"Christian Lies" - (Repost)

Religions > Atheism > "Christian Lies" - (Repost)

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 2 of 3

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Ugly Anna"
Date:	19 Aug 2006 08:43:24 PM
Object:	"Christian Lies" - (Repost)

Common lies Christians tell that are ABSOLUTELY FALSE!
I deal with Christian lies on a daily basis. These lies range
from the myth that Einstein was a theist, to the claim that there is
conclusive evidence for Jesus' existence. I had to make this page so
that I could collect some common lies told and present the truth
behind the matter. There are hundreds of things I feel compelled to
discuss but I shall limit it to a top five list. The top five lies
Christian's tell:
Darwin recanted on his deathbed. This is completely fabricated and has
no foundation in truth whatsoever. A woman named "Lady Hope" spoke to
a church group shortly after the death of Charles Darwin. She claimed
that she was at Darwin's bedside on the day of his death. She also
claimed that Darwin recanted on evolution and accepted Jesus on his
deathbed. Her claims are not only unsupported, but are directly
opposed by Darwin's daughter, Henrietta. Henrietta stated "I was
present at his deathbed, Lady Hope was not present during his last
illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any
case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or
belief. My father never recanted any of his scientific views, either
then or earlier. I am upset that the U.S. Christians have fabricated
this conversion nonsense. The whole story has no foundation
whatever." February 23, 1922.
Evolution has been proven false (is only a theory). Evolution can be
divided into two parts, macro and micro. Micro evolution is a fact,
where as macro evolution remains a theory due to debates on the exact
steps of the evolutionary process. EVOLUTION DID HAPPEN we simply
can't trace the exact evolutionary steps of the of the 3 trillion plus
species on earth. Considering there is no way that we can even prove
if we have located all the species on earth, this may always remain a
theory. We can prove though, beyond a doubt, that humans have
evolved. We can trace it back conclusively 3.6 million years. 97% of
all scientists accept evolution (so does the Catholic Church).
Christians have spread lies about this excessively, they especially
like to say evolution preaches that Humans evolved from monkeys.
Evolution does not state that humans evolved from monkeys, that idea
is completely absurd. Science states that monkeys and humans evolved
from a shared forefather and are hence relatives, (all primates are)
but we are in no way direct descendants of them.
Atheists have no morals. All one has to do is take a look at the
American prison system. Nearly 76% of violent criminals are Christian
and NO, most of these Christians did not convert after conviction,
they were Christian at the time of the crime. The greatest genocides
in human history stemmed from the Christian faith. If you examine
secular societies in comparison to religious societies; secular
societies will consistently have less crime, unemployment, corruption
and more freedom, share of wealth and a higher standard of living.
Nearly EVERY single advancement towards morality (I.E: ceasing native
genocide, freeing the slaves and women's suffrage) was OPPOSED by the
church and Christian organizations.
This United States is a country founded on Christianity. This is the
biggest sack of horse ***** and only an EXTREME MORON would believe
something this retarded. The VERY FIRST AMENDMENT of the constitution
is based on the Separation of church and state. The paramount reason
why the forefathers came to this country was for religious freedom.
They listed it as their top goal in forming America. Matter of fact
most of the fore fathers weren't even Christian, but deist, atheist
and agnostic. I could site thousands of quotes which ***** on this lie
from Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Paine, etc. but I shouldn't need
to, considering the reading of the constitution is a 4th grade
curriculum requirement.
There are no atheists in foxholes. I hear this one on a weekly basis
and it never ceases to amuse/disgust me. One third of the world's
population does not believe in a deity. The largest concentration of
free thinkers is found in Asia, which participated in each world war
and have been feuding over territory with the surrounding regions for
thousands of years (especially Japan and China). My father is an
atheist and served during the Berlin Crisis. I am an atheist and
though I wasn't in a fox hole, I faced death while giving birth and I
tell you that the thought about God NEVER crossed my mind when I heard
my condition could be fatal. I have had the privilege to meet
hundreds of atheists who served in WW2 and Vietnam, each of whom sat
in fox holes. For more information about atheists in the military see
the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers website.
.

User: "Lucifer"
Title: Re: "Christian Lies" - (Repost)	20 Aug 2006 01:40:32 AM

Back under your bridge john weatherly...
TROLL-O-METER
.. 0 1 2 3 4 5
.. +---+--+---+---+---+
^
.

User: "Vernon there@athere"
Title: Re: "Christian Lies" - (Repost)	20 Aug 2006 09:14:19 AM

"Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156056032.275810.196150@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Back under your bridge john weatherly...

TROLL-O-METER
. 0 1 2 3 4 5
. +---+--+---+---+---+
^

The TROLL started the thread, idiot.
.

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: "Christian Lies" - (Repost)	19 Aug 2006 11:11:34 PM

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 20:55:34 -0700, in alt.atheism , john w
<johnw<no>@yoo.how> in <5imfe2t0j367a2emue2cavqs56cha23vqr@4ax.com>
wrote:

x-no-archive: yes
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 21:43:24 -0400, Ugly Anna <Tbone415@aol.com>
wrote:
� 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of this
article may be used elsewhere without express written consent of the
author

EVOLUTION DID HAPPEN we simply

can't trace the exact evolutionary steps of the of the 3 trillion plus
species on earth.

Ah hah! Thanks for clearing that up! "Evolution is a FACT! We just
have no PROOF of that FACT!"

We have lots and lots of *evidence*. Science, however, does not deal
in proof.

I couldn't have said it better myself! I in fact own the world's only
living 24 foot tall green rabbit. I declare this to be absolute
incontrovertible truth! However, in the last 30 attempts, I have been
unable to photography my 24 foot tall green rabbit! But IT DOES EXIST!

Too bad. How about some evidence for evolution instead:
Observed Instances of Speciation
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Some More Observed Speciation Events
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
There is an enormous difference between having nothing and having a
detail history of the last 3,000,000,000 year for each population on
Earth. Consider this: there is no one on Earth who knows the names of
all their ancestors for the last 2,000 years. Don't ask for details
that you would not expect to exist.
[snip]

I still know a number of very reliable, very professional scientists
who believe in special creation.

Any of them biologists?

Why is that such a big deal to you?

It is a big deal when people keep trying to get science class to teach
their religious views. I don't want the government promoting any
religion.

And not only is the likelihood of the existence of God quite easy to
prove, the probability of creation is likewise quite easy to
establish.

I've actually seen evolution totally tossed in the crapper by a can of
tuna fish!

;-)

I gather that statement did not mean anything.

In fact, the "tuna fish proof" of creation became so infamous a proof
that -- last time I heard-- the "scientists" who continue to push
evolution had to revise the model.

smirk.

I assume that you think she is making stuff up so you are making stuff
up as well.

Christians have spread lies about this excessively,

Well, let's say that Christians have been ready and willing to present
the creation side, since those who preach unproved evolution so
readily preach theirs!

(that's called "equal time.")

