If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following: Einstein's black box radiation work led directly to the discreditation of evolution which continues today through DNA. Seriously? Do a google search and point me to a source, or cite your source for this claim. I've never read that Einstein disproved evolution. And what exactly continues today through DNA...discrediting evolution or evolution? The evolutionist was confronted with "Jew science" by 1930 demonstrating a vacuum fluctuation... Umm, which evolutionist are you specifying when you say, "the evoluntionist?" NASA seems to think the prediction of the vacuum fluctuation or Zero Energy Point was in 1948. Which really makes me wonder where it is you're going with whatever it is you're talking about now... Attempting to use 20th century science to validate 19th century "dog breeder science" can only demonstrate a paradox when taken to it's conclusion. Nah...Einstein had no problem validating Newton. The more man learns, the more god-like he becomes. Perhaps this is more along the lines of your line of : LOL...too funny, this is getting to be hysterical! JT you're such a nutty guy. Archatecture and art that would be completely acceptable in the public square in the 1960s is not acceptable in the public square today. Oh yeah, let's go back to the 1960's, "separate but equal." No thanks. In the 1960s WHITE guys were making all the decisions for women, minorities, you name it...some god-fearing white guy had the answer. We've made a great deal of progress since then. All who call upon the name of God will be saved. Ah yes, our buds the islamist ****s that hi-jacked those four jets. I find that fascinating bit quite useful in understanding a society. Hey everybody thinks their way is THE way, it shouldn't come as a big surprise that of the 5.8B people on planet earth, ROUGHLY 17% are christian and the other 83% nod their craniums and mutter, "yeah, whatever..." Is it OK for Phil Miller to marry his pony? Hey if the pony has reached the age of majority, can repeat the vows and sign the papers, go for it. Or is it a moral question. Uhhh...moral IMO, something that can be decided without the benefit of mythical characters. See that wasn't so hard, no psycosis. Juvat |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Robey Price" wrote in message ... After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver Engineering" confessed the following: Einstein's black box radiation work led directly to the discreditation of evolution which continues today through DNA. Seriously? Do a google search and point me to a source, or cite your source for this claim. I've never read that Einstein disproved evolution. And what exactly continues today through DNA...discrediting evolution or evolution? The removal of Neanderthal as an ancestor of man using DNA fact is one way modern science is discrediting evolution as science. If you want to understand why "Jew Science" discredits the dog breeder's religion you would need to read "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat" and "In Search of Schrodinger's Kittens". It is the same basis upon which Einstein proclaimed, "God does not play dice". The evolutionist was confronted with "Jew science" by 1930 demonstrating a vacuum fluctuation... Umm, which evolutionist are you specifying when you say, "the evoluntionist?" NASA seems to think the prediction of the vacuum fluctuation or Zero Energy Point was in 1948. Which really makes me wonder where it is you're going with whatever it is you're talking about now... I think you are trying to get by on bull****. Attempting to use 20th century science to validate 19th century "dog breeder science" can only demonstrate a paradox when taken to it's conclusion. Nah...Einstein had no problem validating Newton. The more man learns, the more god-like he becomes. Do you know Darwin from Newton? Perhaps this is more along the lines of your line of : LOL...too funny, this is getting to be hysterical! JT you're such a nutty guy. Archatecture and art that would be completely acceptable in the public square in the 1960s is not acceptable in the public square today. Oh yeah, let's go back to the 1960's, "separate but equal." No thanks. In the 1960s WHITE guys were making all the decisions for women, minorities, you name it...some god-fearing white guy had the answer. We've made a great deal of progress since then. The Constitution didn't change. All who call upon the name of God will be saved. Ah yes, our buds the islamist ****s that hi-jacked those four jets. Quite possibly. I find that fascinating bit quite useful in understanding a society. Hey everybody thinks their way is THE way, it shouldn't come as a big surprise that of the 5.8B people on planet earth, ROUGHLY 17% are christian and the other 83% nod their craniums and mutter, "yeah, whatever..." Here in the US the numbers run a little different than the numbers you made up. Is it OK for Phil Miller to marry his pony? Hey if the pony has reached the age of majority, can repeat the vows and sign the papers, go for it. Couldn't Phil just claim the pony agrees? Or is it a moral question. Uhhh...moral IMO, something that can be decided without the benefit of mythical characters. See that wasn't so hard, no psycosis. Lots of psycosis. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following: Einstein's black box radiation work led directly to the discreditation of evolution which continues today through DNA. and this as a followup when he was asked to explain how Einstein's work discredited/disproved evolution... The removal of Neanderthal as an ancestor of man using DNA fact is one way modern science is discrediting evolution as science. OK, you have no response. No Problem. If you want to understand why "Jew Science" discredits the dog breeder's religion you would need to read "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat" and "In Search of Schrodinger's Kittens". Nah...not interesting to me, I passed on both books. I think you are trying to get by on bull****. Hey pot...meet kettle. Do you know Darwin from Newton? Never met either guy. The Constitution didn't change. True...but society does, and mostly for the better. Here in the US the numbers run a little different than the numbers you made up. Not made up. I guessed 20% of the world is christian, a christian co-worker told me the number is closer to 17%. The 5.8B population I got from John Allan Paulos, or Michael Starbird...numbers guys. Couldn't Phil just claim the pony agrees? Nope. Lots of psycosis. Perhaps mostly in the great state of CA. