This will probably be my last post to this group. I appreciate all of the
response from you all. I don't happen to believe a word you say, but that's ok.
I knew exactly what kind of response I would get. Your message is worn out. It's
the same old psyco mumbo jumbo.

All of the responses I received were deny, deny, deny, anger, anger, anger,
hate, hate, hate. Not one single shred of evidence to prove your point. All I
hear is the Bible is full of contradictions, it all a hoax, no empty tomb, can't
be a resurrection because is doesn't conform to natural law and on and on.

You deny there is a God because you can't see it, feel it or understand it or it
doesn't conform to your preconceived world. So let's use that same logic about
past history. Back in the day when people thought that the earth was flat, if
someone came and said the earth was round, your logic would be that it is a
hoax, it can't be because it doesn't conform to natural law. What about space
travel, invention of the internal combustion engine, television, cell phone,
computer. In all of those cases you would be proven wrong. You see to deny that
something does not exist or can't or didn't happen you must also be able to
prove that claim by evidence. To prove that something does not exist or can't
happen is much more difficult than proving that something does exist. To prove
that God doesn't exist you would need to know everything about God. Since you
claim there is no God, how can you possibly know everything about him to prove
he does not exist.

Final statement: If I'm wrong and  you are right what have I lost. an argument.
So I would have evolved from a pile of goo and had my 70-80 years on this broken
earth and then back to the earth to let the worms eat me. Yummy!! HOWEVER, IF
I'M RIGHT AND YOUR WRONG WHAT HAVE YOU LOST? EVERYTHING!!!

May God Open your eyes to the truth, God fearing christian.

Sorry you're leaving, but while I am not an atheist, and consider myself to
be a Christian, I believe it is your message that is worn out.

Certainly I have no anger or hate, and my arguments were based entirely on
evidence and good reasoning.  Your "message" has caused you to be paranoid
from interaction with others who do not share your view.  You claim I
presented no evidence against your view that archaeology supports your view
of the Bible. That's true, but I asked you for YOUR evidence for your view,
since it was you who made the claim.  I would be happy to present to you
enough evidence to take up a few pages of space here, that archaeology not
only doesn't support biblical history, but in many cases shows biblical
history to be wrong.  But the first burden to show evidence was on you,
because you made the claim.

There are plenty of cases of contradictions in the Bible, you could call
discrepancies if you wish.  One that came up in another forum, briefly is:
a. Paul went to Damascus, b. Paul did not go to Damascus.  There are many
more.  The empty tomb story, as well as virgin birth of Jesus, are very
questionable, and seem to be very late theories, after Mark, but in time for
Matthew and Luke.  Don't you think Paul would have said something about
these seemingly very important items? Paul did know the resurrection and
ascension stories.

I don't deny there is a God.  I affirm that.  You refer to logic in regard
to changes in scientific theories.  This is not logic. It is the on-going
process of science, results of later discoveries, and this happens all the
time.  The passage from Newtonian physics to Einsteinian physics, for the
ultimates of reality, was difficult and painful for some, but eventually all
scientists were convinced by the evidence.  That's just the way science
goes:  continually self-correcting.  Space travel follows Newtonian physics,
as well as the others.  Discoveries and inventions occur all the time, and
we are used to it.  The difference between these and your theories, is the
matter of good evidence.  For example, if Jesus had brought Lazarus back to
life from death, then that should be replicable, but it never has been
repeated. All those things you mentioned, accomplishments of science, do
have proof.

You ask for evidence for a claim of a negative.  If you knew something about
logic and philosophy or science, you would know that a negative cannot be
proven.  Prove to me that Santa Claus doesn't exist, or that Satan didn't
create the universe, or that an elephant doesn't hold up the universe, or
that fairies don't exist.

I don't think anyone here, certainly not myself, entertains the thought it
can be proven that God does not exist.  It can't be done, because it's a
negative claim.  The claim there is no simply means there is no evidence
there is a God.  No one can prove God does not exist.

So you bring up Pascal's argument, the one he made in jest.  Fine, and if it
happens that the true God is Brahman, and future life depends on karma
through samsara, for reincarnation, then you missed out on bettering
yourself, perhaps becoming a mouse.  Or if Allah is the true God then you go
to hell because of your polygamy, which denies the most important maxim in
Islam, that God is One God.

There's no use in your getting all worked up on this.  We just have ideas
different from yours.  Take it like a man (if you are a man).

Richard.




----- Original Message -----
From: <wolfray@...>
To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 7:59 PM
Subject: [Death To Religion] Flawed Logic


> This will probably be my last post to this group. I appreciate all of the
> response from you all. I don't happen to believe a word you say, but
> that's ok. I knew exactly what kind of response I would get. Your message
> is worn out. It's the same old psyco mumbo jumbo.
>
> All of the responses I received were deny, deny, deny, anger, anger,
> anger, hate, hate, hate. Not one single shred of evidence to prove your
> point. All I hear is the Bible is full of contradictions, it all a hoax,
> no empty tomb, can't be a resurrection because is doesn't conform to
> natural law and on and on.
>
> You deny there is a God because you can't see it, feel it or understand it
> or it doesn't conform to your preconceived world. So let's use that same
> logic about past history. Back in the day when people thought that the
> earth was flat, if someone came and said the earth was round, your logic
> would be that it is a hoax, it can't be because it doesn't conform to
> natural law. What about space travel, invention of the internal combustion
> engine, television, cell phone, computer. In all of those cases you would
> be proven wrong. You see to deny that something does not exist or can't or
> didn't happen you must also be able to prove that claim by evidence. To
> prove that something does not exist or can't happen is much more difficult
> than proving that something does exist. To prove that God doesn't exist
> you would need to know everything about God. Since you claim there is no
> God, how can you possibly know everything about him to prove he does not
> exist.
>
> Final statement: If I'm wrong and  you are right what have I lost. an
> argument. So I would have evolved from a pile of goo and had my 70-80
> years on this broken earth and then back to the earth to let the worms eat
> me. Yummy!! HOWEVER, IF I'M RIGHT AND YOUR WRONG WHAT HAVE YOU LOST?
> EVERYTHING!!!
>
> May God Open your eyes to the truth, God fearing christian.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard, I can't let you get away with that. My worn out message has survived
for over 2,000 years and is stronger than ever. And people like you have been
trying for over two thousand years to destroy that message.

Also. let's get real. You are not a christian. You deny the cornerstone of
christianity. If your a christian why would you hang out with those who want to
destroy??? flawed logic!!!

Ray

Yes Ray, your message has been believed for that long, and I am very
familiar with it, since in my past I also believed much as you do now. But
it is worn out, just as much as the flat earth theory. IMO.  You have your
opinion, I have mine.  Please note I never have been trying to "destroy"
your message.  I simply argue against it. I am not radical as Richard
Dawkins, who does want to destroy it.  You believe you are a Christian.  I
believe I am a Christian.  If we use that process of claiming the only
Christians that exist are only those who believe the same way as I believe,
then we'll eliminate at least 90% of Christians.

Let's see. Who do I hang out with?  Atheists?  But of course. I'll hang out
with them anytime anywhere.  Excuse me, but as I showed you before, you have
no idea of what logic is.  My academic background is in philosophy, and I
taught it in a college for a while as a sideline along with my business. I
taught logic, and I know what it is, and you don't know what it is.

Have fun,

Richard.


----- Original Message -----
From: <wolfray@...>
To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 7:01 PM
Subject: [Death To Religion] One last comment to Richard


> Richard, I can't let you get away with that. My worn out message has
> survived for over 2,000 years and is stronger than ever. And people like
> you have been trying for over two thousand years to destroy that message.
>
> Also. let's get real. You are not a christian. You deny the cornerstone of
> christianity. If your a christian why would you hang out with those who
> want to destroy??? flawed logic!!!
>
> Ray
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

wolfray@... wrote:
> I knew exactly what kind of response I would get.

Makes you wonder why you even came here in the first place.

> Your message is worn out. It's the same old psyco mumbo jumbo.
>
> All of the responses I received were deny, deny, deny, anger, anger, anger,
hate, hate, hate. Not one single shred of evidence to prove your point.

Well if that ain't the pot calling the kettle black.

> All I hear is the Bible is full of contradictions

It is. Theologins (sp?) who have studied the bible and everything
surrounding it for practically all of their life will tell you this. I'm
pretty confident they know more than you, some internet schlub trolling
the atheist groups looking for answers he already knows he's going to get.

> You deny there is a God because you can't see it, feel it or understand it or
it doesn't conform to your preconceived world.

I deny YOUR god, whatever it is.

> HOWEVER, IF I'M RIGHT AND YOUR WRONG WHAT HAVE YOU LOST? EVERYTHING!!!