No, it is not. It is called *science* class. And so they should
present *science*. If you want to use it to present equal time for
religious views then there are thousands of religious stories to
present and not just on biology. If you want science, though,
creationism has not been valid accepted science for over 150 years.

they especially

like to say evolution preaches that Humans evolved from monkeys.
Evolution does not state that humans evolved from monkeys, that idea
is completely absurd.

You strain all the gnats out while you swallow the camel whole

The issue of where we came from boils down to this: Evolution preaches
that all life (men, monkeys, dogs, donkeys) came by WHATEVER process
from "the soup".

No, it gives lots of evidence and information about the process from
the original life to today.

Let's take a little different tack. Let's say that evolution preaches
that man evolved from something on the order of a frog!

Why? Both preach and frog are wrong.

The creationist says, "well, if you believe THAT nonsense, then you
are admitting OPENLY that you believe in FAIRY TALES!

But the overwhelming vast majority of biologists disagree.

If you believe that man evolved from the frog (or something similar in
the "food chain"), you are saying you believe the story of the
princess who kissed the frog and it turned into a prince!

Same story, different timeline!

Different story, different nonsense.

And-- after all-- EVERYBODY KNOWS that the "Princess and the Enchanted
Frog" is a fairytale.

But put different labels on the life forms, and stretch out the
timeline, and you call it "evolution."

No thanks!

Where in the world did you get these odd ideas? They are strange even
for creationism. As Pauli famously said, that's not right, that's not
even wrong.
We have *millions* of pieces of evidence from multiple lines that all
point to common descent of all life from a common ancestral
population. You strawman bares no relationship to the actual science.

[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.

User: "john w"
Title: Re: "Christian Lies" - (Repost)	20 Aug 2006 05:41:03 AM

x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 04:11:34 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
� 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of this
article may be used elsewhere without express written consent of the
author

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 20:55:34 -0700, in alt.atheism , john w
<johnw<no>@yoo.how> in <5imfe2t0j367a2emue2cavqs56cha23vqr@4ax.com>
wrote:

EVOLUTION DID HAPPEN we simply

can't trace the exact evolutionary steps of the of the 3 trillion plus
species on earth.

Ah hah! Thanks for clearing that up! "Evolution is a FACT! We just
have no PROOF of that FACT!"

We have lots and lots of *evidence*. Science, however, does not deal
in proof.

Too bad. How about some evidence for evolution instead:

Observed Instances of Speciation
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Some More Observed Speciation Events
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

There is an enormous difference between having nothing and having a
detail history of the last 3,000,000,000 year for each population on
Earth. Consider this: there is no one on Earth who knows the names of
all their ancestors for the last 2,000 years. Don't ask for details
that you would not expect to exist.

[snip]

I still know a number of very reliable, very professional scientists
who believe in special creation.

Any of them biologists?

Yep. One is a microbiologist (ex-sister-in-law)
Also a nuclear physicist (worked on the Manhattan Project) and a
physicist.
Would you call an MD or a RN a "biologist?" I would.
I know quite a few MDs and RNs who are Christians and Creationists.
My old dr in Los Angeles, Dr A Leonard Klepp, a MD in Nutrition, and a
founding fellow in the Geneva School of Applied Nutrition ( a B I G
deal) was a creationist. (long since passed)

Why is that such a big deal to you?

It is a big deal when people keep trying to get science class to teach
their religious views. I don't want the government promoting any
religion.

Well, since many of us believe that evolution is a "religious view",
we merely seek equal time.
I've tried to talk to probably 2 dozen (at least) evolutionist
scientists about special creation, and all I got was "not interested!"
When I asked them why, I got, "I'm an atheist, so I CAN'T believe in
Creation, because I don't believe there is a God who could have
created it all! I am "stuck" with evolution."
That's not "science'; that's religion.

I gather that statement did not mean anything.

I gather you'd rather maintain your VERY tightly closed mind than to
ASK what I meant.
suits me fine!

In fact, the "tuna fish proof" of creation became so infamous a proof
that -- last time I heard-- the "scientists" who continue to push
evolution had to revise the model.

smirk.

I assume that you think she is making stuff up so you are making stuff
up as well.

Not at all. If you walked into a Christian bookstore (if you DARED
open your mind that much), and if you asked for the "proof of
creation" section, I am sorry I don't recall the title, but it's a
short book, perhaps 100 pages.
It presents the following allegory.
A group of say a dozen scientists are on their way by airplane to a
conference somewhere. They plan on being gone for awhile, perhaps a
sabbatical, so they have brought all sorts of equipment, a car, all
sorts of food, a tractor, etc.
Well, the airplane crashes into the jungle near a tribe of Aborigines.
All the scientists survive the crash, but the plane is TOTALED, so
they are forced to plan on the long haul (this is before cell phones,
so there is no communication with the outside world)
Well, the Aborigines turn out to be -- not educated perhaps-- but VERY
bright, and they soon begin learning the language of the scientists,
and they begin teaching the scientists bout the Aborigine culture.
They're sitting around 2 campfires one night, eating dinner and
talking. One thing that HAS happened is that at certain times, the two
groups (Aborigines and scientists) divide, and group SEPARATELY.
By now, the Aborigines have learned to open the canned food, and they
have learned to drive the car and the tractor, and they've taught the
scientists how to cook Aborigine style.
One night, the Aborigines happen to overhear the scientists laughing
and joking about how silly it is that some STILL (even in this, the
20th Century) believe in God! FOOLISH!
The Aborigine chief gets up from his campfire and walks over to the
scientists. He says to one of the scientists, "I hear you guys don't
believe in God!"
The scientist says, "That's correct!" with a smug grin.
The Aborigine says, "That's funny! I thought you guys were smart!" He
then says, "I can prove that there's a God with this can of tuna
fish!"
You go to the Christian bookstore, and you find the book that tells
that story.
The book tells it MUCH better than I can.

Christians have spread lies about this excessively,

Well, let's say that Christians have been ready and willing to present
the creation side, since those who preach unproved evolution so
readily preach theirs!

(that's called "equal time.")

No, it is not. It is called *science* class. And so they should
present *science*.

Well, I studied "science" in high school, and I studied "science" in
college, and I studied "science" at university. And all I ever heard
was conjecture, and how if you add 2 + 2, you'd get 23.
If you want to use it to present equal time for

religious views then there are thousands of religious stories to
present and not just on biology.

I am suggesting that the "theory of evolution" was developed by an
atheist to challenge the Christian "establishment". There are
certainly quite a few scientists who do NOT subscribe to the theory!
So if evolution is designed to ATTACK creation (which is what it was
formulated to do), then the other side should get equal time!
Proof is that the kids who graduate from private schools take all the
same state-sponsored tests in math and sciences, and they pass at the
same level or ABOVE the public schools! The DIFFERENCE is that the
private school students have been taught BOTH evolution AND creation,
whereas the PUBLIC school kids have only been taught evolution!
You are ASSUMING that if the kids are taught creation, they don't get
the full level of EVOLUTION teaching. That is not the case!
I know because my son attends private school, and he takes
state-written tests!
And he's an honors student! Wants to be an engineer! And an MD!
If you want science, though,

creationism has not been valid accepted science for over 150 years.

