Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > rec.nude > #45126 > unrolled thread

Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin?

Back to article view | Back to rec.nude

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 08:31 +0000
    Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-14 08:31 +0000
    Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-14 08:45 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-14 09:34 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 20:04 +0000
    Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Anna <annaliddell@lycos.com> - 2026-06-14 09:01 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Bert Clanton <abertclanton@comcast.net> - 2026-06-14 11:03 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 13:04 +0000
          Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Neosapienis" <dariowestern@nospambigpond.com> - 2026-06-14 20:03 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-14 17:03 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Anna <annaliddell@lycos.com> - 2026-06-14 18:02 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-15 05:02 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Anna <annaliddell@lycos.com> - 2026-06-14 17:35 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-14 18:16 +0000
    Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 09:02 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 09:32 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Dan Abel <dabel@sonic.net> - 2026-06-14 10:19 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Jenny6833A <Jenny6833A@aol.com> - 2026-06-14 11:49 +0000
          Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Dan Abel <dabel@sonic.net> - 2026-06-24 14:44 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 11:01 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? stinson_home@HOTMAIL.COM - 2026-06-14 11:02 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-14 11:45 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Stuffed Tiger <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> - 2026-06-14 11:45 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 11:55 +0000
          Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? stinson_home@HOTMAIL.COM - 2026-06-14 13:01 +0000
          Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Clifford <CliffordAlls@aol.com> - 2026-06-14 13:04 +0000
            Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Dan Abel <dabel@sonic.net> - 2026-06-14 13:33 +0000
              Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Neosapienis" <dariowestern@nospambigpond.com> - 2026-06-14 14:34 +0000
                Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-14 18:16 +0000
              Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Jenny6833A <Jenny6833A@aol.com> - 2026-06-25 03:59 +0000
          Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Stuffed Tiger <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> - 2026-06-14 14:06 +0000
            Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-14 18:02 +0000
            Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-24 12:11 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 14:02 +0000
          Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Jenny6833A <Jenny6833A@aol.com> - 2026-06-14 17:42 +0000
            Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Stuffed Tiger <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> - 2026-06-25 00:58 +0000
          Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Stuffed Tiger <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> - 2026-06-15 02:32 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Stuffed Tiger <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> - 2026-06-14 13:01 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-25 00:58 +0000
    Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? stinson_home@HOTMAIL.COM - 2026-06-14 09:02 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Someone <someone@somewhere.com> - 2026-06-14 09:16 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? stinson_home@HOTMAIL.COM - 2026-06-14 20:31 +0000
    Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? BeoWolf <Naturistvideos@gmail.com> - 2026-06-14 09:16 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 11:02 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 12:00 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-14 17:15 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 17:35 +0000
    Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Stuffed Tiger <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> - 2026-06-14 09:34 +0000
    Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Anna <annaliddell@lycos.com> - 2026-06-14 09:34 +0000
    Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Stuffed Tiger <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> - 2026-06-14 09:35 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 09:35 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-14 09:46 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 12:00 +0000
          Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-24 09:43 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Anna <annaliddell@lycos.com> - 2026-06-14 10:00 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 10:23 +0000
          Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 12:01 +0000
          Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Stuffed Tiger <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> - 2026-06-14 13:16 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 11:45 +0000
          Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 17:16 +0000
          Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 20:31 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-15 05:32 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Jenny6833A <Jenny6833A@aol.com> - 2026-06-14 10:19 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Richard C. Rivers" <rcmang@comcast.net> - 2026-06-14 11:02 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Jenny6833A <Jenny6833A@aol.com> - 2026-06-14 11:03 +0000
          Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 11:46 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 11:02 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 11:16 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 11:46 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Dan Abel <dabel@sonic.net> - 2026-06-14 17:45 +0000
          Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-14 19:31 +0000
            Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-15 06:47 +0000
            Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-24 22:11 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 11:46 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-14 14:34 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-24 18:11 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Paul <something@somewhere.co.uk> - 2026-06-14 12:00 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-14 12:01 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-25 00:26 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Anna <annaliddell@lycos.com> - 2026-06-14 12:01 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-14 13:16 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-14 14:03 +0000
          Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 14:07 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Bert Clanton <abertclanton@comcast.net> - 2026-06-14 19:30 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Stuffed Tiger <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> - 2026-06-14 12:30 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Stuffed Tiger <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> - 2026-06-14 12:30 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 12:31 +0000
          Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-14 18:00 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Someone <someone@somewhere.com> - 2026-06-14 14:01 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-14 18:01 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Fridthjof Andersen" <df@os.dk> - 2026-06-14 14:03 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Anna <annaliddell@lycos.com> - 2026-06-14 14:34 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-14 19:15 +0000
          Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-14 19:30 +0000
          Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 20:00 +0000
    Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-14 12:15 +0000
    Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-14 14:01 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 20:30 +0000
    Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-14 17:04 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-15 03:15 +0000