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Robey Price" wrote in message ... After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver Engineering" confessed the following: Einstein's black box radiation work led directly to the discreditation of evolution which continues today through DNA. and this as a followup when he was asked to explain how Einstein's work discredited/disproved evolution... The removal of Neanderthal as an ancestor of man using DNA fact is one way modern science is discrediting evolution as science. OK, you have no response. No Problem. I'd say the elimination of the "chain of life to man" as evolutionist dogma is a major discreditation. If you want to understand why "Jew Science" discredits the dog breeder's religion you would need to read "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat" and "In Search of Schrodinger's Kittens". Nah...not interesting to me, I passed on both books. Denial is probably better for you. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
" wrote:
Guy Alcala wrote: WalterM140 wrote: Separation of church and state, anyone? The president doesn't speak for the state in the same way that the Queen of England does, for instance. Lincoln quotes snipped The framers wanted Americans to have freedom -of- religion, not freedom -from- religion. In order to have freedom -of- religion, one must also have the option of freedom -from- religion, or no freedom exists. Guy (a life-long agnostic) That's akin to saying that freedom doesn't exist unless everyone is free to do whatever they wish. I don't think that I'd like to live in a country where that was the case, would you?. -- -Gord. It's saying nothing of the sort, Gord. If I am not free to _not_ profess a religion, then I lack freedom of religion. If I am not guaranteed freedom from religion if I so choose, then you are implying that the Constitution requires me to profess one. That being the case, am I to be assigned a religion, since I don't have religious beliefs? And who makes the decision which religion is acceptable for me? The Government? No, they can't do that, that would run afoul of the 1st Amendment. Can I be denied civil rights and be treated as a second class citizen? Nope, 14th Amendment. But see my piggy-backed reply on Ed's post, as the author quoted therein put the matter far better than I ever could. Guy |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:47:24 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote: Guy Alcala wrote: WalterM140 wrote: Separation of church and state, anyone? The president doesn't speak for the state in the same way that the Queen of England does, for instance. Lincoln quotes snipped The framers wanted Americans to have freedom -of- religion, not freedom -from- religion. In order to have freedom -of- religion, one must also have the option of freedom -from- religion, or no freedom exists. Guy (a life-long agnostic) That's akin to saying that freedom doesn't exist unless everyone is free to do whatever they wish. I don't think that I'd like to live in a country where that was the case, would you?. Time for the ol' Political Science professor to drop in and point out some things. First, the president speaks for the state in a much greater way than the Queen. The US President is both head of state and head of government. That being said, however, when a President professes his own faith and trust in divine providence, he isn't speaking for the state. And, when an historic presidential statement is made it reflects more on the sociology of the time than the politics. It definitely does not speak to Constitutional interpretation. Then, the oft-quoted conundrum of "freedom-of" versus "freedom from" is found nowhere in Constitutional law. The religion guarantees in the First Amendment are in two clauses--separate and not contradictory. First, the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"--that means not only that the Congress shall not establish a religion, i.e. a governmentally endorsed faith. But goes a step further in specifiying that the law shall not "respect" a particular establishment of religion. In other words, no favoritism for one religion over another. This is a restriction on the government, not the citizens. And, by virtue of the 14th Amendment's "equal protection" provisions it applies to the lesser levels of government in our federal system as well. Second, the sentence goes on, "...or restricting the free exercise thereof." That part applies to the citizens. Citizens are free to practice the rituals of their individual faiths without governmental interference. (Of course if that practice interferes with the rights of others, or the 'general welfare" of society, we can constrain the practice of religion--hence no more virgins in the volcanoes.) As for the God-fearing attributes of the Framers, they were politicians of the time and the custom was to express a level of civility and piety in their public discourse. And very little has changed in that regard today, when even the most secular pols feel a need to make a fetish of religious belief and piety (prayer breakfasts, well-covered church attendance, etc.), at least when they're up for (re)election or involved in some scandal. Many belonged to Protestant denomination churches, but many were also agnostic or (as in the case of Thomas Jefferson,) deists--believers in a Supreme Being without espousal of a particular liturgy. There's