According to the exclusive school called "evolution scientists."

they especially

like to say evolution preaches that Humans evolved from monkeys.
Evolution does not state that humans evolved from monkeys, that idea
is completely absurd.

No, it gives lots of evidence and information about the process from
the original life to today.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
As I have said, I have seen enough of the "evidence" that I just have
to laugh.
When I was in high school, the process of evolution was full of
"somehow"s. When I was in college, there were just as many "somehow"s.
I got to university, and I found as many "somehow"s.
"Somehow" is not what I call "conclusive fact."
And one of the funniest was that about 10 years ago, some "scientist"
found and photographed (it was on a Discovery channel) a animal in the
jungle that was half lion, half tiger. Part "no stripes", part
stripes.
this was hailed as a "VISIBLE proof" of evolution.
They evidently didn't ask enough questions. Because just last month,
in a local (Washington, I believe) animal sanctuary, the lion got out
and got busy with the tiger, and next thing, we had a half-lion, half
tiger.
No evolution was involved. The lion was horny, the tiger was
AVAILABLE.

Let's take a little different tack. Let's say that evolution preaches
that man evolved from something on the order of a frog!

Why? Both preach and frog are wrong.

The creationist says, "well, if you believe THAT nonsense, then you
are admitting OPENLY that you believe in FAIRY TALES!

But the overwhelming vast majority of biologists disagree.

So, you are saying "truth by majority vote."
rubbish.

Different story, different nonsense.

Well, I suppose there is no point in continuing this. You are
apparently playing the "no matter what is said, I'm right and you're
wrong."
I see no slack, no movement. And if you are THAT closed to discussion,
there can be no discussion.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: "Christian Lies" - (Repost)	20 Aug 2006 08:49:26 AM

In <ildge2d6kn6u2u25qmp88tfsrm0qu451jl@4ax.com>, on 08/20/06
at 03:41 AM, john w <johnw<no>@yoo.how> decided to give everyone an
example as to why he is not considered a fount of accurate information,
rather the reverse.
Path:
authen.yellow.readfreenews.net!green.octanews.net!news-out.octanews.net!news.glorb.com!fu-berlin.de!feed.news.qwest.net!mpls-nntp-03.inet.qwest.net!news.qwest.net!not-for-mail
From: john w <johnw<no>@yoo.how>
Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,alt.religion.christianity,alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.religion.jehovahs-witn
Subject: Re: "Christian Lies" - (Repost)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 03:41:03 -0700
Message-ID: <ildge2d6kn6u2u25qmp88tfsrm0qu451jl@4ax.com>
References: <kfffe2l9u8ltm277695og16ji45saealr4@4ax.com>
<5imfe2t0j367a2emue2cavqs56cha23vqr@4ax.com>
<lmnfe2hq8eevo5etdfoik8pogro9e37c5s@4ax.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent
2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0633-4, 08/18/2006), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Lines: 315
Organization: Qwest Communications Corporation
NNTP-Posting-Host: 781930b8.news.qwest.net
X-Trace:
DXC=XFZ@VRojC=^E>S1?;<3miQF85SKJoGf>T77EidjDVCLRgRiX5Ran0@[SkXT\\;jgJZOQe;c?O6=P\2EQT4TGZ7:]lc0DFjIF9BU
X-Complaints-To:

X-Old-Xref: authen.yellow.readfreenews.net alt.atheism:4455269
alt.religion.christian:1972703
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic:1405348
alt.religion.christianity:377944 alt.religion.christian.baptist:938585
alt.religion.jehovahs-witn:374137

x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 04:11:34 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
� 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of this article
may be used elsewhere without express written consent of the author

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 20:55:34 -0700, in alt.atheism , john w
<johnw<no>@yoo.how> in <5imfe2t0j367a2emue2cavqs56cha23vqr@4ax.com>
wrote:

snip

I still know a number of very reliable, very professional scientists
who believe in special creation.

Any of them biologists?

Yep. One is a microbiologist (ex-sister-in-law)

Does she admit to knowing you, or is this one of the more you're invisible
friends.

Also a nuclear physicist (worked on the Manhattan Project) and a
physicist.

More of your invisible friends that will not introduce themselves, in
other words, there's no reason to take you at your word. Especially being
you are known to be a liar of epic proportions.

Would you call an MD or a RN a "biologist?" I would.
I know quite a few MDs and RNs who are Christians and Creationists.

No, neither M.D. or RN is a biologist, they are versed in a particular
field of the life sciences, support and maintenance of the human life
form.

My old dr in Los Angeles, Dr A Leonard Klepp, a MD in Nutrition, and a
founding fellow in the Geneva School of Applied Nutrition ( a B I G deal)
was a creationist. (long since passed)

Not even a big deal, except the people like you. In the first place, he
is deceased, so he cannot verify whether he actually knew you or not, let
alone a patient at his. The Geneva school of applied nutrition does not
appear to have a large standing within the medical community from what
little I have read about it, therefore it really is no big deal.

Why is that such a big deal to you?

It is a big deal when people keep trying to get science class to teach
their religious views. I don't want the government promoting any
religion.

Well, since many of us believe that evolution is a "religious view", we
merely seek equal time.

No you don't, you do not even bowed to educate yourself on what evolution
is or is not, you see it as a red flag in an attack on your mythology and
therefore you jump in to conversations that are way over your head to
start with. Some of the discussions I have seen on evolution are way over
my head, which was good for it obliged me to go find the information to
find out who had the right approach and why the other person did not. A
concept alien to you as demonstrated by your posting history. It's called
get the facts and then draw your conclusions.

I've tried to talk to probably 2 dozen (at least) evolutionist scientists
about special creation, and all I got was "not interested!" When I asked
them why, I got, "I'm an atheist, so I CAN'T believe in Creation, because
I don't believe there is a God who could have created it all! I am
"stuck" with evolution."

And that is a bald-faced lie, that is your version of reality which is
were the reasons you are known as a liar. Now of course, should you be
able to find wont people it told you such nonsense, according to you, and
you should be able to get them to admit this publicly by sending private
e-mail or posting to USENET groups where the subject is pertinent. No one
is stuck with evolution, and very few people, outside of your imagination,
would engage someone like you in a conversation about evolution in any
serious manner.

That's not "science'; that's religion.

That is your strawman, & until you can evidence otherwise, it will remain
your strawman. You have told as lie before & it has been pointed out
before. That you continue to attempt to peddle it indicate you know that
you are a liar as well as the rest of used at knowing you are liar.
Posting history's are funny that way, they will tell on you every damn
time, especially when you try to hide them.

I gather that statement did not mean anything.

You gather correctly, he's under the impression that he knows what he's
talking about when a fact as you might notice, his presentation indicates
otherwise.

I gather you'd rather maintain your VERY tightly closed mind than to ASK
what I meant.

One does not ask the village idiot or time of the day it is without
ensuring the village idiot can tell time correctly and has the means at
their disposal to do so.

suits me fine!

