that points
to
any God.
I wouldn't even attempt such "proof" or "evidence" to a mind as closed
as a steel vault such as yours.
Then you lose.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Elementary schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality |
24 Aug 2005 10:35:29 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:24:42 -0700, jw <jw<no>@yoo.hoo> wrote:
x-archive: yes
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:40:13 GMT, "Andrealphus"
<NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
post can be reproduced ANYWHERE else w/o expressed written consent of
author
"jw @yoo.hoo>" <jw<no> wrote in message
news:r21og1hqht8csglrqiglvr57nan9vo0q5k@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 03:15:30 GMT, "The Other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yeehaw.com> wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
post can be reproduced ANYWHERE else w/o expressed written consent of
author
"jw @yoo.hoo>" <jw<no> wrote in message
news:lrong1hcd3febkjoceb9tq53ro12hs1jc8@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:10:44 GMT, "Andrealphus"
<NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
post can be reproduced ANYWHERE else w/o expressed written consent of
author
"Robert Neinast" <neinast@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d75a0554758c291989711@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
In article <87ll2to19n.fsf@drizzle.com>, says...
jw <jw<no>@yoo.hoo> writes:
Anyone with a brain can look at the universe around us and see
Intelligent Design.
How do you codify design? What distinguishes a "designed"
object from one that occured randomly? With what precision can you
measure design such that you can determine its presence within a
given
object or artifact?
Well, snowflakes are clearly designed. They form with such
regularity and beauty that God must be carefully placing
each individual molecule in just the right place.
Scientifically explainable and duplicatable in a lab. No God required.
And how many billions of snowflakes have been "naturally and
artificially produced" in a lab?
According to dumbasses like you, the answer is "God's snowcone machine
made
them."
And according to dumbasses like you, there is no God.
Prove that there is a God. Can't do it, can you?
To an open-minded, rational person, that would be no problem, since so
many open-minded, rational people already believe.
Prove that there is no God. Can't do it, can you?
See how that balances out?
To not believe in God, you have to PRETEND that MILLIONS of sane,
rational, educated professional people are not sane, not rational, and
not educated, or professional.
Since you can't do that, it's right back to the FACT that YOU are not
sane, not rational, not educated.
I see...you claim someone is 'rational', and then go on to conclude
that if they believe in god, that belief is also rational.
Do tell, how is a belief in an invisible, omnipotent, omniscient being
for which there is no actual evidence 'rational'?
Or do you think it's impossible for otherwise rational people to hold
some irrational beliefs? Because if holding even ONE irrational belief
makes you irrational, then you have just condemned the entire human
race as such.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Elementary schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality |
24 Aug 2005 10:35:31 AM |
|
|
jw <jw wrote:
x-archive: yes
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:40:13 GMT, "Andrealphus"
<NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
post can be reproduced ANYWHERE else w/o expressed written consent of
author
"jw @yoo.hoo>" <jw<no> wrote in message
news:r21og1hqht8csglrqiglvr57nan9vo0q5k@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 03:15:30 GMT, "The Other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yeehaw.com> wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
post can be reproduced ANYWHERE else w/o expressed written consent of
author
"jw @yoo.hoo>" <jw<no> wrote in message
news:lrong1hcd3febkjoceb9tq53ro12hs1jc8@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:10:44 GMT, "Andrealphus"
<NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
post can be reproduced ANYWHERE else w/o expressed written consent of
author
"Robert Neinast" <neinast@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d75a0554758c291989711@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
In article <87ll2to19n.fsf@drizzle.com>, says...
jw <jw<no>@yoo.hoo> writes:
Anyone with a brain can look at the universe around us and see
Intelligent Design.
How do you codify design? What distinguishes a "designed"
object from one that occured randomly? With what precision can you
measure design such that you can determine its presence within a
given
object or artifact?
Well, snowflakes are clearly designed. They form with such
regularity and beauty that God must be carefully placing
each individual molecule in just the right place.
Scientifically explainable and duplicatable in a lab. No God required.
And how many billions of snowflakes have been "naturally and
artificially produced" in a lab?
According to dumbasses like you, the answer is "God's snowcone machine
made
them."
And according to dumbasses like you, there is no God.
Prove that there is a God. Can't do it, can you?
To an open-minded, rational person, that would be no problem, since so
many open-minded, rational people already believe.
Then prove there is a aGod.
Prove that there is no God. Can't do it, can you?
I can. Ra. Extrapolate
See how that balances out?
No. I have evidence of no-God. You do not have any evidence of God.
To not believe in God, you have to PRETEND that MILLIONS of sane,
rational, educated professional people are not sane, not rational, and
not educated, or professional.
To believe in the Christian god (as evidenced by your use of the capital
G), you have to PRETEND that MILLIONS of sane, rational, educated
professional people are not sane, not rational, and not educated, or
professional.
In fact, 2/3rds of the world does not believe as you do.
Since you can't do that, it's right back to the FACT that YOU are not
sane, not rational, not educated.
Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Attack the subject, not the person.
See how that balances out?
Science, on the other hand, determines that it is water crystallization
that
forms snowflakes. I know that learnin' an' ***** runs counter to the way
you
morons prefer to live your lives,
Spoken like the true bigot you are. I know MANY professionals with
MUCH education who are Christians.
I am one of them.
You haven't shown this to be true so far.
Sure I have.
Where?
but...well....here is the kinds of
fancy-schmancy stuff that science gives us:
Science is the study of FACTS. Atheism is the avoidance of any facts
that point one to God.
HAHAHAHAHAHA! Nonsense. You have yet to provide any facts that points to
any God.
I wouldn't even attempt such "proof" or "evidence" to a mind as closed
as a steel vault such as yours.
Yet you've closed your mind to the possibility of no-god. Aren't you
being just a tad hypocritical?
But to prove that there is no God, you have to know EVERYTHING there
is to, and you have to have read everything ever written.
Not really. Just need for logical extrapolation. The subject for the
extrapolation? Ra.
Atheism is not a mental exercise; atheism is an ego trip-- the notion
that you are autonomous.
We are autonomous, and it's not an ego trip. The only ego trip is on
the religious folks who believe that the supreme creator of the universe
created the ENTIRE UNIVERSE solely for them, and that everything in this
universe is ours, we own it, including the animals that this supreme
creator put on this planet.
And may I suggest that you trim your headers and remove the baptist
group.
As soon as you remove the headers to remove the atheism group.
I and others are PAYING for your nonsense.
As am I paying for YOUR nonsense.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Elementary schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality |
23 Aug 2005 11:48:39 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:10:44 GMT, "Andrealphus"
<NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
post can be reproduced ANYWHERE else w/o expressed written consent of
author
"Robert Neinast" <neinast@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d75a0554758c291989711@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
In article <87ll2to19n.fsf@drizzle.com>, says...
jw <jw<no>@yoo.hoo> writes:
Anyone with a brain can look at the universe around us and see
Intelligent Design.
How do you codify design? What distinguishes a "designed"
object from one that occured randomly? With what precision can you
measure design such that you can determine its presence within a
given object or artifact?
Well, snowflakes are clearly designed. They form with such
regularity and beauty that God must be carefully placing
each individual molecule in just the right place.
Scientifically explainable and duplicatable in a lab. No God
required.
And how many billions of snowflakes have been "naturally and
artificially produced" in a lab?
Lab? Who needs a lab? Snow making machines are commercially available and
used at many ski resorts.
.
|
|
| | | | | |