little evidence to link anything in the Constitution to Christianity. Speaking of TJ, here's the text of his "Virginia Statute For Religious Freedom," which he got adopted into that state's constitution (actually, Jefferson wrote it but Madison handled the political maneuvering): "Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right.; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession and propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty , because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgement, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them. "Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. "And though we all know this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with the powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right." The bill was introduced in 1779, and becamepart of Virginia's consitution on January 16, 1786, i.e. three years before the Constitution went into effect. The 1st Amendment was based on the view expressed in it. Jefferson considered it one of his three greatest accomplishments, and made sure his epitaph read: "Here was buried Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of American Independence, of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, And Father of the University of Virginia." Guy |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Guy Alcala" wrote in message . .. " wrote: Guy Alcala wrote: WalterM140 wrote: Separation of church and state, anyone? The president doesn't speak for the state in the same way that the Queen of England does, for instance. Lincoln quotes snipped The framers wanted Americans to have freedom -of- religion, not freedom -from- religion. In order to have freedom -of- religion, one must also have the option of freedom -from- religion, or no freedom exists. Guy (a life-long agnostic) That's akin to saying that freedom doesn't exist unless everyone is free to do whatever they wish. I don't think that I'd like to live in a country where that was the case, would you?. -- -Gord. It's saying nothing of the sort, Gord. If I am not free to _not_ profess a religion, then I lack freedom of religion. If I am not guaranteed freedom from religion if I so choose, then you are implying that the Constitution requires me to profess one. The Constitution guarantees the "free expression thereof" and what you are claiming as a right is the repression of the constitutional rights of others, Guy. That being the case, am I to be assigned a religion, since I don't have religious beliefs? And who makes the decision which religion is acceptable for me? The Government? No, but you do have to put up with "the free exercise thereof". No, they can't do that, that would run afoul of the 1st Amendment. No, you have run afoul of the first Amendment. Can I be denied civil rights and be treated as a second class citizen? It is you that is attacking the civil rights of others, Guy. Nope, 14th Amendment. But see my piggy-backed reply on Ed's post, as the author quoted therein put the matter far better than I ever could. Ed is pretty funny. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following: The Constitution guarantees the "free expression thereof" and what you are claiming as a right is the repression of the constitutional rights of others, Guy. You are one seriously f*cked up dude. You have the right to watch gay porn...I have the right NOT to watch. You have the right to worship as you choose...I have the right NOT to worship. It is you that is attacking the civil rights of others, Guy. It bears repeating...you are one seriously f*cked up dude. Funny, but mo' debly f*cked up. Juvat |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Robey Price wrote:
snip Actually I'm paraphrasing the secular humanist view, we'd never call ourselves christians. Or, as the televangelists would have it, "Sekoolar Hoomanist," with roughly the same intonation they use when saying "Spawn of Satan" ;-) Guy |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Guy Alcala wrote:
Ed Rasimus wrote: As for the God-fearing attributes of the Framers, they were politicians of the time and the custom was to express a level of civility and piety in their public discourse. And very little has changed in that regard today, when even the most secular pols feel a need to make a fetish of religious belief and piety (prayer breakfasts, well-covered church attendance, etc.), at least when they're up for (re)election or involved in some scandal. I think it's interesting that any politician publicly embracing religion seems always portrayed as either partaking in demagoguery or attempting to create a state religion. Seems secularists want religion strictly confined within the walls of church, temple, mosque, whatever, not be seen in public on pain of "promoting religion". Allowing nativity scenes on public commons is NOT "promoting religion", and is actually suppressing it! The founding fathers were keenly aware of all the problems that resulted from government promoting religion. On the other hand, they were deeply religious and were not prone to create an agnostic or atheist US either. Bush has every right as an individual to make the religious based statements he has. He apparently is sort of "born again" and his words more than likely aren't pandering to a religious audience. Until he starts giving a particular religious group tax breaks or government funding, I'm not too concerned that the important Constitutional principle of church/state separation is being violated. SMH |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Juan Jiminez is a liar and a fraud (was: Zoom fables on ANN | ChuckSlusarczyk | Home Built | 105 | October 8th 04 12:38 AM |
Bush's guard record | JDKAHN | Home Built | 13 | October 3rd 04 09:38 PM |
"W" is JFK's son and Bush revenge killed Kennedy in 1963 | Ross C. Bubba Nicholson | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 28th 04 11:30 AM |
bush rules! | Be Kind | Military Aviation | 53 | February 14th 04 04:26 PM |