Of course it does, now you can pretend that you know what you are talking
about in people just would not stroke your ego enough to get you to come
up with the information that you think you know. Your tuna fish can
strawman is simply that, yours.

In fact, the "tuna fish proof" of creation became so infamous a proof
that -- last time I heard-- the "scientists" who continue to push
evolution had to revise the model.

smirk.

I assume that you think she is making stuff up so you are making stuff
up as well.

When I go to a bookstore, it is to find information and not speculation.
Now who is his author, and what is the name of the comic book? Let the
song and dance begin.

It presents the following allegory.
A group of say a dozen scientists are on their way by airplane to a
conference somewhere. They plan on being gone for awhile, perhaps a
sabbatical, so they have brought all sorts of equipment, a car, all sorts
of food, a tractor, etc.
Well, the airplane crashes into the jungle near a tribe of Aborigines.
All the scientists survive the crash, but the plane is TOTALED, so they
are forced to plan on the long haul (this is before cell phones, so there
is no communication with the outside world)
Well, the Aborigines turn out to be -- not educated perhaps-- but VERY
bright, and they soon begin learning the language of the scientists, and
they begin teaching the scientists bout the Aborigine culture.
They're sitting around 2 campfires one night, eating dinner and talking.
One thing that HAS happened is that at certain times, the two groups
(Aborigines and scientists) divide, and group SEPARATELY.
By now, the Aborigines have learned to open the canned food, and they
have learned to drive the car and the tractor, and they've taught the
scientists how to cook Aborigine style.
One night, the Aborigines happen to overhear the scientists laughing and
joking about how silly it is that some STILL (even in this, the 20th
Century) believe in God! FOOLISH!
The Aborigine chief gets up from his campfire and walks over to the
scientists. He says to one of the scientists, "I hear you guys don't
believe in God!"
The scientist says, "That's correct!" with a smug grin.
The Aborigine says, "That's funny! I thought you guys were smart!" He
then says, "I can prove that there's a God with this can of tuna fish!"
You go to the Christian bookstore, and you find the book that tells that
story.
The book tells it MUCH better than I can.

Actually, no it does not to anyone that happens to be educated and in
particular, is capable of critical thought. That particular post is still
on Google so if anyone wants to waste time, they can go look for it.

Christians have spread lies about this excessively,

Well, let's say that Christians have been ready and willing to present
the creation side, since those who preach unproved evolution so
readily preach theirs!

(that's called "equal time.")

No, it is not. It is called *science* class. And so they should
present *science*.

Well, I studied "science" in high school, and I studied "science" in
college, and I studied "science" at university. And all I ever heard was
conjecture, and how if you add 2 + 2, you'd get 23.

Correction, you pretended to study science. Your dismal display of being
almost totally ignorant of science, beyond the ability to spell the word,
indicate that your version of science is nowhere near anything like the
word is normally used between intelligent people, whether they are of the
science community or not. You do not comprehend hydrology, you do not
comprehend geology, he do not comprehend meteorology, and you most
certainly do not comprehend evolution. It is conceivable that you may
comprehend mathematics up to the point of two plus 2 equals 4 99% of the
time but only a basic 10 system.

If you want to use it to present equal time for

religious views then there are thousands of religious stories to
present and not just on biology.

I am suggesting that the "theory of evolution" was developed by an
atheist to challenge the Christian "establishment". There are certainly
quite a few scientists who do NOT subscribe to the theory!

It doesn't matter what you suggest, what does matter is what has been
observed and verified. Your mythology has nothing to do with the fact
that life evolves. It is not the problem of science that you're afraid
that evolution may disprove your mythology, even though evolution has
nothing to say about your mythology. There is a sub division, if that's
the correct word for that particular discipline, of the life sciences
which is concerned with the creation/formation/arrival of life. You don't
even know what that is or how to find and yet you going to pretend that
evolution is exactly that science. The discipline is known as abiogenesis
and does not concern itself with what life goes after it arrives, but does
concern itself with how it came to be.

So if evolution is designed to ATTACK creation (which is what it was
formulated to do), then the other side should get equal time!

Evolution, designed to attack creation? Only in jw land which is just
south of the enchanted Kingdom & North of la la land.

Proof is that the kids who graduate from private schools take all the
same state-sponsored tests in math and sciences, and they pass at the
same level or ABOVE the public schools! The DIFFERENCE is that the
private school students have been taught BOTH evolution AND creation,
whereas the PUBLIC school kids have only been taught evolution!

You have statistics to back that up, especially from the southeast.

You are ASSUMING that if the kids are taught creation, they don't get the
full level of EVOLUTION teaching. That is not the case!

No, or we do know however, is that unless the school is accredited by a
national agency, & not be xian society for holding hands method of
accreditation, the private academy students do not do well in college and
most frequently retake courses in basic subjects. This is not exactly a
news bulletin to anybody but you, I would not be surprised if your fellow
xians were also aware that. There's currently a case in California for a
private school is attempting to force the collegiate board to lower the
standards to except their version of what should be taught in school and
found acceptable at the collegiate level.

I know because my son attends private school, and he takes
state-written tests!

It is possible for her to be a good private school, and even there they
must pass the state level test. It does not mean they know anything, for
teaching the test is there a routine thing in the private academies around
here.

And he's an honors student! Wants to be an engineer! And an MD!

Mentally defective like you? Or is it that he will have to retake about
one third of his courses in order to be eligible to even get into college?

If you want science, though,

creationism has not been valid accepted science for over 150 years.

According to the exclusive school called "evolution scientists."

In reality, according to the excuse schools called colleges & universities
around the world. If you want to learn creationism you have to go to a
school that is not accredited by a national agency but one supports their
mythology. As for the reasons that papers from seminaries are worthless
other than pretty wall paper.

they especially

like to say evolution preaches that Humans evolved from monkeys.
Evolution does not state that humans evolved from monkeys, that idea
is completely absurd.

No, it gives lots of evidence and information about the process from
the original life to today.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

just think, that is the most exciting part of your entire post, as well as
the most accurate. Accurate information has a tendency to put you to
sleep.

As I have said, I have seen enough of the "evidence" that I just have to
laugh.

No, you had not seen any evidence, what you have done is simply ran the
information that was made available to you to your mind enough times to
where you can begin to feel good about it. At that point it was no longer
the original information.

When I was in high school, the process of evolution was full of
"somehow"s. When I was in college, there were just as many "somehow"s. I
got to university, and I found as many "somehow"s.

As a way as scientific theory works. They are always under revision
because we don't always have all the facts. A fact that eludes you to
this day.

"Somehow" is not what I call "conclusive fact."

No one else does either, but it's what we learn from. Correction, it's
what most people learn from, you are the exception that proves the rule.

And one of the funniest was that about 10 years ago, some "scientist"
found and photographed (it was on a Discovery channel) a animal in the
jungle that was half lion, half tiger. Part "no stripes", part stripes.