My life wouldn't change a bit. If a god does exist, so what? I'll still
get up, go to work, come home, watch tv, play some video games, visit
with friends and family, etc. etc. I'm a good person despite there being
a guy up in the sky or not. Nothing changes. The only person that loses
out is someone like you.

Richard!!

Are you for real. I'm amazed that you have the nerve to call yourself a
christian. I'm a christian and I know what it is to be a christian and unless
you have accepted in your heart Jesus Christ as your Savior, believe tht he died
on the cross and rose from the dead on the third day and have repented of your
sins then you are not a christian.

Your only argument is man made physological bs that means nothing. The
psychology professors I had in college where some of the most wacked out people
I have ever known. Most didn't have the common sense to come in out of the rain.
That old saying, I never met a psychatrist/psychologist who doesn't need one is
certainly being reaffirmed.

Christ in all, Ray

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
>
> Yes Ray, your message has been believed for that long, and I am very
> familiar with it, since in my past I also believed much as you do now. But
> it is worn out, just as much as the flat earth theory. IMO.  You have your
> opinion, I have mine.  Please note I never have been trying to "destroy"
> your message.  I simply argue against it. I am not radical as Richard
> Dawkins, who does want to destroy it.  You believe you are a Christian.  I
> believe I am a Christian.  If we use that process of claiming the only
> Christians that exist are only those who believe the same way as I believe,
> then we'll eliminate at least 90% of Christians.
>
> Let's see. Who do I hang out with?  Atheists?  But of course. I'll hang out
> with them anytime anywhere.  Excuse me, but as I showed you before, you have
> no idea of what logic is.  My academic background is in philosophy, and I
> taught it in a college for a while as a sideline along with my business. I
> taught logic, and I know what it is, and you don't know what it is.
>
> Have fun,
>
> Richard.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <wolfray@...>
> To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 7:01 PM
> Subject: [Death To Religion] One last comment to Richard
>
>
> > Richard, I can't let you get away with that. My worn out message has
> > survived for over 2,000 years and is stronger than ever. And people like
> > you have been trying for over two thousand years to destroy that message.
> >
> > Also. let's get real. You are not a christian. You deny the cornerstone of
> > christianity. If your a christian why would you hang out with those who
> > want to destroy??? flawed logic!!!
> >
> > Ray
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

Ray, unless your future messages have anything intelligent to say (perhaps
backed by facts, not "but the bible says so!"), they will not be approved for
posting.
Devas

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "wolfray@..." <wolfray@...> wrote:
>
> Richard!!
>
> Are you for real. I'm amazed that you have the nerve to call yourself a
christian. I'm a christian and I know what it is to be a christian and unless
you have accepted in your heart Jesus Christ as your Savior, believe tht he died
on the cross and rose from the dead on the third day and have repented of your
sins then you are not a christian.
>
> Your only argument is man made physological bs that means nothing. The
psychology professors I had in college where some of the most wacked out people
I have ever known. Most didn't have the common sense to come in out of the rain.
That old saying, I never met a psychatrist/psychologist who doesn't need one is
certainly being reaffirmed.
>
> Christ in all, Ray
>
> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes Ray, your message has been believed for that long, and I am very
> > familiar with it, since in my past I also believed much as you do now. But
> > it is worn out, just as much as the flat earth theory. IMO.  You have your
> > opinion, I have mine.  Please note I never have been trying to "destroy"
> > your message.  I simply argue against it. I am not radical as Richard
> > Dawkins, who does want to destroy it.  You believe you are a Christian.  I
> > believe I am a Christian.  If we use that process of claiming the only
> > Christians that exist are only those who believe the same way as I believe,
> > then we'll eliminate at least 90% of Christians.
> >
> > Let's see. Who do I hang out with?  Atheists?  But of course. I'll hang out
> > with them anytime anywhere.  Excuse me, but as I showed you before, you have
> > no idea of what logic is.  My academic background is in philosophy, and I
> > taught it in a college for a while as a sideline along with my business. I
> > taught logic, and I know what it is, and you don't know what it is.
> >
> > Have fun,
> >
> > Richard.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <wolfray@>
> > To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 7:01 PM
> > Subject: [Death To Religion] One last comment to Richard
> >
> >
> > > Richard, I can't let you get away with that. My worn out message has
> > > survived for over 2,000 years and is stronger than ever. And people like
> > > you have been trying for over two thousand years to destroy that message.
> > >
> > > Also. let's get real. You are not a christian. You deny the cornerstone of
> > > christianity. If your a christian why would you hang out with those who
> > > want to destroy??? flawed logic!!!
> > >
> > > Ray
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

----- Original Message -----
From: <wolfray@...>
To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 6:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] One last comment to Richard


> Richard!!
>
> Are you for real.

Yep.

I'm amazed that you have the nerve to call yourself a christian. I'm a
christian and I know what it is to be a christian and unless you have
accepted in your heart Jesus Christ as your Savior, believe tht he died on
the cross and rose from the dead on the third day and have repented of your
sins then you are not a christian.

Probably you are a Christian.  I am the kind of Christian that basically is
around everywhere, from Spong to Jesus Seminar, even beyond Christianity to
Kushner.  This is the liberal kind of Christian which meets the new times of
our global age, in which exclusivism has died, and the Jesus type inclusion
is fast reforming Christianity, a praxis performing Jesus healing religion
that works for humanity, not against it for some life after death in the sky
bye and bye, separating the exlusive elite from those not believing in the
theology and doomed to hell.  You are on the losing team. I accept Jesus
Christ as savior in the practical world of the necessity of helping needy
people, not in a theoretical world of heaven for the elite believers.

>
> Your only argument is man made physological bs that means nothing. The
> psychology professors I had in college where some of the most wacked out
> people I have ever known. Most didn't have the common sense to come in out
> of the rain. That old saying, I never met a psychatrist/psychologist who
> doesn't need one is certainly being reaffirmed.

Man-made is all we have.  We cannot separate ourselves from our brains.

Christ is all, not theoretical for departure from this so-called evil world,
but for working in this world for a better humanity.

Richard.


>
> Christ in all, Ray
>
> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
>>
>> Yes Ray, your message has been believed for that long, and I am very
>> familiar with it, since in my past I also believed much as you do now.
>> But
>> it is worn out, just as much as the flat earth theory. IMO.  You have
>> your
>> opinion, I have mine.  Please note I never have been trying to "destroy"
>> your message.  I simply argue against it. I am not radical as Richard
>> Dawkins, who does want to destroy it.  You believe you are a Christian.
>> I
>> believe I am a Christian.  If we use that process of claiming the only
>> Christians that exist are only those who believe the same way as I
>> believe,
>> then we'll eliminate at least 90% of Christians.
>>
>> Let's see. Who do I hang out with?  Atheists?  But of course. I'll hang
>> out
>> with them anytime anywhere.  Excuse me, but as I showed you before, you
>> have
>> no idea of what logic is.  My academic background is in philosophy, and I
>> taught it in a college for a while as a sideline along with my business.
>> I
>> taught logic, and I know what it is, and you don't know what it is.
>>
>> Have fun,
>>
>> Richard.

Devas, if I could make a suggestion:  Keep him here.  This is much better
than atheists conversing from the pat on the back perspective.  I can talk
with this guy because I used to be where he is, and I am a Christian that
has much the same philosophical foundation that you people have.

Richard.

----- Original Message -----
From: "devasma" <devasma@...>
To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] One last comment to Richard


> Ray, unless your future messages have anything intelligent to say (perhaps
> backed by facts, not "but the bible says so!"), they will not be approved
> for posting.
> Devas
>
> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "wolfray@..." <wolfray@...> wrote:
>>
>> Richard!!
>>
>> Are you for real. I'm amazed that you have the nerve to call yourself a
>> christian. I'm a christian and I know what it is to be a christian and
>> unless you have accepted in your heart Jesus Christ as your Savior,
>> believe tht he died on the cross and rose from the dead on the third day
>> and have repented of your sins then you are not a christian.
>>
>> Your only argument is man made physological bs that means nothing. The
>> psychology professors I had in college where some of the most wacked out
>> people I have ever known. Most didn't have the common sense to come in
>> out of the rain. That old saying, I never met a psychatrist/psychologist
>> who doesn't need one is certainly being reaffirmed.
>>
>> Christ in all, Ray
>>
>> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@> wrote:
>> >
>> > Yes Ray, your message has been believed for that long, and I am very
>> > familiar with it, since in my past I also believed much as you do now.
>> > But
>> > it is worn out, just as much as the flat earth theory. IMO.  You have
>> > your
>> > opinion, I have mine.  Please note I never have been trying to
>> > "destroy"
>> > your message.  I simply argue against it. I am not radical as Richard
>> > Dawkins, who does want to destroy it.  You believe you are a Christian.
>> > I
>> > believe I am a Christian.  If we use that process of claiming the only
>> > Christians that exist are only those who believe the same way as I
>> > believe,
>> > then we'll eliminate at least 90% of Christians.
>> >
>> > Let's see. Who do I hang out with?  Atheists?  But of course. I'll hang
>> > out
>> > with them anytime anywhere.  Excuse me, but as I showed you before, you
>> > have
>> > no idea of what logic is.  My academic background is in philosophy, and
>> > I
>> > taught it in a college for a while as a sideline along with my
>> > business. I
>> > taught logic, and I know what it is, and you don't know what it is.
>> >
>> > Have fun,
>> >
>> > Richard.
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: <wolfray@>
>> > To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
>> > Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 7:01 PM
>> > Subject: [Death To Religion] One last comment to Richard
>> >
>> >
>> > > Richard, I can't let you get away with that. My worn out message has
>> > > survived for over 2,000 years and is stronger than ever. And people
>> > > like
>> > > you have been trying for over two thousand years to destroy that
>> > > message.
>> > >
>> > > Also. let's get real. You are not a christian. You deny the
>> > > cornerstone of
>> > > christianity. If your a christian why would you hang out with those
>> > > who
>> > > want to destroy??? flawed logic!!!
>> > >
>> > > Ray
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ------------------------------------
>> > >
>> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Wow, We're starting to get a little testy. I guess when you have nothing, you
start making threats. So be it.

