Science > Abortion > Talk.Origins banned subject: Evolutionist promotes abortion.
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"JaBrIoL" |
| Date: |
27 Oct 2003 08:53:38 AM |
| Object: |
Talk.Origins banned subject: Evolutionist promotes abortion. |
From another thread, replying to Zechriel...
uh.. yes it does. atheist will use evolution to hammer in the point, that
there is no superior intelligence responsible for the emergence of man.
Why do you consider this so important? Evolution is not a spiritual
issue.
Sh't happens. It's a scientific fact.
[jabriol replies in bracket's hence: "It is, it may not affect a
scientist or any other highly educated individual, if they can grasp
facts of bio-cellular evolution.
It is your commoner I am concern about. The perception of the origin
of man may affect his viewpoint on life and Morals. This is the issue
that I have raised on Talk.origins, which had them pulling out their
hair at the roots, and foaming of the mouth, which eventually got me
banned from T.O. because I invited other groups to participate in the
conversation.
Look at the abortion issue. I can make the case, that the reason, a
mother kill their children is based on the collective instintual
conscience of our species to maintain a healthy viable species. In
effect population control would allow enough resources for all. So
killing a preborn human child is acceptable and quite natural.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evolution is not a spiritual issue. The spirtual issue is love of
neighbor
and love of God.
[wrong, an atheist who is also an scientist can equate love to evolved
hormonal necessary response to ensue survival of the species via
reproduction. God is not needed nor require, belief in a God is
primitive and it is for the ignorant. Therfore morals are adjusted and
we have a more egotistical society.
"love thy neigbour" can equate to human being a social interdependant
species, that relies on group cooperation for survival. The family
being the smallest and the core of larger groups durring a less
advance society. Again God is not needed or require. This occurs
because God is elevated to a supranatural mystical fairy, who throws a
tantrum when he does not get his way... this percept is not even
scriptual, and is adopted from other culture, where semochristian has
put this concept into folklore.]
---------------------------------------------------------------
If you wish to make an argument with some integrity, then
remind people that over-concern with the material things in life can
distract us from what's really important, such as family.
[again not a concern from an atheist and scientific point of view.. A
family is no longer require for modern survival, it may have been
important 100 yrs ago. But not today. Hence sexual iresponsability
like that of a few sport figures, in the past and the future is just a
highlight of what occur in our society today. Resources it was
important to survival. in the past a Family or a clan all function
together to gather resources for the use of all. Today, the
corporations and financial institution provides this.. a God is not
needed or required]
---------------------------------------------------------------
Or that modern
genetics might lead to consequences that few of us can imagine, and
that we
should strive for the moral and ethical use of this impending
artificial
evolution. But to argue that the world is flat, is just plain silly.
[Who is saying that?]
---------------------------------------------------------------
in fact there would be no natural selection. It would be divine selection,
and this would drive atheist nuts.
Is this your assertion, that life evolved, but was divinely directed?
[while I do enjoy to drive atheist a bit batty from time to time, this
is not my assertion, and I argue against it constantly... I was making
a point to differenciate, atheistic evolution, and those
PseudoChristian evolutionist]
------------------------------------------------------------
This
would be consistent with a great deal of the evidence. However, the
mechanism of heredity, the chemical DNA, is now quite well understood.
Mutations really are random. You could posit that the Divine Selector
is
well-hidden, an ocassional tweak to a lightning bolt or two, but you
would
have to admit that there is no evidence of this, and it isn't required
to
explain the available observations.
[my assertion is a bit different Kronk an myself talk about this at
length, he ended up calling me an Interventionist}
---------------------------------------------------------------
how would you convince an atheist, that evolution was divinly driven?
The usual way. With evidence.
[which would not happen even if evidence was present, the prejudicial
mindset has been laid out for decades against a designer]
--------------------------------------------------------------
on top of this, evolution would not be allowed to be taught in public school
because of the Establisment clause.
Duh. There is no evidence of your assertion.
[the establishment cause is going to the supreme Court]
.
|
|
| User: "Dr. DuFonet" |
|
| Title: Re: Talk.Origins banned subject: Evolutionist promotes abortion. |
28 Oct 2003 09:20:44 AM |
|
|
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0310270653.3f855234@posting.google.com...
From another thread, replying to Zechriel...
uh.. yes it does. atheist will use evolution to hammer in the point,
that
there is no superior intelligence responsible for the emergence of man.
Why do you consider this so important? Evolution is not a spiritual
issue.
Sh't happens. It's a scientific fact.
Welcome to my killfile.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Raymond E. Griffith" |
|
| Title: Re: Talk.Origins banned subject: Evolutionist promotes abortion. |
27 Oct 2003 11:04:53 AM |
|
|
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0310270653.3f855234@posting.google.com...