This sounds like a typical jw ***** story. Unless you can provide
information that can be verified, as far as Maggiore abused it will be
concerned, you're just telling another lie to advance your claims. But
then, that's what people anticipate from you for that's what you deliver.

this was hailed as a "VISIBLE proof" of evolution.

By who, you?

They evidently didn't ask enough questions. Because just last month, in a
local (Washington, I believe) animal sanctuary, the lion got out and got
busy with the tiger, and next thing, we had a half-lion, half tiger.

That is a known hybrid, it has been for some time. Those two species
happened to be fertile, now, the question becomes is the offspring a
viable species? Either way, evolution has nothing to do it.

No evolution was involved. The lion was horny, the tiger was AVAILABLE.

Rather like you and your 50 lovers?

Let's take a little different tack. Let's say that evolution preaches
that man evolved from something on the order of a frog!

Why? Both preach and frog are wrong.

The creationist says, "well, if you believe THAT nonsense, then you
are admitting OPENLY that you believe in FAIRY TALES!

But the overwhelming vast majority of biologists disagree.

So, you are saying "truth by majority vote."

No, he is saying that the majority of those that are likely it where of
what's going on, agreed because the information verifies what is being
claimed. This is different from mythological claims, for this evidence is
available to everyone and not just those who happen to be busy kissing
some particular gods *****.

rubbish.

Indeed, this post, shares that commonality with a majority of your post.

Different story, different nonsense.

Well, I suppose there is no point in continuing this. You are apparently
playing the "no matter what is said, I'm right and you're wrong."

No, he is using the information available to everyone, to include you, to
verify confirmed that you are a blathering idiot making claims beyond the
ordinary that you cannot even come close to verify.

I see no slack, no movement. And if you are THAT closed to discussion,
there can be no discussion.

Discussion is two-way, no one has seen you even consider the possibility
that others are likely to be correct on anything that is important to you.
And evolution being a case in point, you cannot except that is both a fact
and there it so it scares the ***** right out you. You're incapable of
discussing evolution and you have is over a period of time. In this
you're not alone.
which wannabe this time jw, the genuine imitation educated person who does
not understand that discussion requires simply the presentation of
information that can be verified, hopefully, to the satisfaction of both
parties? Or is your version of discussion you speak and god listens and
agrees. You're posting history says the latter is the case.
walksalone who accepts that jw cannot accept evolution, the concept is
beyond his ability to comprehend it scares him. Which is fine by me as I
do not mind pointing out his screw ups whenever he does claim to know what
he is talking about, and I have the spare time. By the way jw, I see
where the AVR program has made few errors & I will leave them in there or
you can pretend that you are inferior/yes you really are but you think
you're pretending to be superior, when it comes to the English-language.
I did it just for you jw, just as I will set the follow-ups for the
remainder of USENET. No need to thank me.
Before we work on artificial intelligence why don't we do something about
natural stupidity? Steve Polyak
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: "Christian Lies" - (Repost)	20 Aug 2006 09:54:50 AM

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 03:41:03 -0700, in alt.atheism , john w
<johnw<no>@yoo.how> in <ildge2d6kn6u2u25qmp88tfsrm0qu451jl@4ax.com>
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 20:55:34 -0700, in alt.atheism , john w
<johnw<no>@yoo.how> in <5imfe2t0j367a2emue2cavqs56cha23vqr@4ax.com>
wrote:

EVOLUTION DID HAPPEN we simply

can't trace the exact evolutionary steps of the of the 3 trillion plus
species on earth.

Ah hah! Thanks for clearing that up! "Evolution is a FACT! We just
have no PROOF of that FACT!"

We have lots and lots of *evidence*. Science, however, does not deal
in proof.

Too bad. How about some evidence for evolution instead:

Observed Instances of Speciation
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Some More Observed Speciation Events
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

There is an enormous difference between having nothing and having a
detail history of the last 3,000,000,000 year for each population on
Earth. Consider this: there is no one on Earth who knows the names of
all their ancestors for the last 2,000 years. Don't ask for details
that you would not expect to exist.

[snip]

I still know a number of very reliable, very professional scientists
who believe in special creation.

Any of them biologists?

Yep. One is a microbiologist (ex-sister-in-law)

Too bad she was never able to produce an anti-evolution (or
pre-creationism) experiment.

Also a nuclear physicist (worked on the Manhattan Project) and a
physicist.

Physicists are rarely biologists.

Would you call an MD or a RN a "biologist?" I would.

I wouldn't. They are not working scientists, they do not do
experiments and build up upon earlier knowledge.

I know quite a few MDs and RNs who are Christians and Creationists.

Irrelevant unless the MDs improperly instruct people regarding
anti-biotics. Then there is a problem.

My old dr in Los Angeles, Dr A Leonard Klepp, a MD in Nutrition, and a
founding fellow in the Geneva School of Applied Nutrition ( a B I G
deal) was a creationist. (long since passed)

Again, too bad he was unable to produce a single pro-creationism or
anti-evolution experiment.

Why is that such a big deal to you?

It is a big deal when people keep trying to get science class to teach
their religious views. I don't want the government promoting any
religion.

Well, since many of us believe that evolution is a "religious view",
we merely seek equal time.

Your belief is not based on evidence though.

I've tried to talk to probably 2 dozen (at least) evolutionist
scientists about special creation, and all I got was "not interested!"

They are probably not interested in flat earth either. An uneducated
laymen who wants to lecture them on their field probably is not
particularly interesting.
Try me, though. Can you show that you know enough evolutionary biology
to discuss the topic? Can you give a quick summary of the scientific
position regarding evolution? Give a quick summary of the evidence
presented for Common Descent? I can do that and I can give you a
summary of various creationist positions. I know both sides of this
argument, do you?

When I asked them why, I got, "I'm an atheist, so I CAN'T believe in
Creation, because I don't believe there is a God who could have
created it all! I am "stuck" with evolution."

Really? That is a silly response. A more reasonable response is "Gee,
I have no interest in discussing ideas that were rejected by
scientists 150 years ago." You do know that *creationists* scientists
rejected the old Earth before Darwin set sail. That they abandoned
creationism because the evidence did not show the Biblical view.

That's not "science'; that's religion.

The way you put it, sure. But it differs from everything I have read.
I also do know active Christian, even evangelical, scientists who
rejected creationism and accept evolution.

I gather that statement did not mean anything.

I gather you'd rather maintain your VERY tightly closed mind than to
ASK what I meant.

suits me fine!

You are really trying to personal attacks, aren't you?

In fact, the "tuna fish proof" of creation became so infamous a proof
that -- last time I heard-- the "scientists" who continue to push
evolution had to revise the model.

smirk.

I assume that you think she is making stuff up so you are making stuff
up as well.

Not at all. If you walked into a Christian bookstore (if you DARED
open your mind that much),

Again you attack me. I bet I can show far more knowledge and
understanding of various forms of Christianity over the last 2,000
years than you can show me knowledge of evolutionary biology. Which
would you rather discuss, the diversification of Christian sects
following the Reformation, the diversity of Christian views in the
Middle Ages, the role of politics and religion in 14th century Italy?
Or would you prefer to discuss the influence of Greek thought, Plato
in particular, on the Early Church?

and if you asked for the "proof of
creation" section, I am sorry I don't recall the title, but it's a
short book, perhaps 100 pages.