Why would I want to go anywhere except the Bible, that's where the real truth
is. I know it and understand it and you don't, you can't throw me off the right
path so you want to kick me out because you feel threatened. I have read plenty
of book's, enough to know that what is contrived by man is fool's gold. In a few
years there will be something else new and improved that we are supposed to
swallow because some enlightened philosipher has found the new truth. Through
all this the one constant is God's word. What are you afraid of. Are you afraid
of death? I'm not.

Have a wonderful day, Ray

No one wants to kick you out because they feel threatened.  You have nothing new
to say that will inspire intelligent debate.  "Because the bible says so" does
not make for interesting conversation.  Most here think the bible was written by
man, not god, and is therefore "fool's gold" to us.
I'm not afraid of death, why would I be?  I don't believe in the hell you say
I'm going to.
Devas, pretty bored by this lack of conversation

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "wolfray@..." <wolfray@...> wrote:
>
>  Wow, We're starting to get a little testy. I guess when you have nothing, you
start making threats. So be it.
>
> Why would I want to go anywhere except the Bible, that's where the real truth
is. I know it and understand it and you don't, you can't throw me off the right
path so you want to kick me out because you feel threatened. I have read plenty
of book's, enough to know that what is contrived by man is fool's gold. In a few
years there will be something else new and improved that we are supposed to
swallow because some enlightened philosipher has found the new truth. Through
all this the one constant is God's word. What are you afraid of. Are you afraid
of death? I'm not.
>
> Have a wonderful day, Ray
>

Richard, you wrote, "You have your opinion, I have mine."  - Does that also
apply to your "elephant perception" story? In a previous post you gave the
elephant story to show that not all perceptions are true. Or, was that story
just your opinion, and not related to truth?

Before, it was 'truth is truth regardless of perception' - so be careful in
finding truth. Now, it's just your opinion. What happened to the truth?  To
perceive that another perceives incorrectly, requires that you perceive
correctly.

Perhaps you are grabbing part of the elephant, too, Richard. As Prof. Breggen
has noted, the "skeptical position assumes that the skeptic can stand outside
the meat-grinder/sausage-making machine and see the meat, the grinder, the
table, [or elephant] and so on."   (Hendrick van der Breggen, Assistant
Professor of Philosophy, Providence College and Seminary; cited in Christian
Research Journal, Vol. 31, No. 5)

If you can see the whole elephant, then you can distinguish the true and false.
But, if it's just your opinion, then you are touching the elephant along with
the others.

Looking forward to your reply.


--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
>
> Yes Ray, your message has been believed for that long, and I am very
> familiar with it, since in my past I also believed much as you do now. But
> it is worn out, just as much as the flat earth theory. IMO.  You have your
> opinion, I have mine.  Please note I never have been trying to "destroy"
> your message.  I simply argue against it. I am not radical as Richard
> Dawkins, who does want to destroy it.  You believe you are a Christian.  I
> believe I am a Christian.  If we use that process of claiming the only
> Christians that exist are only those who believe the same way as I believe,
> then we'll eliminate at least 90% of Christians.
>
> Let's see. Who do I hang out with?  Atheists?  But of course. I'll hang out
> with them anytime anywhere.  Excuse me, but as I showed you before, you have
> no idea of what logic is.  My academic background is in philosophy, and I
> taught it in a college for a while as a sideline along with my business. I
> taught logic, and I know what it is, and you don't know what it is.
>
> Have fun,
>
> Richard.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <wolfray@...>
> To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 7:01 PM
> Subject: [Death To Religion] One last comment to Richard
>
>
> > Richard, I can't let you get away with that. My worn out message has
> > survived for over 2,000 years and is stronger than ever. And people like
> > you have been trying for over two thousand years to destroy that message.
> >
> > Also. let's get real. You are not a christian. You deny the cornerstone of
> > christianity. If your a christian why would you hang out with those who
> > want to destroy??? flawed logic!!!
> >
> > Ray
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

Nice summary Wolfray. Mr. Musser, you stated, "You are not even aware of the
numerous books listing the contradictions in the Bible."

Let me ask - are you aware of the books that answer the alleged
"contradictions"? Some of the atheist attacks are really sad, and easily
explained - how could someone be so blind to the evidence? Reminds me of an
atheist I debated in 2006, in which he claimed the genealogies of Christ were in
contradiction. After I explained the difference (which wasn't that hard to
figure out), he simply responded without responding to the matter anymore.

It has been my experience to see that atheism has developed it's own mythology,
influencing it's adherents to assume the Bible teaches this or that without
testing their assumption.

Looking forward to your reply Mr. Musser.





--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "wolfray@..." <wolfray@...> wrote:
>
> Jack, I'm not going to waste much time in reply, as you did as most athiest's
do, that is try to impress me with your enlightment and how much you think you
know about God and the Bible and how little I know. The word athiest comes from
two greek words "A" (meaning - "no") and "theos" (meaning - "God"). So be
enlightened by me. There is no way that you can make any credible claims as to
what, why, how or who God is. Except for the times of God's judgement against
evil men, all of the terrible horrendous crimes committed are done by
evil,greedy, power hungry humans who also think they are enlightened and no
best.
>
> The end, Ray
> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, Jack Musser <gladflyweather@> wrote:
> >
> > Wolfray,� If you believe there are no contradictions in the Bible then you
have probably only dipped into the book and have not studied it. If you believe
that Jesus brought something new to man, then you have to� expect
contradictions.� The story of his telling the crowd that he without sin should
throw the first stone is a sensational contradiction to anything that went
before it.� In fact it is so much of a contradiction that few fundamentalist can
integrate it into their religion.� They much prefer the old testament god to the
one that Jesus presents to us.� The old testament god is modeled on some of the
worst characteristics of natural man, because natural man could comprehend no
better.� So we get a vindiction, angry, jealous, and remorseful god, attributes
that do not reflect the best in man's own nature, but his worse.� They reflect
the characteristics of the typical patriarch of their time, fathers who were
powerful and had to be
> >  appeased.� This god was talking to a nomadic people who did not have jails
and so the punishments were often extreme, such as killing anyone who was a
nuisance, like disobedient children, or those who commited sex acts that did not
contribute to the survival of the tribe.� Forgiveness meant constantly
confronting the same problem over and over again so it was much easier to
eliminate the problem once and for all.� A Machavellian god was essential.� How
else can you condone the savagery of their need to eliminate men, women and
children of the cities that they conquerored?� It is hard to maintain a specific
doctrine or creed if there is competition, so it is best to eliminate it.��
Communism and Nazism found the same truth important for their success.� Heresy
has to be one of the most feared crimes in any society that wants to preserve
itself in one image and one image alone.� There is nothing in the New Testament
that condones the acts of the
> >  inquisition, but the old testament is quite conducive to such a concept.
> >
> > the concept of hell is so much more important to Jesus because it places the
responsibility on god to judge others and not on man.� The apparent justice of
heaven and hell deprive man of the right to act in god's stead.� This does not
undermine the state's right to punish offenders but it does undermine the right
of sinners to judge and punish�those they consider sinners because as Jesus tell
us, we are all sinners, no�one morally superior to any other.� Jesus is quite
consistent when he sends render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's . . .� There
is a role for the�state to punish anyone who harms others, but not to punish
what some consider to be sinners whether their acts harm anyone else.
> >
> > Christians are out and out human beings with�all of our frailities and
consequently constantly attribute to Christ what they find in Moses, Joshua, and
many others.� There is a compelling need to�feel superior to others�and to
strong arm others into our own image of what is moral.��Mercy is greatly
misunderstood by those who prefer the god of the old testament to the god of the
new.� Jesus was preaching a message that is profoundly difficult for man to
accept and so he does not.
> >
> > Look at yourself.� See how confident you are that you know the truth even
though your knowledge of the Bible is quite superficial. You are not even aware
of the numerous books listing the contradictions in the Bible.� You have
protected yourself from anything that contradicts what you want to believe.� And
anyone should well want to do who has been trained by a book that makes heresy
the greatest sin of all.� Thinking, and thinking the wrong thing is the most
dangerous thing any believer�can do and so is discouraged as often and as
forceable as it can be.� This explains why you�know so little about atheists
and�about their reasonable�objections to the Bible.� You have been trained to
believe only one thing and to believe that without question, no matter how
absurd it can be at times.
> >
> > You are now venturing into very dangerous waters because you�are too
confident.� If you continue, you will learns things that make everything you
know dubious and troublesome.� So like the gates of hell, the gates to
understanding others should read, Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.�
Education is so much different than indoctrination.� Non-believers are willing
to use reason and logic, which believers�have to exhault faith, and faith as
many faithful have praised to be better the more�ridiculous are the things you
believe.� It is easy to believe the reasonable so one�can hardly call it faith.�
But believing anything that defies reason is the measure of a great faith.�
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