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#46042

"Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:Xns9BC4A4C8D4F65TROLLBUSTERS@216.168.3.30...
> Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:Xns9BC48659DDDF3absolutelaneyahoocom@85.214.105.209:
>
>> It is not controversial. That a minority of people deny reality does not
>> make reality controversial.
>
>
> If this can't be done, then just maybe the story is a fable of a king who
> rode a barge down a river during a flood.
>
> More Fun reading:  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

Are you aware of the Epic of Gilgamesh? It is the oldest known written story 
in existance, dating from around 2300BC (whereas Genesis as a written text 
dates only from around 700BC). Gilgamesh also contains a flood story with 
some uncanny similarities with that in the Bible. Either the version in the 
Bible was based on that in Gilgamesh, or both have a common source.

David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46085

Anna <annaliddell@lycos.com> wrote in news:b92429e4-83c1-4ae0-87b4-
cfcc0db3c3eb@v18g2000pro.googlegroups.com:

> On Mar 4, 8:58 am, Lane <absolutel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> Nobody is forcing anything. Science is being taught. That's it.
>>
> 
> You are forcing down your beliefs regarding the origin of our species
> down people's throats.

I have no such beliefs. There is physical evidence and a very good 
theory that interprest that evidence. I don't believe anything beyond 
that. 

A belief about the origin of our species would be something without 
evidence like, oh, some deity created the universe and everything in it 
in 6 days.

See the difference?

> 
> Since it is so controversial let it be taught elsewhere as opposed to
> public government schools.
> 

It is not controversial. That a minority of people deny reality does not 
make reality controversial.

Lane

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45596

On Mar 8, 4:48�pm, "Richard C. Rivers" <rcm...@comcast.net> wrote:

> The simple fact is that evelution is god's creationism. Dah!

And your evidence for that is what?

:-)

Jenny

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45607

The simple fact is that evelution is god's creationism. Dah!