From another thread, replying to Zechriel...
It would have helped if you had identified the thread. "Re: Abiogenesis",
October 14, 2003. Also, your formatting leaves something to be desired here.
uh.. yes it does. atheist will use evolution to hammer in the point,
that
there is no superior intelligence responsible for the emergence of man.
Why do you consider this so important? Evolution is not a spiritual
issue.
Sh't happens. It's a scientific fact.
[jabriol replies in bracket's hence: "It is, it may not affect a
scientist or any other highly educated individual, if they can grasp
facts of bio-cellular evolution.
It is your commoner I am concern about. The perception of the origin
of man may affect his viewpoint on life and Morals. This is the issue
that I have raised on Talk.origins, which had them pulling out their
hair at the roots, and foaming of the mouth, which eventually got me
banned from T.O. because I invited other groups to participate in the
conversation.
I am not in any position to discuss what T.O. did or did not do, and whether
the moderator was or was not right to do it.
But yes, the perception of the origin of man *may* affect his viewpoint on
life and Morals. However, that being said, the Truth is always better than a
Lie. Better to know the *reality* of things (including our present
uncertainties) than to simply believe something that is not true at all.
Look at the abortion issue. I can make the case, that the reason, a
mother kill their children is based on the collective instintual
conscience of our species to maintain a healthy viable species. In
effect population control would allow enough resources for all. So
killing a preborn human child is acceptable and quite natural.
You *could* make the case. However, this does not have to be the outcome.
You could also make the case that, in many species, the young are vigorously
defended. Yes, it is true that many young ones do not survive.
But just because something is *natural* does not make it *right*. We have
developed a sense of right and wrong that rises above our environment. Since
we have the ability to manipulate our environment, we have the ability to
rise above the mere "animal" fates. We control fire. Without fire (as we
would "naturally" be), we would quickly perish. But we do not take our
morals from this. We define the good of the whole to include the good of the
individuals.
Being a scientist and using evolution as a factual and theoretical tool does
not make someone more prone to murderous or predatory behavior.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evolution is not a spiritual issue. The spirtual issue is love of
neighbor
and love of God.
[wrong, an atheist who is also an scientist can equate love to evolved
hormonal necessary response to ensue survival of the species via
reproduction. God is not needed nor require, belief in a God is
primitive and it is for the ignorant. Therfore morals are adjusted and
we have a more egotistical society.
Not necessarily. And even if it *could* happen, that doesn't mean that it
*will*. And even if some people *do* go this route, it is not required nor
does it happen even a majority of the time.
I could object to all guns on the viewpoint that guns change morality. A
person with a gun is much more likely to commit armed robbery and murder
than a person without a gun. So guns cause murder and death! ---- Except
they don't. The gun as a tool may (and indeed is) subject to abuse. That
does not mean banning the tool.
Similarly with evolution. Even were some to abuse it (and some do), that is
no reason to object to it.
"love thy neigbour" can equate to human being a social interdependant
species, that relies on group cooperation for survival. The family
being the smallest and the core of larger groups durring a less
advance society. Again God is not needed or require. This occurs
because God is elevated to a supranatural mystical fairy, who throws a
tantrum when he does not get his way... this percept is not even
scriptual, and is adopted from other culture, where semochristian has
put this concept into folklore.]
However the God of the Bible is routinely seen as exterminating His enemies
and the enemies of His people, supporting slavery, etc. God told Moses to
leave Him alone so He could violate His promise and exterminate the nation
of Israel after they fell into idolatry. It really isn't hard to see why
people would get this concept of God. Obviously He does not love everyone
alike, for "Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated". God commanded
disobedient children to be stoned, victims of rape to be married to their
rapist, and the hands of women defending their husband to be cut off if they
should happen to grab the person assaulting their husband by the genitals.
You have Christians who engage in the most obnoxious behavior, lying to
support their "faith", persecuting other Christians who do not believe as
they do in certain areas, and (in short) *not* practicing the very
fundamentals of the faith they claim to have.
So tell me that a "Christian perspective" has the proper influence on
morals. You have some Christians today who will tell you that slavery ought
to be an approved institution. Some Christians believe in polygamy, although
a lot more believe in serial monogamy. And you can't blame evolution for
their beliefs or behaviors.
---------------------------------------------------------------
If you wish to make an argument with some integrity, then
remind people that over-concern with the material things in life can
distract us from what's really important, such as family.