--- On Thu, 9/3/09, bob bobby <spacehut1@...> wrote:


From: bob bobby <spacehut1@...>
Subject: Darwin Admits Creator
To: spacehut1@...
Date: Thursday, September 3, 2009, 12:42 PM







 
Hi everyone!  I just now joined the group – looking to
see how the opposition will respond, so I picked this
one from the Yahoo list. Will there be courteous, intelligent
dialogue? I hope so …
 
I was rather surprised and perplexed when I came
across this statement a year or two ago.  The supreme
evolutionist Charles Darwin appears to attribute the start
of natural life to, in his words, “the Creator.”  This seems
to contradict the suggestion by evolutionist schoolbooks
that science and religion are completely separate.  If
religion is to ‘stay out of schools,’ shouldn’t Darwin’s
Theory of Evolution also be excluded? – since it posits
God as the original source?
 
Quoting Darwin –  “ .. all the living forms of life are the
lineal descendants of those which lived long before .. It is
interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with
many plants of many kinds, with birds .. and to reflect that
these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each
other, and dependent from each other, in so complex a
manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us ..
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several
powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator
into a few forms or into one .. from so simple a beginning
endless  forms most beautiful and most wonderful have
been, and are being evolved.”  
 
- The Origin Of Species  by Means of Natural Selection or
the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life  (6th edition, 1872; reprinted 2004, Castle Books),
pages 669-70,  by:  Charles Darwin (1809-1882), Hero
of the Theory of Evolution
 





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bob bobby <spacehut1@...> wrote:
>
> --- On Thu, 9/3/09, bob bobby <spacehut1@...> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone!  I just now joined the group �" looking to
> see how the opposition will respond, so I picked this
> one from the Yahoo list. Will there be courteous, intelligent
> dialogue? I hope so …

Why do I get the feeling you won't be?

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "spacehut1" <spacehut1@...> wrote:
>
> Let me ask - are you aware of the books that answer the alleged
> "contradictions"? Some of the atheist attacks are really sad, and
> easily explained - how could someone be so blind to the evidence?

If you have already decided that the bible doesn't have any contradictions then
they might be good explanations, to those who haven't made up their mind in
advance they may not seem so good.

Yes, there are some biblical contradictions that can be reasoned away, but that
doesn't mean every bible contradiction can be explained in a satisfactory
manner.

----- Original Message -----
From: "spacehut1" <spacehut1@...>
To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] One last comment to Richard


>
> Richard, you wrote, "You have your opinion, I have mine."  - Does that
> also apply to your "elephant perception" story? In a previous post you
> gave the elephant story to show that not all perceptions are true. Or, was
> that story just your opinion, and not related to truth?

R:  Evidence shows some of our perceptions are illusory.  But we have means
for detecting that, like replication and consensus of other people.  In your
view there is neither any evidence, nor replication, nor consensus.  To say
not all perceptions are true is not to say none are.  Get it?

>
> Before, it was 'truth is truth regardless of perception' - so be careful
> in finding truth. Now, it's just your opinion. What happened to the truth?
> To perceive that another perceives incorrectly, requires that you perceive
> correctly.

R:  Truth is attained through evidence and reason, such as found in the
methodology of science.  The goal is objectivity, thus the necessity of
requiring evidence and testing. This is not a matter of subjective
individual opinion, but rather the consensus of competent intelligent
people.  Verification of perception is attained through, again, replication
and consensus.  Your example of comparing the perception of one person by
that of one other person is not relevant.  Think of comparing one's
perception with a multitude of perceptions of other people, and then
repeating that under differing situations.  The key is CONCENSUS.  That's
the only way out of individual subjectivity.

>
> Perhaps you are grabbing part of the elephant, too, Richard. As Prof.
> Breggen has noted, the "skeptical position assumes that the skeptic can
> stand outside the meat-grinder/sausage-making machine and see the meat,
> the grinder, the table, [or elephant] and so on."   (Hendrick van der
> Breggen, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Providence College and
> Seminary; cited in Christian Research Journal, Vol. 31, No. 5)

R:  "Providence" is by its nature and definition biased, basing theories on
presuppositions rather than evidence and reason.  Thus your professor holds
on this, that doctrine of what is presumed to be true at the beginning.
Again the way out is evidence, testing, replication, and consensus.

>
> If you can see the whole elephant, then you can distinguish the true and
> false. But, if it's just your opinion, then you are touching the elephant
> along with the others.

R:  And do you see the whole elephant?  What is the whole, and how do you
know you see the whole?  You choose unsupported presuppositions rather than
evidence and reason, thus you cannot get out of your own individual
subjectivity, as also all those in your cloistered group, and you fail in
finding truth.  Again, truth is not found through one's opinion, but rather
the methodology well established by science.  I suggest you venture out in
your studies and learn something outside your "providence" group.

Richard.


>
> Looking forward to your reply.
>
>
> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
>>
>> Yes Ray, your message has been believed for that long, and I am very
>> familiar with it, since in my past I also believed much as you do now.
>> But
>> it is worn out, just as much as the flat earth theory. IMO.  You have
>> your
>> opinion, I have mine.  Please note I never have been trying to "destroy"
>> your message.  I simply argue against it. I am not radical as Richard
>> Dawkins, who does want to destroy it.  You believe you are a Christian.
>> I
>> believe I am a Christian.  If we use that process of claiming the only
>> Christians that exist are only those who believe the same way as I
>> believe,
>> then we'll eliminate at least 90% of Christians.
>>
>> Let's see. Who do I hang out with?  Atheists?  But of course. I'll hang
>> out
>> with them anytime anywhere.  Excuse me, but as I showed you before, you
>> have
>> no idea of what logic is.  My academic background is in philosophy, and I
>> taught it in a college for a while as a sideline along with my business.
>> I
>> taught logic, and I know what it is, and you don't know what it is.
>>
>> Have fun,
>>
>> Richard.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <wolfray@...>
>> To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 7:01 PM
>> Subject: [Death To Religion] One last comment to Richard
>>
>>
>> > Richard, I can't let you get away with that. My worn out message has
>> > survived for over 2,000 years and is stronger than ever. And people
>> > like
>> > you have been trying for over two thousand years to destroy that
>> > message.
>> >
>> > Also. let's get real. You are not a christian. You deny the cornerstone
>> > of
>> > christianity. If your a christian why would you hang out with those who
>> > want to destroy??? flawed logic!!!
>> >
>> > Ray
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "bob bobby" <spacehut1@...>
To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 9:53 AM
Subject: [Death To Religion] Fw: Darwin Admits Creator


I was rather surprised and perplexed when I came
across this statement a year or two ago. The supreme
evolutionist Charles Darwin appears to attribute the start
of natural life to, in his words, “the Creator.” This seems
to contradict the suggestion by evolutionist schoolbooks
that science and religion are completely separate.

R:  Wrong. separate only in terms of education.

If
religion is to ‘stay out of schools,’ shouldn’t Darwin’s
Theory of Evolution also be excluded? – since it posits
God as the original source?

R:  Evolution theory does not posit God as source, neither did Darwin.

Quoting Darwin – “ .. all the living forms of life are the
lineal descendants of those which lived long before .. It is
interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with
many plants of many kinds, with birds .. and to reflect that
these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each
other, and dependent from each other, in so complex a
manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us ..
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several
powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator
into a few forms or into one .. from so simple a beginning
endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have
been, and are being evolved.”

R:  You pick out just one reference to a Creator.  How do you know it is
meant to be literal, rather than metaphorical.  Darwin was committed to
self-generating and self-replication.  Read all of it.

Richard.