"Stuffed Tiger" <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> wrote in message 
news:l266r497alq0b0uhskrskrrclonht0gn0r@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 19:19:42 -0800, Someone <someone@somewhere.com>
> wrote:
>
> ...
>>Unfortunately, many in evolutionary circles would like you to believe
>>that no one believes in creationism but ignorant people. Reality is,
>>many (thousands) of educated scientists believe in creationism.
>
> That was shown to be another lie.
>
> Representatives of these organizations and their scientists were
> invited to present at trial. Only one showed up. No others wanted to
> be cross examined in the light of day.
>
> The scientist who showed up was a real scientist. He used the flagella
> motor in his writings and in court as an example of intelligent
> design, something that could not have simply evolved because there was
> nothing like it anywhere else in any cell.
>
> In fact, in the trial he was shown, among other items, an example of
> the same "design" with almost all the parts used in another bacteria
> for a completely different purpose. He was simply mistaken.
>
> His definition of a scientific "theory" was so broad that he admitted
> it included astrology and nearly anything else anyone wanted to claim
> was something they "believed" in, with or without evidence.
>
> In this and other areas, he claimed that he was in the mainstream. He
> was given stacks of papers and books to the contrary, and was able to
> produce not one article of support.
>
> Even so, we scientists feel we need trained people like him who
> genuinely disagree. We value his opinion, and we value him taking an
> unpopular, divergent perspective. I have no problem with students at
> the University level being exposed to and studying his research.
>
> I have read Creationist work myself. They make the case that evolution
> is an unfinished theory. That it is.
>
> Just because a theory is unfinished, does not mean it cannot be
> tested. The predictions of Evolution have been tested over and over,
> the latest being via DNA, and found to predict the correct answers.
>
> What does Creationism predict? That some structure or other is too
> complex to have evolved, and so it must have been designed.
>
> That's not a prediction. The fact that we don't know how something
> evolved does not mean we won't ever know it. This has been going on
> for hundreds of years with the Creationists retreating again and again
> as new scientific evidence for evolution emerged. The Creationists
> have now retreated to microbiology and are losing there.
>
> As the mechanisms get smaller and smaller, will science always find
> that it can expand our knowledge to meet the Creationist challenge?
>
> There is one exception.
>
> We know from Quantum Mechanics that we can *never* know certain
> things, like the exact position and momentum of electrons in motion.
>
> Could God be hiding in there? Sure.
>
> Could God use that to cause things to happen? Sure. Anything and
> everything. As long as the QM probabilities eventually work out, we
> have no way of knowing whether God did it or it was crazy random QM.
>
> Is that a possible Creationist Scientific Theory? No, because for the
> same reason we cannot measure exact position and momentum, we can
> never test if God is underneath manipulating those things. That's a
> hard, physical fact, not some limitation a new device will remove.
>
> At the moment, it looks like God has arranged it so He can do just
> about anything He wants, and we can never prove whether He did it or
> it just happened that way. We can't control Him except that results
> are predictable with some probability. He never violates those
> probabilities, and seemingly would never need to in dealing with us.
>
> But aren't the mutations of evolution dependent on QM events? Yup.
>
> What a God! He confounds us all alike, theists and atheists. Whether
> He does or doesn't exist will never be ours to know; that's a fact.
>
> And didn't we just conclude that, in reality, we can't even define our
> own existence, at least beyond the QM level, where all those
> electrodynamic events occur, that constitute every cellular activity.
>
> If we can't define our own existence, how can we define Gods
> existence? If we can't define what it means for God to exist, how can
> we say whether or not God exists?
>
> Only Humility is left to us, and that is the same as Naturism.
>
> Thanks. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45611

On Mar 8, 4:48�pm, "Richard C. Rivers" <rcm...@comcast.net> wrote:

> The simple fact is that evelution is god's creationism. Dah!

Which god's?

(At last count there were well over 5,000 of the thingies with new
ones being invented almost daily.)

:-)

Jenny

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45685

Jenny6833A <Jenny6833A@aol.com> wrote in news:ba6f0901-6867-4ec8-84ca-
3b57ab89a9c0@i2g2000prd.googlegroups.com:

>> The simple fact is that evelution is god's creationism. Dah!

> Which god's?
 
The CYLON's.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45612

Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> wrote in 
news:Xns9BC4A5C00740Babsolutelaneyahoocom@85.214.105.209:

> It's also not an assertion of absolute truth.

Of course not.  It means that it's still open to revision.  If it was 
absolute truth, we'd call it a LAW OF SCIENCE.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45648

"Zee" <jonZeee@webtv.net> wrote in message 
news:737ff909-0d06-420c-acdf-74ce20da9c7b@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com...

> as there is question about the missing link..

What "missing link"? there is no "missing link".

> and of course explanation of a hymen in human females need to be totally
answered.....

Does it?, why?

David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45686

"David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> wrote in news:718018Fjvm4rU1
@mid.individual.net:

> What "missing link"? there is no "missing link".

I thought Z was the missing link!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45936

In article <718018Fjvm4rU1@mid.individual.net>,
 "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> wrote:

> "Zee" <jonZeee@webtv.net> wrote in message 
> news:737ff909-0d06-420c-acdf-74ce20da9c7b@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com...
> 
> > as there is question about the missing link..
> 
> What "missing link"? there is no "missing link".