[again not a concern from an atheist and scientific point of view.. A
family is no longer require for modern survival, it may have been
important 100 yrs ago. But not today. Hence sexual iresponsability
like that of a few sport figures, in the past and the future is just a
highlight of what occur in our society today. Resources it was
important to survival. in the past a Family or a clan all function
together to gather resources for the use of all. Today, the
corporations and financial institution provides this.. a God is not
needed or required]
---------------------------------------------------------------
Or that modern
genetics might lead to consequences that few of us can imagine, and
that we
should strive for the moral and ethical use of this impending
artificial
evolution. But to argue that the world is flat, is just plain silly.
[Who is saying that?]
---------------------------------------------------------------
in fact there would be no natural selection. It would be divine
selection,
and this would drive atheist nuts.
Is this your assertion, that life evolved, but was divinely directed?
[while I do enjoy to drive atheist a bit batty from time to time, this
is not my assertion, and I argue against it constantly... I was making
a point to differenciate, atheistic evolution, and those
PseudoChristian evolutionist]
So all Christians who believe in evolution are "pseudo". I reject that
characterization.
------------------------------------------------------------
This
would be consistent with a great deal of the evidence. However, the
mechanism of heredity, the chemical DNA, is now quite well understood.
Mutations really are random. You could posit that the Divine Selector
is
well-hidden, an ocassional tweak to a lightning bolt or two, but you
would
have to admit that there is no evidence of this, and it isn't required
to
explain the available observations.
[my assertion is a bit different Kronk an myself talk about this at
length, he ended up calling me an Interventionist}
---------------------------------------------------------------
how would you convince an atheist, that evolution was divinly driven?
The usual way. With evidence.
[which would not happen even if evidence was present, the prejudicial
mindset has been laid out for decades against a designer]
Nope. Even the Bible tells us that we cannot by searching find out God. But
the Scriptural idea of sowing and reaping, cause and effect is directly
infused into the fabric of scientific thought. What is remarkable -- and
scary to the creationist -- is that on every front where we faced the
"unknowable" and consigned that to God, science has found a way to know and
find positive proof of natual processes at work. Call that a testimony to
God's consistency if you like. But science neither sets out to disprove God
nor to prove Him. Science looks at the principles of cause and effect. Which
is why science changes its positions from time to time. Evidence is
evidence, and we value it above our preconceived ideas.
But as to your major premise: I find it distasteful to object to truth being
taught because the truth might ruin someone's morals. When Christianity has
to lie to produce acceptable results, then Christianity will have failed its
own moral tests.
--------------------------------------------------------------
on top of this, evolution would not be allowed to be taught in public
school
because of the Establisment clause.
Duh. There is no evidence of your assertion.
[the establishment cause is going to the supreme Court]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Talk.Origins banned subject: Evolutionist promotes abortion. |
27 Oct 2003 03:04:42 PM |
|
|
On 27 Oct 2003, "Raymond E. Griffith" <tiffirgrREVERSE@ctc.net> screwed
up his face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message
in news:9eGdnVXZs_Wi0ACiRVn-sA@ctc.net:
I am not in any position to discuss what T.O. did or did not do, and
whether the moderator was or was not right to do it.
Apparently, they use a moderator bot that doesn't allow messages cross-
posted to more than four groups to be posted. Jabberwocky knows this
(the lying *****), Jabberwocky posted to more than four groups anyway
(the conniving *****), and now Jabberwocky claims that T.O. banned him
(the slimy deceitful *****), and continually posts messages cross-posted
to more than four groups, which don't get through, of course, then he
spams everyone else with his whining about how he got banneded, da poor
little lying *****.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Talk.Origins banned subject: Evolutionist promotes abortion. |
27 Oct 2003 05:32:29 PM |
|
|
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns942199698F1C0Mekkala@199.45.49.11...
On 27 Oct 2003, "Raymond E. Griffith" <tiffirgrREVERSE@ctc.net> screwed
up his face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message
in news:9eGdnVXZs_Wi0ACiRVn-sA@ctc.net:
I am not in any position to discuss what T.O. did or did not do, and
whether the moderator was or was not right to do it.
Apparently, they use a moderator bot that doesn't allow messages cross-
posted to more than four groups to be posted. Jabberwocky knows this
(the lying *****), Jabberwocky posted to more than four groups anyway
(the conniving *****), and now Jabberwocky claims that T.O. banned him
(the slimy deceitful *****), and continually posts messages cross-posted
to more than four groups, which don't get through, of course, then he
spams everyone else with his whining about how he got banneded, da poor
little lying *****.
Another clueless individual....
the 4 group rule was never a problem. kind of wonder when atheists become
atheist do they rely on all the facts, or just parrot what other say.
tell you what go to talk.origins and ask for the facts.
in this fashion, you will not look the fool in front of millions, as you are
presently doing now..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Christian" |
|
| Title: Re: Talk.Origins banned subject: Evolutionist promotes abortion. |
28 Oct 2003 10:31:08 AM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@bluegender.org> wrote in message news:<hWhnb.3774682$Bf5.513620@news.easynews.com>...
the 4 group rule was never a problem. kind of wonder when atheists become
atheist do they rely on all the facts, or just parrot what other say.
tell you what go to talk.origins and ask for the facts.
in this fashion, you will not look the fool in front of millions, as you are
presently doing now..