- The Origin Of Species by Means of Natural Selection or
the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life (6th edition, 1872; reprinted 2004, Castle Books),
pages 669-70, by: Charles Darwin (1809-1882), Hero
of the Theory of Evolution






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

It is wrong to prejudge.  And you have nothing there for that.  You exhibit
only demography yourself.

Richard.

----- Original Message -----
From: "bestonnet_00" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 10:39 PM
Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Fw: Darwin Admits Creator


--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bob bobby <spacehut1@...> wrote:
>
> --- On Thu, 9/3/09, bob bobby <spacehut1@...> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone!� I just now joined the group �?" looking to
> see how the opposition will respond, so I picked this
> one from the Yahoo list. Will there be courteous, intelligent
> dialogue? I hope so �?�

Why do I get the feeling you won't be?



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

So I have "graphy" on my mind.  Here let's say "demagogy."

Sorry,
Richard.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Godwin" <meta@...>
To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 05, 2009 8:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Fw: Darwin Admits Creator


> It is wrong to prejudge.  And you have nothing there for that.  You
> exhibit
> only demography yourself.
>
> Richard.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "bestonnet_00" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
> To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 10:39 PM
> Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Fw: Darwin Admits Creator
>
>
> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bob bobby <spacehut1@...> wrote:
>>
>> --- On Thu, 9/3/09, bob bobby <spacehut1@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone!� I just now joined the group �?" looking to
>> see how the opposition will respond, so I picked this
>> one from the Yahoo list. Will there be courteous, intelligent
>> dialogue? I hope so �?�
>
> Why do I get the feeling you won't be?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

A few posts and quite a bit of experience may not be much, but it is more than
nothing.

We shall see if my experience is a reliable guide.

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
>
> It is wrong to prejudge.  And you have nothing there for that.  You exhibit
> only demography yourself.
>
> Richard.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "bestonnet_00" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
> To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 10:39 PM
> Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Fw: Darwin Admits Creator
>
>
> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bob bobby <spacehut1@> wrote:
> >
> > --- On Thu, 9/3/09, bob bobby <spacehut1@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone!� I just now joined the group �?" looking to
> > see how the opposition will respond, so I picked this
> > one from the Yahoo list. Will there be courteous, intelligent
> > dialogue? I hope so �?�
>
> Why do I get the feeling you won't be?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

 
Thanks for the reply, Richard!
You wrote, “comparing the perception of one person
by that of one other person is not relevant.”  But, that is
exactly what you did and are doing right now. You placed
your perception up to those touching the elephant, and your
perception is that all 3 touchers were incorrect, by
comparing their perceptions between them. Please let me
know where you obtained this line of thought – from a
University professor? (this is a serious question)
 
Further, you presently perceive that my perception is
incorrect – a conclusion reached by comparing our two
perceptions.
 
You mention that not all perceptions are untrue (which I
agree). Thus, one can compare perceptions and see which
is true and false, as you did with the elephant, right?
 
Please provide more information about Consensus, as you
write of. I would like to compare your perception with
others to see if anyone got it right – kind of like your
elephant story. The elephant method is a good way to
compare, right?
 
Please be more specific on the Providence paragraph. I do
not recall mentioning anything about Providence in my
paragraph, which you were attempting to answer.
 
The questions about the elephant are questions you should
be asking yourself. I did not introduce the elephant, nor do
I rely on it, as you did; it is nonsense to answer to something
I do not rely on. What are your answers? Did you presuppose
it was an elephant, or did you see the elephant?
 
You wrote, “truth is not found through one's opinion” - I
agree with your perception on that. However, you previously
spoke of having your own opinion.  So, if one is going to
find the truth it’s not going to be with listening to your
opinion (again, you admit to having opinion). Right? Also,
why would you even have opinion, if you have the truth?
 
You spoke of my perception as lacking “any evidence.”
Your perception is not true, again. Personally, I prefer
investigating evidence (like police detectives).
Unfortunately, this string is more philosophic.
 
Science is highly esteemed in your posting (I like science,
too).  Yet, we still must be careful, because I can point to
examples where the Consensus of evolutionist “science”
falsely perceived a “truth” and thereby mislead the
perceptions of people all over the world. Note how well
established it was:
“On December 18, 1912, newspapers throughout the world
blared sensational headlines:  Missing Link Found –
Darwin’s Theory Proved. The source of all the excitement
was a gravel pit at Piltdown, Sussex in the southern English
countryside, where a local amateur archaeologist had found
‘The Earliest Englishman’ … Proudly he proclaimed a new
 species, Eoanthropus dawsonii, ‘Dawson’s Dawn Man,’
which was named and authenticated by experts at the
British Museum.”
“.. most rushed to embrace Piltdown as a genuine
intermediate between humans and apes. Artists made
imaginative reconstructions of his face, and statues of his
presumed physique graced museums. In the U.S. there was
even a popular comic strip in the Sunday papers called
Peter Piltdown … Most prestigious British anthropologists
put their names and reputations on the line in authenticating
Piltdown.”
“Forty years later, the famous bones again made world
headlines:  Piltdown Ape-Man A Fake – Fossil Hoax
Makes Monkeys Out Of Scientists. Back in 1911, someone
had taken a human cranium and planted it at the gravel
excavation together with a doctored orang-utan jaw. The
orang teeth had been filed to make them look more human ..
All the fragments had been stained brown with potassium
bichromate, which made them appear equally old …
conclusive proof of fraud came in the 1950’s.”
“Looking back, it appears that British scientists, fed up with
news of sensational fossil men found in Germany and France,
strongly craved an ancestor of comparable age … The
Piltdown hoax remains one of the most intriguing mysteries
in the history of science.”   ( - The Encyclopedia of Evolution,
1990, pages 363-4; by Richard Milner, M.A. in Biological
Anthropology, UCLA; Senior Editor of Natural History
magazine, American Museum of Natural History; foreword
by Stephen Jay Gould)
 
Looking forward to comparing your next perceptions.
 
 
--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
> 
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "spacehut1" <spacehut1@...>
> To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 5:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] One last comment to Richard
>
>
> >
> > Richard, you wrote, "You have your opinion, I have mine."  - Does that
> > also apply to your "elephant perception" story? In a previous post you
> > gave the elephant story to show that not all perceptions are true. Or, was
> > that story just your opinion, and not related to truth?
>
> R:  Evidence shows some of our perceptions are illusory.  But we have means
> for detecting that, like replication and consensus of other people.  In your
> view there is neither any evidence, nor replication, nor consensus.  To say
> not all perceptions are true is not to say none are.  Get it?
>
> >
> > Before, it was 'truth is truth regardless of perception' - so be careful
> > in finding truth. Now, it's just your opinion. What happened to the truth?
> > To perceive that another perceives incorrectly, requires that you perceive
> > correctly.
>
> R:  Truth is attained through evidence and reason, such as found in the
> methodology of science.  The goal is objectivity, thus the necessity of
> requiring evidence and testing. This is not a matter of subjective
> individual opinion, but rather the consensus of competent intelligent
> people.  Verification of perception is attained through, again, replication
> and consensus.  Your example of comparing the perception of one person by
> that of one other person is not relevant.  Think of comparing one's
> perception with a multitude of perceptions of other people, and then
> repeating that under differing situations.  The key is CONCENSUS.  That's
> the only way out of individual subjectivity.
>
> >
> > Perhaps you are grabbing part of the elephant, too, Richard. As Prof.
> > Breggen has noted, the "skeptical position assumes that the skeptic can
> > stand outside the meat-grinder/sausage-making machine and see the meat,
> > the grinder, the table, [or elephant] and so on."   (Hendrick van der
> > Breggen, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Providence College and
> > Seminary; cited in Christian Research Journal, Vol. 31, No. 5)
>
> R:  "Providence" is by its nature and definition biased, basing theories on
> presuppositions rather than evidence and reason.  Thus your professor holds
> on this, that doctrine of what is presumed to be true at the beginning.
> Again the way out is evidence, testing, replication, and consensus.
>
> >
> > If you can see the whole elephant, then you can distinguish the true and
> > false. But, if it's just your opinion, then you are touching the elephant
> > along with the others.
>
> R:  And do you see the whole elephant?  What is the whole, and how do you
> know you see the whole?  You choose unsupported presuppositions rather than
> evidence and reason, thus you cannot get out of your own individual
> subjectivity, as also all those in your cloistered group, and you fail in
> finding truth.  Again, truth is not found through one's opinion, but rather
> the methodology well established by science.  I suggest you venture out in
> your studies and learn something outside your "providence" group.
>
> Richard.
 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Not sure I follow - what exactly did I prejudge? Are you prejudging that I
prejudged?

I did make an appeal to use courtesy and intelligence, because I am not yet
aware of the personalities in this group. But, I don't recall stating that
people are or are not those things - that would have been a prejudgment.