ROTLFMAO. Yeah, that is the way to go. I should find a store and look
for a short book. I'll just pop right down. Let's make it easier. Was
it from the ICR? CRS? AIG? Those are the big creationist organizations
these days.

It presents the following allegory.

Did they have actual evidence?

A group of say a dozen scientists are on their way by airplane to a
conference somewhere. They plan on being gone for awhile, perhaps a
sabbatical, so they have brought all sorts of equipment, a car, all
sorts of food, a tractor, etc.

Well, the airplane crashes into the jungle near a tribe of Aborigines.
All the scientists survive the crash, but the plane is TOTALED, so
they are forced to plan on the long haul (this is before cell phones,
so there is no communication with the outside world)

Well, the Aborigines turn out to be -- not educated perhaps-- but VERY
bright, and they soon begin learning the language of the scientists,
and they begin teaching the scientists bout the Aborigine culture.

They're sitting around 2 campfires one night, eating dinner and
talking. One thing that HAS happened is that at certain times, the two
groups (Aborigines and scientists) divide, and group SEPARATELY.

By now, the Aborigines have learned to open the canned food, and they
have learned to drive the car and the tractor, and they've taught the
scientists how to cook Aborigine style.

One night, the Aborigines happen to overhear the scientists laughing
and joking about how silly it is that some STILL (even in this, the
20th Century) believe in God! FOOLISH!

The Aborigine chief gets up from his campfire and walks over to the
scientists. He says to one of the scientists, "I hear you guys don't
believe in God!"

The scientist says, "That's correct!" with a smug grin.

The Aborigine says, "That's funny! I thought you guys were smart!" He
then says, "I can prove that there's a God with this can of tuna
fish!"

Was that the end or did you think you had me hooked (ha, ha, ha)?
Sorry, but you are playing the wrong game. I have not attacked anyone
for believing in God. You seem to have confused "believing in God"
with "rejecting evolution". One can do the former and not the later.

You go to the Christian bookstore, and you find the book that tells
that story.

ROTFLMAO. Yeah, that will be easy. I will just ask for the short book
with the tuna fish story in it.

The book tells it MUCH better than I can.

Christians have spread lies about this excessively,

Well, let's say that Christians have been ready and willing to present
the creation side, since those who preach unproved evolution so
readily preach theirs!

(that's called "equal time.")

No, it is not. It is called *science* class. And so they should
present *science*.

Well, I studied "science" in high school, and I studied "science" in
college, and I studied "science" at university. And all I ever heard
was conjecture, and how if you add 2 + 2, you'd get 23.

Then you studies with silly people. This "conjecture" builds 100 story
buildings and tunnels under the Channel. It builds the Internet and
the International Space Station. It allows us to cure disease. Common
Descent is as well supported as the orbit of Pluto or the hot metallic
core of the Earth.

If you want to use it to present equal time for

religious views then there are thousands of religious stories to
present and not just on biology.

I am suggesting that the "theory of evolution" was developed by an
atheist to challenge the Christian "establishment".

And you are wrong. The theory was originally developed by a Christian
and has been worked on and added to by thousands of scientists from
all religious backgrounds. In fact one of the greats in the field was
a ardent believing orthodox Christian. Look oh Dobzhansky and his
famous quote: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of
evolution".

There are
certainly quite a few scientists who do NOT subscribe to the theory!

Remarkably few *biologists*. Remarkably few working biologists.

So if evolution is designed to ATTACK creation (which is what it was
formulated to do),

No, it was not.

then the other side should get equal time!

No, it should not. Regardless of its supposed original purpose
evolution is the best available science. If there is a *scientific*
objection then people should make that were science is done: in the
lab. They should not try to deal with supposed scientific controversy
in high schools.

Proof is that the kids who graduate from private schools take all the
same state-sponsored tests in math and sciences, and they pass at the
same level or ABOVE the public schools!

What is that proof of? Are you of the impression that all private
schools are Fundamentalist? Those who go to *Fundamentalist* private
schools do worse than those in public schools. Those who go to upper
class expensive high schools to better.

The DIFFERENCE is that the
private school students have been taught BOTH evolution AND creation,
whereas the PUBLIC school kids have only been taught evolution!

So learning about creationism helps on math tests. How interesting.
How about you present me the *evidence* for creation?

You are ASSUMING that if the kids are taught creation, they don't get
the full level of EVOLUTION teaching. That is not the case!

Actually you are assuming my view from the strawman you just brought
up. The things taught in Christian schools, high school and beyond,
varies. There are some that have good biology programs, there are some
that teach no evolution at all.

I know because my son attends private school, and he takes
state-written tests!

And he's an honors student! Wants to be an engineer! And an MD!

Bully for you.

If you want science, though,

creationism has not been valid accepted science for over 150 years.

According to the exclusive school called "evolution scientists."

According to biologists. You are free to point to any work done in the
last 100 years that points to creationism. Where is the evidence?

they especially

like to say evolution preaches that Humans evolved from monkeys.
Evolution does not state that humans evolved from monkeys, that idea
is completely absurd.

No, it gives lots of evidence and information about the process from
the original life to today.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I can see that evidence bores you. That does not make it go away.

As I have said, I have seen enough of the "evidence" that I just have
to laugh.

Funny laugh. It is too bad that you are unable or unwilling to make
actual criticisms, you just tell us you have them. When you have
actual criticisms or evidence for creation let me know.

When I was in high school, the process of evolution was full of
"somehow"s. When I was in college, there were just as many "somehow"s.
I got to university, and I found as many "somehow"s.

Really? I would give you some links and ask for the "somehows", but
you have already told me you won't do it.

"Somehow" is not what I call "conclusive fact."

I am not sure you are the standard to use. Why don't you pick
something specific and we can discuss it.

So I am to accept your claim of what you heard on a TV show as a
problem with peer reviewed science. And if I give you 100 examples of
observed actual evolution that means what? Oh, that's right, I gave
you those examples and you ignored them. Yes, if we are going to play
the game of "what I saw on TV" we can "prove" almost anything.

They evidently didn't ask enough questions. Because just last month,
in a local (Washington, I believe) animal sanctuary, the lion got out
and got busy with the tiger, and next thing, we had a half-lion, half
tiger.
No evolution was involved. The lion was horny, the tiger was
AVAILABLE.

Sheesh. Tigons and Ligers has been known for years. I strongly doubt
that one happened "just last month" (though that makes the story
better). There are no places on Earth today where tigers and lions
share space in the wild. There are no instances of tigers and lions
mating *in the wild*.

Let's take a little different tack. Let's say that evolution preaches
that man evolved from something on the order of a frog!

Why? Both preach and frog are wrong.

The creationist says, "well, if you believe THAT nonsense, then you
are admitting OPENLY that you believe in FAIRY TALES!

But the overwhelming vast majority of biologists disagree.

So, you are saying "truth by majority vote."

rubbish.