Don't be silly.  Of course there is.  You just responded to him in this 
thread.

:-)

> > and of course explanation of a hymen in human females need to be totally
> answered.....
> 
> Does it?, why?

That one is easily explained, also.  It was an attempt to keep Zee from 
reproducing.

-- 
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
dabel@sonic.net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46000

On Mar 4, 2:54 pm, Dan Abel <da...@sonic.net> wrote:
> In article <718018Fjvm4...@mid.individual.net>,
>  "David Looser" <david.loo...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > "Zee" <jonZ...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> >news:737ff909-0d06-420c-acdf-74ce20da9c7b@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > as there is question about the missing link..
>
> > What "missing link"? there is no "missing link".
>
> Don't be silly.  Of course there is.  You just responded to him in this
> thread.
>
> :-)
>
> > > and of course explanation of a hymen in human females need to be totally
> > answered.....
>
> > Does it?, why?
>
> That one is easily explained, also.  It was an attempt to keep Zee from
> reproducing.
>
> --
> Dan Abel
> Petaluma, California USA
> da...@sonic.net

well there you have it....so it was by design...what a bunch of
idiots...jz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46095

"David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> wrote in news:718gsdFjn075U1
@mid.individual.net:

> Your total inability to answer my questions is noted.

You don't think Z will every give you a straight answer, do you?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46160

"Zee" <jonZeee@webtv.net> wrote in message 
news:7c28a863-8e7a-414e-81c9-7bb25d242d70@p36g2000prp.googlegroups.com...

> well there you have it....so it was by design...what a bunch of
> idiots...jz

Your total inability to answer my questions is noted.

David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45677

"Zee" <jonZeee@webtv.net> wrote in message 
news:0eb5ce93-64bd-4f48-9f05-61a4d83891bf@j35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

> just curious....i only find one genesis in the king james
> version....what is the deal on 2...

Chapters 1 and 2.

> and most Christians believe in
> evolution but not of the human race.....jz

So why are non-evolved humans extraordinarily similar to evolved primates? 
Are you suggesting that God anticipated the way that evolution would go, and 
then created a creature that matched organ-by-organ, system by system a 
creature that hadn't yet evolved?

David.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45884

"David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:71k151Fl9815U1@mid.individual.net: 

> "Zee" <jonZeee@webtv.net> wrote in message 
> news:0eb5ce93-64bd-4f48-9f05-
61a4d83891bf@j35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com.
> .. 
> 
>> just curious....i only find one genesis in the king james
>> version....what is the deal on 2...
> 
> Chapters 1 and 2.
> 
>> and most Christians believe in
>> evolution but not of the human race.....jz
> 
> So why are non-evolved humans extraordinarily similar to evolved
> primates? Are you suggesting that God anticipated the way that
> evolution would go, and then created a creature that matched
> organ-by-organ, system by system a creature that hadn't yet evolved?
> 

David, There is no point in arguing with that one. Well, entertainment 
maybe. The same kind of entertainment that cats get out of torturing 
grasshoppers.

Lane

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46136

On Mar 9, 3:09 am, "David Looser" <david.loo...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> "Zee" <jonZ...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>
> news:0eb5ce93-64bd-4f48-9f05-61a4d83891bf@j35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > just curious....i only find one genesis in the king james
> > version....what is the deal on 2...
>
> Chapters 1 and 2.
>
> > and most Christians believe in
> > evolution but not of the human race.....jz
>
> So why are non-evolved humans extraordinarily similar to evolved primates?
> Are you suggesting that God anticipated the way that evolution would go, and
> then created a creature that matched organ-by-organ, system by system a
> creature that hadn't yet evolved?
>
> David.

well evolution makes sense for a lazy God and the Bible indicates that
he is....all things evolve to blend into the environment that is
constantly changing with the movement of the planetary system weather
etc.....but man is special and also may evolve to fit this pattern of
change.....how should i know...i am just the lone troll in the
room....and those hymens represent a reminder to the female if you do
not save yourself for your mate that you are to obey....then you
certainly will not be able to lie about it....so the ones that disobey
will be cowd to reflect her shame....this could be the reason that
males in all their criminal and contemptuous lowly character seem to
naturally let the female pass first...jz.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45705