I may or may not continue this particular string. This is not the type of
dialogue I'm looking for, but I'll see how it goes (I'm looking for facts and
evidence, not 'Billy won't let me play in his sandbox').

Though, I'm a little surprised to see you admit there's a wrong. I wonder if the
atheists agree with this idea of a wrong.



--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
>
> It is wrong to prejudge.  And you have nothing there for that.  You exhibit
> only demography yourself.
>
> Richard.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "bestonnet_00" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
> To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 10:39 PM
> Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Fw: Darwin Admits Creator
>
>
> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bob bobby <spacehut1@> wrote:
> >
> > --- On Thu, 9/3/09, bob bobby <spacehut1@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone!� I just now joined the group �?" looking to
> > see how the opposition will respond, so I picked this
> > one from the Yahoo list. Will there be courteous, intelligent
> > dialogue? I hope so �?�
>
> Why do I get the feeling you won't be?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "bob bobby" <spacehut1@...>
To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 8:54 PM
Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: One last comment to Richard



Thanks for the reply, Richard!
You wrote, “comparing the perception of one person
by that of one other person is not relevant.” But, that is
exactly what you did and are doing right now. You placed
your perception up to those touching the elephant, and your
perception is that all 3 touchers were incorrect, by
comparing their perceptions between them. Please let me
know where you obtained this line of thought – from a
University professor? (this is a serious question)

R:  Again CONSENSUS.  In controversial cases, consensus is necessary.  My
scenario was meant to show there are differences in perceptions.  Actually,
as scientists have show, there never is more than one exact perception, even
within only one individual.  Of course, small differences are not noticed.
If you see a particular tree, and I also see that tree, we both would say
it's a tree, but we would see it differently.  So you have something against
University professors???  Biased are you?

Further, you presently perceive that my perception is
incorrect – a conclusion reached by comparing our two
perceptions.

R:  Whether or not your perception is correct would depend on the
perceptions of others, usually.  The real test would come from a number of
others and over different periods of time.  Could it be that in mass
psychology a whole group of people would have seen a tree there, but after a
while (hours, days?) it disappeared.  Or would see a ghost, like the
"appearances" of the resurrected Christ?--grossly expanded in witnesses.
Were they all so biased as to be particularly subject to delusion?  Very
possibly yes.

You mention that not all perceptions are untrue (which I
agree). Thus, one can compare perceptions and see which
is true and false, as you did with the elephant, right?

R:  Of course there can be comparisons of perceptions.  I saw the car on the
right causing the collision; you saw it was the car on the left.  Who's
right?  Whose on first base?   The elephant is more than its parts.

Please provide more information about Consensus, as you
write of. I would like to compare your perception with
others to see if anyone got it right – kind of like your
elephant story. The elephant method is a good way to
compare, right?

R:  I don't like the elephant concept particularly, but go for it if you
wish.  First let me ask you:  What do you think consensus means?

Please be more specific on the Providence paragraph. I do
not recall mentioning anything about Providence in my
paragraph, which you were attempting to answer.

R:  The school named "Providence."  That would be a cue to what kind of
school that would be.  Of course it might refer to Providence, RI, in which
case I would be wrong.

The questions about the elephant are questions you should
be asking yourself. I did not introduce the elephant, nor do
I rely on it, as you did; it is nonsense to answer to something
I do not rely on. What are your answers? Did you presuppose
it was an elephant, or did you see the elephant?

R:  Good. Forget the elephant. I referred to it only because you did first.
So we agree to lay that guy aside now? I haven't seen an elephant for a long
time.

You wrote, “truth is not found through one's opinion” - I
agree with your perception on that. However, you previously
spoke of having your own opinion. So, if one is going to
find the truth it’s not going to be with listening to your
opinion (again, you admit to having opinion). Right? Also,
why would you even have opinion, if you have the truth?

R:  Yes, I do have opinions.  These are some theories (1) for which I lack
sufficient evidence and reasoning for confirmation at the time, or (2) for
personal beliefs based on evidence and reason.  Never follow my opinions.
Strive for truth yourself, without being determined by anyone else.  I
follow Socrates, in that we never have the truth.  We have only good
theories, based on probabilities, sometimes later proven wrong.  Are you
familiar with the Black Swan scenario?

You spoke of my perception as lacking “any evidence.”
Your perception is not true, again. Personally, I prefer
investigating evidence (like police detectives).
Unfortunately, this string is more philosophic.

R:  Good idea.  Go for evidence. Like science.  Detectives use more
intuition.  Science uses hypothetical deduction with testing for
conformation.  I am quite familiar with your quoting on the Piltdown
"missing link."  You do have the correct conception that science sometimes
fails in its task, even sometimes with fraudalent claims.  So science isn't
perfect.  Were you expecting perfection from science?  I surely am not.  But
here is a good example of a problem.  You, as the Creationist groups, take
one, two, three, or so examples of failures in science to represent many
thousands and hundreds of thousands of examples that have proven correct.
That's bad reasoning, and from which you can learn something, if you are so
inclined.

There are missing links between different genera:  Speciation, or fossil
transitions, are quite common, for example fish to mammal with
Archaeopteryx, commonly called Fishapod, and also in the reverse from mammal
to fish. Another dinasaurs to birds (although controversial): dinosaur
Beipiaosaurus sported two feather types, one a stiff, unbranched filament
that is the first evidence of a feather, and A fossil bonanza in
northwestern China shows that the ancestors of T. rex and other reptile
giants started small, 165-155 m.y. ago: a theropod, a type of two-legged,
meat-eating dinosaur from the lineage that led to birds. Gerobatrachus
hottoni, the animal looked somewhat like a salamander with a stubby tail and
froglike ears. "So it's kind of a frogamander, if you will," said Anderson.
An ancient ancestor of the elephant from 37 million years ago lived in water
and had a similar lifestyle to a hippo, a fossil study has suggested. The
animal was said to be similar to a tapir, a hoofed mammal which looks like a
cross between a horse and a rhino.

For ape to human the latest is "Id", 47 m.y. old primate fossil.  The famous
"Lucy" is Australopithicus afarensis, not totally ape and yet not quite
human, dated 3.2 to 3.8 m.y. old, thus transitional.  And humans from fish:
Tiktaalik, the 375-million-year-old fossil believed to be a "missing link"
between fish and the first land vertebrates, or tetra­pods; this might
explain why there are some remarkable similarities in body plan. Check this
out:  http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0812/features/fish_out_of_water.shtml
Macroevolution now is quite common, along with microevolution.  With the
completion of Chimp DNA, we now know we have 99% the same DNA as do Chimps.

So that's for starters.

Richard.




Science is highly esteemed in your posting (I like science,
too). Yet, we still must be careful, because I can point to
examples where the Consensus of evolutionist “science”
falsely perceived a “truth” and thereby mislead the
perceptions of people all over the world. Note how well
established it was:
“On December 18, 1912, newspapers throughout the world
blared sensational headlines: Missing Link Found –
Darwin’s Theory Proved. The source of all the excitement
was a gravel pit at Piltdown, Sussex in the southern English
countryside, where a local amateur archaeologist had found
‘The Earliest Englishman’ … Proudly he proclaimed a new
species, Eoanthropus dawsonii, ‘Dawson’s Dawn Man,’
which was named and authenticated by experts at the
British Museum.”
“.. most rushed to embrace Piltdown as a genuine
intermediate between humans and apes. Artists made
imaginative reconstructions of his face, and statues of his
presumed physique graced museums. In the U.S. there was
even a popular comic strip in the Sunday papers called
Peter Piltdown … Most prestigious British anthropologists
put their names and reputations on the line in authenticating
Piltdown.”
“Forty years later, the famous bones again made world
headlines: Piltdown Ape-Man A Fake – Fossil Hoax
Makes Monkeys Out Of Scientists. Back in 1911, someone
had taken a human cranium and planted it at the gravel
excavation together with a doctored orang-utan jaw. The
orang teeth had been filed to make them look more human ..
All the fragments had been stained brown with potassium
bichromate, which made them appear equally old …
conclusive proof of fraud came in the 1950’s.”
“Looking back, it appears that British scientists, fed up with
news of sensational fossil men found in Germany and France,
strongly craved an ancestor of comparable age … The
Piltdown hoax remains one of the most intriguing mysteries
in the history of science.” ( - The Encyclopedia of Evolution,
1990, pages 363-4; by Richard Milner, M.A. in Biological
Anthropology, UCLA; Senior Editor of Natural History
magazine, American Museum of Natural History; foreword
by Stephen Jay Gould)

Looking forward to comparing your next perceptions.