No, I am apply the standard of scientific proof by consensus and work.
You are free to show the work of someone who disagrees. You are also
free to propose a better standard for determining best available
science.
BTW, I remember you using the argument that "Millions" of Christians
agreed with you interpretation of the Bible. I gather that your
objection to that argument changes depending on if you use it or
someone else seems to.

Different story, different nonsense.

Well, I suppose there is no point in continuing this. You are
apparently playing the "no matter what is said, I'm right and you're
wrong."

You did not say anything. You gave a made up story, that is not
evidence.

I see no slack, no movement. And if you are THAT closed to discussion,
there can be no discussion.

I am close? You have stated several times that you refuse to look at
the evidence. And you have offered nothing but made up stories about
tuna fish or frogs. Show me something real in the world that support
creationism.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.

User: "john w"
Title: Re: "Christian Lies" - (Repost)	20 Aug 2006 05:16:39 AM

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 20:55:34 -0700, in alt.atheism , john w
<johnw<no>@yoo.how> in <5imfe2t0j367a2emue2cavqs56cha23vqr@4ax.com>
wrote:

EVOLUTION DID HAPPEN we simply

can't trace the exact evolutionary steps of the of the 3 trillion plus
species on earth.

Ah hah! Thanks for clearing that up! "Evolution is a FACT! We just
have no PROOF of that FACT!"

We have lots and lots of *evidence*. Science, however, does not deal
in proof.

Too bad. How about some evidence for evolution instead:

You need not bother. I've been "looking at "" evidence"" for
evolution" for YEARS now . What you see as "evidence", I see as pure
conjecture.

Observed Instances of Speciation
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Some More Observed Speciation Events
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

There is an enormous difference between having nothing and having a
detail history of the last 3,000,000,000 year for each population on
Earth. Consider this: there is no one on Earth who knows the names of
all their ancestors for the last 2,000 years. Don't ask for details
that you would not expect to exist.

[snip]

I still know a number of very reliable, very professional scientists
who believe in special creation.

Any of them biologists?

Why is that such a big deal to you?

It is a big deal when people keep trying to get science class to teach
their religious views. I don't want the government promoting any
religion.

I gather that statement did not mean anything.

In fact, the "tuna fish proof" of creation became so infamous a proof
that -- last time I heard-- the "scientists" who continue to push
evolution had to revise the model.

smirk.

I assume that you think she is making stuff up so you are making stuff
up as well.

Christians have spread lies about this excessively,

Well, let's say that Christians have been ready and willing to present
the creation side, since those who preach unproved evolution so
readily preach theirs!

(that's called "equal time.")

they especially

like to say evolution preaches that Humans evolved from monkeys.
Evolution does not state that humans evolved from monkeys, that idea
is completely absurd.

No, it gives lots of evidence and information about the process from
the original life to today.

Let's take a little different tack. Let's say that evolution preaches
that man evolved from something on the order of a frog!

Why? Both preach and frog are wrong.

The creationist says, "well, if you believe THAT nonsense, then you
are admitting OPENLY that you believe in FAIRY TALES!

But the overwhelming vast majority of biologists disagree.

Different story, different nonsense.

Where in the world did you get these odd ideas? They are strange even
for creationism. As Pauli famously said, that's not right, that's not
even wrong.

We have *millions* of pieces of evidence from multiple lines that all
point to common descent of all life from a common ancestral
population. You strawman bares no relationship to the actual science.

[snip]

User: "Rev. Jones Says \Drink More Koolaid"
Title: Re: "Christian Lies" - (Repost)	20 Aug 2006 04:32:19 PM

"john w @yoo.how>" <johnw<no> wrote in message
news:uidge2hq9tkvq80j4j0e37iei9502sdq04@4ax.com...

You need not bother. I've been "looking at "" evidence"" for
evolution" for YEARS now . What you see as "evidence", I see as pure
conjecture.

Try looking with your head out of your *****.
--
******************************************
Rev. Mercutio Jones
http://www.myspace.com/therightreverendjones
http://www.myspace.com/dayofthesick
************************************************
.

User: "Vernon there@athere"
Title: Re: "Christian Lies" - (Repost)	20 Aug 2006 04:49:53 PM

"Rev. Jones Says "Drink More Koolaid"" <lawtoniww@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:Dx4Gg.1590$yO7.630@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

"john w @yoo.how>" <johnw<no> wrote in message
news:uidge2hq9tkvq80j4j0e37iei9502sdq04@4ax.com...

You need not bother. I've been "looking at "" evidence"" for
evolution" for YEARS now . What you see as "evidence", I see as pure
conjecture.

Try looking with your head out of your *****.

O.K. so you have no education in physics, geology, philosophy, read science
fiction with no knowledge that it is fiction.
.

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: "Christian Lies" - (Repost)	20 Aug 2006 07:32:55 AM

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 03:16:39 -0700, in alt.atheism , john w
<johnw<no>@yoo.how> in <uidge2hq9tkvq80j4j0e37iei9502sdq04@4ax.com>
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 20:55:34 -0700, in alt.atheism , john w
<johnw<no>@yoo.how> in <5imfe2t0j367a2emue2cavqs56cha23vqr@4ax.com>
wrote:

[snip]

Too bad. How about some evidence for evolution instead:

You need not bother. I've been "looking at "" evidence"" for
evolution" for YEARS now . What you see as "evidence", I see as pure
conjecture.

How are lab experiments conjecture? How is field work conjecture? How
is genetic comparisons conjecture?

Observed Instances of Speciation
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

See the word *observed*?

Some More Observed Speciation Events
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

There it is again.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

There is an enormous difference between having nothing and having a
detail history of the last 3,000,000,000 year for each population on
Earth. Consider this: there is no one on Earth who knows the names of
all their ancestors for the last 2,000 years. Don't ask for details
that you would not expect to exist.

[snip]

I still know a number of very reliable, very professional scientists
who believe in special creation.

Any of them biologists?

I will guess not.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.

User: "Scott Richter"
Title: Re: "Christian Lies" - (Repost)	20 Aug 2006 12:52:25 PM

john w <johnw<no> wrote:

Too bad. How about some evidence for evolution instead:

You need not bother. I've been "looking at "" evidence"" for
evolution" for YEARS now . What you see as "evidence", I see as pure
conjecture.

Really? What experiments or studies have you conducted? Have your
results been independently reproduced elsewhere? Have your results been
peer reviewed and published by any academic journals? Have you presented
your findings at any conferences?
Here's MY conjecture: You're just another run of the mill creationist
moonbat. And I've been "looking at" "evidence" of that for YEARS now,
too...
.

User: ""
Title: Re: "Christian Lies" - (Repost)	20 Aug 2006 04:04:15 PM

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 20:55:34 -0700, john w <johnw<no>@yoo.how> wrote:

Talk about lies!

In fact, such leaders as Chuck Colson and MYSELF can attest to the
fact that MANY criminals become Christians during their prison terms.

john w

Leader? What are YOU claiming to be a 'leader' of, weatherless?
Don't tell me you're trying to claim you're a Pastor again!!!!!!
Or were you perhaps a guest of the State Ritz, and supposedly 'became
a Christian' there?
.