Hush up, limp *****.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Slate" |
|
| Title: Re: Talk.Origins banned subject: Evolutionist promotes abortion. |
28 Oct 2003 01:02:11 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 23:32:29 GMT, "jabriol" <jabriol@bluegender.org>
wrote:
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns942199698F1C0Mekkala@199.45.49.11...
On 27 Oct 2003, "Raymond E. Griffith" <tiffirgrREVERSE@ctc.net> screwed
up his face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message
in news:9eGdnVXZs_Wi0ACiRVn-sA@ctc.net:
<Snip>....
the 4 group rule was never a problem. kind of wonder when atheists become
atheist do they rely on all the facts, or just parrot what other say.
We're all born atheists. Babies know only three things at birth.
They know how to suck, cry, and breathe. Everything else is learned.
As far as religions and their gods are concerned, all we know of them
are taught to us by our parents. As we grow, we either choose the
blind faith our parents taught us, or logic.
<Snip>...
Slate
"Believing is easier than thinking. Hence so many more believers than
thinkers." [Bruce Calvert]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JaBrIoL" |
|
| Title: Re: Talk.Origins banned subject: Evolutionist promotes abortion. |
28 Oct 2003 06:23:07 AM |
|
|
Philip Deitiker <Nopdeitik@att.net.spam> wrote in message news:<kebrpvchctksaak94odtup2h9n3cfr54e9@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 23:32:29 GMT, "jabriol"
<jabriol@bluegender.org> did some sarious thank'n and
scribbled:
Apparently, they use a moderator bot that doesn't allow messages cross-
posted to more than four groups to be posted. Jabberwocky knows this
(the lying *****), Jabberwocky posted to more than four groups anyway
(the conniving *****), and now Jabberwocky claims that T.O. banned him
(the slimy deceitful *****), and continually posts messages cross-posted
to more than four groups, which don't get through, of course, then he
spams everyone else with his whining about how he got banneded, da poor
little lying *****.
Another clueless individual....
the 4 group rule was never a problem. kind of wonder when atheists become
atheist do they rely on all the facts, or just parrot what other say.
tell you what go to talk.origins and ask for the facts.
in this fashion, you will not look the fool in front of millions, as you are
presently doing now..
See, now, I crossposted this between talk.origins and
news.groups.
your point?
However you seem to be utterly clueless. No-one in
talk.origins wants to read you xposts, and no-one in
newgroups wants to read your complaints.
ahh I see, now you speak for newsgroups as well,
what happen SAP rejected your self-appointed moderatorship?
If people in talk.origins folks appear to think you are
being victimized then the folks in news.group might be more
(ueselessly) sympathetic, but all they are seeing is how
much folks in talk.origins don't care about your definitiion
of content and how they are real damn happy you don't post
there anymore.
actually Lane Lewis does agree... that there is content moderation.
And some people do like and agree with communism.. so?
The folks in s.a.p. are only envious of
talk.origins in this regard.
yes.. who on SAP beside yourself exactly?
ed conrad?
Now the folks in news.groups
are probably wondering why you are xposting material about
the charter of talk.origins and on Evolution/Abortion
subject, there must be some kind of netidiot index you score
on.
I see and they told you this..when?
So even if you had the sympathy of talk.origins folks
(an BTW, not a single person gave a message of support,
they are probly afraid to. Censorship and bannishment does that to people.
they
all support your right to post,
suuuuure they do.. ssssssssssssssuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure they do.
but they more or less don't
care if you can propogate your message beyond that, in fact
most seem to support the limitations, and the ones that
don't, they don't think your current treatment a problem)
you would loose it by posting crap like this in their group.
of course, many nations support castro.. your point is?
So, all in all, I have to say you are a clueless loser and
you are losing even more with every post you post.
says the one, that feel the need to reply to my post in this regards..
But you know that, you are only posting to annoy people,
isn't that right Jabriol, this is all show to make some
point that you are the slaughter lamb of god, you annoy
people causing them to react and then when they react you
claim you are being victimized. Outside of possible 1 or 2
people in New Jersey I think that very few people in this
world would see this behavior as wise or even productive and
certainly not reflective of biblical or christian values,
but you know this also, because the belief you follow is
rather indifferent to both, isn't that right, Jabby.
nope your wrong..
and remeber atheist and evolutionist do not accept christian morals
do your point is mute.
..................snip the rest........................................
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