--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "spacehut1" <spacehut1@...>
> To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 5:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] One last comment to Richard
>
>
> >
> > Richard, you wrote, "You have your opinion, I have mine." - Does that
> > also apply to your "elephant perception" story? In a previous post you
> > gave the elephant story to show that not all perceptions are true. Or,
> > was
> > that story just your opinion, and not related to truth?
>
> R: Evidence shows some of our perceptions are illusory. But we have means
> for detecting that, like replication and consensus of other people. In
> your
> view there is neither any evidence, nor replication, nor consensus. To say
> not all perceptions are true is not to say none are. Get it?
>
> >
> > Before, it was 'truth is truth regardless of perception' - so be careful
> > in finding truth. Now, it's just your opinion. What happened to the
> > truth?
> > To perceive that another perceives incorrectly, requires that you
> > perceive
> > correctly.
>
> R: Truth is attained through evidence and reason, such as found in the
> methodology of science. The goal is objectivity, thus the necessity of
> requiring evidence and testing. This is not a matter of subjective
> individual opinion, but rather the consensus of competent intelligent
> people. Verification of perception is attained through, again, replication
> and consensus. Your example of comparing the perception of one person by
> that of one other person is not relevant. Think of comparing one's
> perception with a multitude of perceptions of other people, and then
> repeating that under differing situations. The key is CONCENSUS. That's
> the only way out of individual subjectivity.
>
> >
> > Perhaps you are grabbing part of the elephant, too, Richard. As Prof.
> > Breggen has noted, the "skeptical position assumes that the skeptic can
> > stand outside the meat-grinder/sausage-making machine and see the meat,
> > the grinder, the table, [or elephant] and so on." (Hendrick van der
> > Breggen, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Providence College and
> > Seminary; cited in Christian Research Journal, Vol. 31, No. 5)
>
> R: "Providence" is by its nature and definition biased, basing theories on
> presuppositions rather than evidence and reason. Thus your professor holds
> on this, that doctrine of what is presumed to be true at the beginning.
> Again the way out is evidence, testing, replication, and consensus.
>
> >
> > If you can see the whole elephant, then you can distinguish the true and
> > false. But, if it's just your opinion, then you are touching the
> > elephant
> > along with the others.
>
> R: And do you see the whole elephant? What is the whole, and how do you
> know you see the whole? You choose unsupported presuppositions rather than
> evidence and reason, thus you cannot get out of your own individual
> subjectivity, as also all those in your cloistered group, and you fail in
> finding truth. Again, truth is not found through one's opinion, but rather
> the methodology well established by science. I suggest you venture out in
> your studies and learn something outside your "providence" group.
>
> Richard.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

My reply was to bestonnet, not to you.

If you really are looking for evidence, then you are in the right place, so
far as I can contribute.  Facts are theories to be proven.  What sandbox are
you used to?

Richard.

----- Original Message -----
From: "spacehut1" <spacehut1@...>
To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 5:55 PM
Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Fw: Darwin Admits Creator



Not sure I follow - what exactly did I prejudge? Are you prejudging that I
prejudged?

I did make an appeal to use courtesy and intelligence, because I am not yet
aware of the personalities in this group. But, I don't recall stating that
people are or are not those things - that would have been a prejudgment.

I may or may not continue this particular string. This is not the type of
dialogue I'm looking for, but I'll see how it goes (I'm looking for facts
and evidence, not 'Billy won't let me play in his sandbox').

Though, I'm a little surprised to see you admit there's a wrong. I wonder if
the atheists agree with this idea of a wrong.



--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
>
> It is wrong to prejudge.  And you have nothing there for that.  You
> exhibit
> only demography yourself.
>
> Richard.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "bestonnet_00" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
> To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 10:39 PM
> Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Fw: Darwin Admits Creator
>
>
> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bob bobby <spacehut1@> wrote:
> >
> > --- On Thu, 9/3/09, bob bobby <spacehut1@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone!� I just now joined the group �?" looking to
> > see how the opposition will respond, so I picked this
> > one from the Yahoo list. Will there be courteous, intelligent
> > dialogue? I hope so �?�
>
> Why do I get the feeling you won't be?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>




------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bob bobby <spacehut1@...> wrote:
>
> Science is highly esteemed in your posting (I like science,
> too).  Yet, we still must be careful, because I can point to
> examples where the Consensus of evolutionist “science”
> falsely perceived a “truth” and thereby mislead the
> perceptions of people all over the world. Note how well
> established it was:

Just because Piltdown man was hoaxed doesn't mean that the rest of the evidence
for evolution was hoaxed.

It is also important to note that once the hoax was discovered pretty much no
one used it as evidence for evolution (I'm not even sure if they bother to even
teach about it) and even before it was exposed as a hoax it was widely ignored
as an outlier (a combination of bones from different creatures was the usual
explanation).

The Paluxy tracks and the Calaveras skull were also hoaxes, of course
evolutionists didn't tend to be taken in by those, in fact those were hoaxes to
disprove evolution (and unlike Piltdown man are actually taken seriously by
creationists even today, despite being exposed as frauds).

If you look at:
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm
http://www.creationhistory.com/CalaverasSkull.shtml
You can see that people still cite known hoaxes in support of their conjecture
(creationism isn't a theory).

> “On December 18, 1912, newspapers throughout the world
> blared sensational headlines:  Missing Link Found �"
> Darwin’s Theory Proved. The source of all the excitement
> was a gravel pit at Piltdown, Sussex in the southern English
> countryside, where a local amateur archaeologist had found
> ‘The Earliest Englishman’ … Proudly he proclaimed a new
>  species, Eoanthropus dawsonii, ‘Dawson’s Dawn Man,’
> which was named and authenticated by experts at the
> British Museum.”
> “.. most rushed to embrace Piltdown as a genuine
> intermediate between humans and apes. Artists made
> imaginative reconstructions of his face, and statues of his
> presumed physique graced museums. In the U.S. there was
> even a popular comic strip in the Sunday papers called
> Peter Piltdown … Most prestigious British anthropologists
> put their names and reputations on the line in authenticating
> Piltdown.”
> “Forty years later, the famous bones again made world
> headlines:  Piltdown Ape-Man A Fake �" Fossil Hoax
> Makes Monkeys Out Of Scientists. Back in 1911, someone
> had taken a human cranium and planted it at the gravel
> excavation together with a doctored orang-utan jaw. The
> orang teeth had been filed to make them look more human ..
> All the fragments had been stained brown with potassium
> bichromate, which made them appear equally old …
> conclusive proof of fraud came in the 1950’s.”
> “Looking back, it appears that British scientists, fed up with
> news of sensational fossil men found in Germany and France,
> strongly craved an ancestor of comparable age … The
> Piltdown hoax remains one of the most intriguing mysteries
> in the history of science.”   ( - The Encyclopedia of Evolution,
> 1990, pages 363-4; by Richard Milner, M.A. in Biological
> Anthropology, UCLA; Senior Editor of Natural History
> magazine, American Museum of Natural History; foreword
> by Stephen Jay Gould)

bob bobby <spacehut1@...> wrote:

> I was rather surprised and perplexed when I came
> across this statement a year or two ago.  The supreme
> evolutionist Charles Darwin appears to attribute the start
> of natural life to, in his words, “the Creator.>>

"breathed by the creator" was not original to Darwin's First Edition. It was a
later edition. Would you care to speculate why that was?

I suggest you read more of "The Origin ... " It's available on line.

Another resource which would be very useful is the Darwin Project which is
making available to everyone all of Darwin's work.
http://www.thedarwinproject.com/

<<This seems to contradict the suggestion by evolutionist schoolbooks that
science and religion are completely separate.>>

Actually, it has nothing to do with contemporary school books.

<<If religion is to ‘stay out of schools, ... >>

Religion has no place in public school science classrooms.

Study ABOUT religion (not just mainstream Xnity--but as many religions as
possible in the time available) is appropriate in other subjects, perhaps. Some
states even mandate teaching ABOUT religion.

Google this:

OABITAR

and read this:

http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1968/JASA12-68Aulie.html

---excerpt---

It is therefore important to be clear on just what it was Darwin said in his
famous book. And we should also be clear on what he did not say, quite apart
from whether we are comfortable with him or not.