User: "Uncle Vic"
Title: Re: "Christian Lies" - (Repost)	20 Aug 2006 12:13:08 AM

Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet john w <johnw (no>@yoo.how)
made the light shine upon us with this:

Ah hah! Thanks for clearing that up! "Evolution is a FACT! We just
have no PROOF of that FACT!"

I couldn't have said it better myself! I in fact own the world's only
living 24 foot tall green rabbit. I declare this to be absolute
incontrovertible truth! However, in the last 30 attempts, I have been
unable to photography my 24 foot tall green rabbit! But IT DOES EXIST!

It must really suck to have to deny reality every day to support your silly
superstition.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Member: Intensional misspellingg club.
.

User: "john w"
Title: Re: "Christian Lies" - (Repost)	20 Aug 2006 06:06:00 AM

x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 00:13:08 -0500, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com>
wrote:
� 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of this
article may be used elsewhere without express written consent of the
author

Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet john w <johnw (no>@yoo.how)
made the light shine upon us with this:

It must really suck to have to deny reality every day to support your silly
superstition.

What silly superstition?
It must TRULY suck to be you!
.

User: "john w"
Title: Re: "Christian Lies" - (Repost)	19 Aug 2006 10:58:51 PM

Common lies Christians tell that are ABSOLUTELY FALSE!

Someone has made an EXCELLENT POINT, Ugly!
I am a published author, and wrote for a living for MANY years.
I understand quoting someone else; I also understand that it is
illegal and immoral to quote as extensively as YOU have without giving
proper attribution AND without typing a note that you have the
author's permission!
I DO hope the real author of this material will find it in here and
prosecute you!
;-)
Stealing is a crime and it's morally reprehensible whether you're a
Christian or an atheist.
And-- kindly note my copyright at the top of my every post.
And NO-- you do NOT have my permission to use MY writing ANYWHERE
else!

I deal with Christian lies on a daily basis. These lies range
from the myth that Einstein was a theist, to the claim that there is
conclusive evidence for Jesus' existence. I had to make this page so
that I could collect some common lies told and present the truth
behind the matter. There are hundreds of things I feel compelled to
discuss but I shall limit it to a top five list. The top five lies
Christian's tell:

Darwin recanted on his deathbed. This is completely fabricated and has
no foundation in truth whatsoever. A woman named "Lady Hope" spoke to
a church group shortly after the death of Charles Darwin. She claimed
that she was at Darwin's bedside on the day of his death. She also
claimed that Darwin recanted on evolution and accepted Jesus on his
deathbed. Her claims are not only unsupported, but are directly
opposed by Darwin's daughter, Henrietta. Henrietta stated "I was
present at his deathbed, Lady Hope was not present during his last
illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any
case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or
belief. My father never recanted any of his scientific views, either
then or earlier. I am upset that the U.S. Christians have fabricated
this conversion nonsense. The whole story has no foundation
whatever." February 23, 1922.

Evolution has been proven false (is only a theory). Evolution can be
divided into two parts, macro and micro. Micro evolution is a fact,
where as macro evolution remains a theory due to debates on the exact
steps of the evolutionary process. EVOLUTION DID HAPPEN we simply
can't trace the exact evolutionary steps of the of the 3 trillion plus
species on earth. Considering there is no way that we can even prove
if we have located all the species on earth, this may always remain a
theory. We can prove though, beyond a doubt, that humans have
evolved. We can trace it back conclusively 3.6 million years. 97% of
all scientists accept evolution (so does the Catholic Church).
Christians have spread lies about this excessively, they especially
like to say evolution preaches that Humans evolved from monkeys.
Evolution does not state that humans evolved from monkeys, that idea
is completely absurd. Science states that monkeys and humans evolved
from a shared forefather and are hence relatives, (all primates are)
but we are in no way direct descendants of them.

Atheists have no morals. All one has to do is take a look at the
American prison system. Nearly 76% of violent criminals are Christian
and NO, most of these Christians did not convert after conviction,
they were Christian at the time of the crime. The greatest genocides
in human history stemmed from the Christian faith. If you examine
secular societies in comparison to religious societies; secular
societies will consistently have less crime, unemployment, corruption
and more freedom, share of wealth and a higher standard of living.
Nearly EVERY single advancement towards morality (I.E: ceasing native
genocide, freeing the slaves and women's suffrage) was OPPOSED by the
church and Christian organizations.

This United States is a country founded on Christianity. This is the
biggest sack of horse ***** and only an EXTREME MORON would believe
something this retarded. The VERY FIRST AMENDMENT of the constitution
is based on the Separation of church and state. The paramount reason
why the forefathers came to this country was for religious freedom.
They listed it as their top goal in forming America. Matter of fact
most of the fore fathers weren't even Christian, but deist, atheist
and agnostic. I could site thousands of quotes which ***** on this lie
from Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Paine, etc. but I shouldn't need
to, considering the reading of the constitution is a 4th grade
curriculum requirement.

There are no atheists in foxholes. I hear this one on a weekly basis
and it never ceases to amuse/disgust me. One third of the world's
population does not believe in a deity. The largest concentration of
free thinkers is found in Asia, which participated in each world war
and have been feuding over territory with the surrounding regions for
thousands of years (especially Japan and China). My father is an
atheist and served during the Berlin Crisis. I am an atheist and
though I wasn't in a fox hole, I faced death while giving birth and I
tell you that the thought about God NEVER crossed my mind when I heard
my condition could be fatal. I have had the privilege to meet
hundreds of atheists who served in WW2 and Vietnam, each of whom sat
in fox holes. For more information about atheists in the military see
the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers website.

User: ""
Title: Re: "Christian Lies" - (Repost)	20 Aug 2006 04:04:41 PM

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 20:58:51 -0700, john w <johnw<no>@yoo.how> wrote:

I am a published author, and wrote for a living for MANY years.

anyone can 'publish' porn crap.
And worse, you couldn't even peddle THAT filth successfully!
.

User: ""
Title: Re: "Christian Lies" - (Repost)	20 Aug 2006 04:04:48 PM

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 20:58:51 -0700, john w <johnw<no>@yoo.how> wrote:

Stealing is a crime and it's morally reprehensible whether you're a
Christian or an atheist.

And-- kindly note my copyright at the top of my every post.

And NO-- you do NOT have my permission to use MY writing ANYWHERE
else!

haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
.

User: "ujb"
Title: Re: "Christian Lies" - (Repost)	20 Aug 2006 05:11:00 PM

wrote:

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 20:58:51 -0700, john w <johnw<no>@yoo.how> wrote:

haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

That copyright notice is nothing but a lark, poor stupid doesn't have
the gray matter, let alone the green to protect the trash he scribbles.
Reminds me of the truism someone posted to this very newsgroup a few
year back;
Hear about the guy who left his car unlocked and a book by Weatherly on
the seat? When he returned he had two.
ujb
.