What did Darwin say about the "origin of life"? There is not a sentence anywhere
in any of the six editions of The Origin of Species in which he advanced a
"theory" concerning the origin of life, as distinguished from the origin of
species.-3 Nowhere did Darwin take up the question of whether his conception of
natural selection may extend also into the realm of the inorganic, or the
transition from the inorganic to the organic. Once only did he approach the
question: on page 484 of the last chapter of the first edition, we find, '. . .
probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have
descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed". In
the second and succeeding editions he finished the last sentence of his book by
saying that "life ... having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few
forms or into one . ."4

[footnotes at the cited web page]

On September 12, 1880, America's most prominent journalist, H.L. (Henry Louis)
Mencken, was born in Baltimore. Although his father was agnostic, his Lutheran
mother sent him to Sunday School, which he later defined as, "A prison in which
children do penance for the evil conscience of their parents" (A Mencken
Chrestomathy,1949). The cigar-chomping, iconoclastic journalist worked most of
his life at the Baltimore Sun, where he began his trademark column, "The Free
Lance," in 1911. Mencken also coedited Smart Set magazine (1914-1923) and edited
American Mercury magazine (1925-1933). His lifetime production of 28 books
included a 6-volume collection of his essays, Prejudices (1919-27), In Defense
of Women (1917), Treatise of the Gods (1930), and an autobiographical trilogy,
ending with Heathen Days, published as one volume in 1947.
The sardonic critic of the "booboisie," who also coined the term "Boobus
americanus," was famed for his coverage of the Scopes Trial
in Dayton, Tenn., in 1925. Mencken's many epigrams include: "Faith may
be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the
improbable" (The New York Times Magazine, Sept. 11, 1955). "The chief
contribution of Protestantism to human thought is its massive proof that God is
a bore" (Minority Report,
1956). "No one in this world, so far as I know . . . has ever lost
money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the
plain people" (Notes on Journalism, Chicago Tribune, Sept. 19 1926). "Puritanism
- The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy" (A Mencken
Chrestomathy,
1949). "Sunday - A day given over by Americans to wishing that they
themselves were dead and in Heaven, and that their neighbors were dead
and in Hell" (A Book of Burlesques 1916, 1924). "Theology: An effort to explain
the unknowable by putting it into terms of the not worth knowing" (A Mencken
Chrestomathy,
1949). "The most curious social convention of the great age in which we
live is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be
respected" (American Mercury, March 1930). D. 1956.
--
Mencken's Creed, cited by George Seldes in Great Thoughts


I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to
mankind--that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the
ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to
clear and honest thinking.



I believe that no discovery of fact, however trivial, can be wholly
useless to the race, and that no trumpeting of falsehood, however
virtuous in intent, can be anything but vicious. . .



I believe that the evidence for immortality is no better than the evidence of
witches, and deserves no more respect.



I believe in the complete freedom of thought and speech . . .



I believe in the capacity of man to conquer his world, and to find out what it
is made of, and how it is run.



I believe in the reality of progress.



But the whole thing, after all, may be put very simply. I believe that
it is better to tell the truth than to lie. I believe that it is better
to be free than to be a slave. And I believe that it is better to know
than be ignorant.








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 
(I sent this on the 7th, but it didn't post - not sure why. I am removing a
certain link
I used for source material, perhaps that will solve the issue. Here it is again
-)


--- On Mon, 9/7/09, bob bobby <spacehut1@...> wrote:


From: bob bobby <spacehut1@...>
Subject: Darwin Admits Creator
To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, September 7, 2009, 7:37 PM







 
I recall the infamous quote from Carl Sagan in my middle
school “science” class. This was actually in the textbook for
the class:   “.. if we say that God has always existed, why not
save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?” 
(also in Cosmos, 1983 paperback, page 257).  Strange how
that one made it into a “scientific” schoolbook, but ‘the Creator’
from Darwin did not (talk about censorship). One would suspect
Darwin has a higher esteem than Sagan.
 
Through which, I reply … “If we say Darwin’s ‘the Creator’ is a
metaphor, why not save a step and say Darwin’s Theory of
Evolution is a metaphor?”  Sounds rather convenient and
unrealistic, doesn’t it? But, that’s how you sound in your
posting, Richard - convenient and unrealistic.
 
If the Origin of Species is to be regarded as scientific fact,
why would an “unscientific” religious metaphor be included
with hardcore scientific evidence? Please provide leading
evolutionists who have resorted to a metaphor to explain
away Darwin’s embarrassing ‘Creator’ statement.
 
Phrases such as, “elaborately constructed forms,” “a
beginning,” and, “so complex a manner” in Darwin’s
quote, also make Darwin sound like an ID supporter
(Intelligent Design).
 
By the way, Sagan’s idea can be easily answered:   matter is
not an eternal, spiritual Being (i.e., matter is not equivalent
to spirit) – it’s a contradiction in terms. Matter and spirit are
opposites; like saying the sky and the ground are the same;
if the ground has dirt, why not say the sky has dirt. But they
didn’t put that one in the evolutionist schoolbook.
 
“seperate only in terms of education.”   Evolution defender
Ronald Numbers gladly notes (eminent Professor of the
History of Science and Medicine, University of Wisconsin;
President of the International Union of the History and
Philosophy of Science) :   “The Supreme Court’s decision
in 1987 effectively ended efforts to mandate the inclusion
of creationism in public-school curricula ..”
 
“.. Arkansas and Louisiana, passed laws mandating equal
treatment for ‘creation science’ and ‘evolution science’ …
the courts subsequently ruled these particular statutes to
be unconstitutional ..”
 
“In 1982 .. a federal judge declared the Arkansas law,
requiring the ‘balanced treatment’ of creation and evolution,
to be unconstitutional. Three years later a court in Louisiana
reached a similar judgment. The United States Supreme
Court upheld these decisions in 1987 ..”
 
“The first major legal test of intelligent design began with
the Dover (Pennsylvania) Area School District Board’s
decision to make students ‘aware of gaps/problems in
Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including,
but not limited to, intelligent design’ … On 20 December
2005 Judge Jones handed down his verdict, excoriating the
Dover school board for its actions .. Jones ruled that ID was
‘not science’ because it invoked ‘supernatural causation’ ..”
   ( - The Creationists, 2006, Harvard University Press;
 pages 1-2, 6-7, 277, 391, 394)
 
-I suppose the above means evolutionists agree with
combining religion and science outside of school, but not
in school. Right? That would mean the evolutionist view in
school contradicts the evolutionist view outside of school.
Richard, please specify what public school includes a separate
religious education class in its’ facility (one that is
complimentary to the “science” class).
 
“Evolution theory does not posit God as source, neither did
Darwin.”   So, Darwin introduces, in his words, “the Creator”
as the starting source of life, but that means he did not say
God is the source. Hmmm. Please explain, Richard. And,
would you mind putting an eraser to “the Creator” in the
Origin of Species, since you are ignoring the elephant in
the room? Since Darwin invoked supernatural causation,
his theory must be excluded from school, as Judge Jones
ruled above.
 
You wrote, “Darwin was committed to self-generating and
self-replication. Read all of it.”
You are not paying attention. Go one step before; we are
talking about what started the self-replicator. Former atheist
Antony Flew even picks up on this:   “Richard Dawkins
constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the
fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that
his whole argument began with a being which already
possessed reproductive powers.”  (link ommitted for group
approval; google search Flew interview) 
 
Darwin, Flew and I are referring to before animal evolution
started. Consider tipping the first domino, setting the other
dominoes in motion. Or, as the timer on a clock is wound up,
who wound up evolution’s clock – to get evolution started.
Evolution cannot start itself.
 
Looking forward to your reply.

 





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

bob bobby <spacehut1@...> wrote:

<< ... Piltdown  ... >>

It was practitioners of science who discovered and EXPOSED the Piltdown hoax.

From wikipedia:

Relative importance

The Piltdown man fraud had a significant impact on early research on human
evolution. Notably, it led scientists down a blind alley in the belief that the
human brain expanded in size before the jaw adapted to new types of food.
Discoveries of Australopithecine fossils found in the 1920s in South Africa were
ignored owing to Piltdown man, and the reconstruction of human evolution was
thrown off track for decades. The examination and debate over Piltdown man led
to a vast expenditure of time and effort on the fossil, with an estimated 250+
papers written on the topic.

The fossil was sufficiently influential for Clarence Darrow to introduce it as
evidence in defense of Scopes during the Scopes Monkey Trial. Darrow died in
1938, more than ten years before Piltdown Man was exposed as a fraud.
Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard listed a mammal similar to Piltdown Man as
one of the ancestors of humanity, "Man's first real Manhood" in his book
Scientology: A History of Man and borrowed the Piltdown moniker. His text states
that "it is so named not because it is accurately the real Piltdown Man, but
because it has some similarity". Obsessions about biting stem from Piltdown
event, according to Hubbard, because the "Piltdown teeth were enormous and he
was quite careless as to whom and what he bit and often very much surprised at
the resulting damage"[8]; Piltdown Man would be exposed as a hoax just months
after the publication of Hubbard's book.

The hoax is still cited by creationists in support of their view that the theory
of evolution cannot address the origins of man. Many cite it as evidence of
frequent acceptance in the scientific community of viewpoints with very little
evidence. (Other fossils cited include Nebraska Man, Homo rudolfensis, Homo
cepranensis, Homo antecessor, the Gawis cranium and Rhodesian Man) [9] [10]
Though it has been pointed out that it was science and scientists that
discovered it was a fraud, albeit after an extremely long time, [9] the
notoriety of the hoax remains strong and in November 2003, the Natural History
Museum held an exhibition to mark the fiftieth anniversary of its exposure.[11]