Someone <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in news:someone-5F32A5.19194206032009
@news.newsguy.com:

> In article <Xns9BC479E32F902absolutelaneyahoocom@85.214.105.209>,
>  Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> Evolution is science. Creation, and its deriviatives are religion. We
>> teach science in public schools and not religion. This is not
>> complicated. 
> 
> Creation, assuming for sake of argument is true, would also
> be science. For a creationist, God's world and everything
> He created is science. You get nowhere saying creation is
> just religion. 
> 
> Saying you teach science and not religion in schools is
> also misleading. To teach evolution is to state things evolved
> and that then becomes a statement of religion! Simply put,
> you are saying a god had little or nothing to do with
> how we are here.
> 
>> Teaching science means teaching what we have learned from it. Science
>> does not claim to offer absolute truth (that's religion's job).
>> Information gleaned from science is just that, the information we have
>> gleaned to date, subject to refinement as we learn more. 
> 
> Actually, you (anyone) hasn't learned a lot. You have gathered
> information and interpreted it to fit evolutionary theory. (Note the 
> operative word here - theory!) Personally I have found many professors
> of science and anthropology who were unwilling to even discuss
> their material and simply stated we "know it (evolution) is true"!
> 
> Unfortunately, many in evolutionary circles would like you to believe
> that no one believes in creationism but ignorant people. Reality is,
> many (thousands) of educated scientists believe in creationism.
> 

Even if creationnism were true, that would not make it science.

A scientific theory isnt just personal speculation and opinion, nor 
anything to do with faith. Of course scientists engage in those things and 
many theories do start out as hunches, maybe even with inspiration from 
God. But to become a scientific theory much more has to happen. 

A scientific theory is not a proof. The word 'theory' is used precisley 
because scientists know that it almost certainly isn't the truth the whole 
truth and nothing but. Even for something like the theory of evolution by 
natural selection, when a scientist says "its true", they mean "this theory 
has been around a while and no one has yet disproved it, it appears to fit 
observation and experiment and most qualified scientists have the same 
opinion, and no one has come up with a better idea, therefore I *think* its 
true".

All scientific theories, to be generally accepted as such, are constantly 
reviewed and tested, sometimes 'brutally' with much heated debate over many 
many years, with a view to disproving it. Yes that process is principly 
performed by scientists, and perhaps one could argue they have a vested 
interest in not disproving their 'faith'. But such scientists would never 
be heard of. On the other hand, a scientist disproving say Darwin's theory, 
would become one of history's greats. That makes a powerful incentive for 
veracity.

I can imagine ways to disprove the theory of evolution by natural selection 
- just one way: finding a human fossil older than the dinosaurs. I cannot 
imagine anything comparable that would disprove the theory of creationism. 
I'm an amatuer and perhaps lack imagination. Can you give one example of a 
piece of information that, were it discovered, would disprove creationism? 

Your statement about "many (thousands) of educated scientists" is 
innacurate and/or insignificant. Few scientists would argue that 
creationism is equivilant to a scientific theory. And even if thousands 
would argue such a point, what percentage of scientists would that 
represent? Answer: less than 1 hundredth of 1 percent. You should check the 
opinion of some of the other 99.99% before citing it as evidence in support 
of your argument.

And another question for which you'll need to find the answer yourself: how 
many theologians don't believe in creationism? 

A professor of science who is unwilling to discuss science!? My sister-in-
law is a GP. We don't discuss the details of medical theory. What's the 
point? I know almost nothing and she's studied and practised the subject 
for 25 years. If I want to have a useful discussion, I go and study whilst 
she helps keep people healthy. Leave your professors alone, they've more 
important things to do and they've probably already gone over and over 
faith related questions.

regards
Paul



> http://www.creationresearch.org/
> http://www.creationism.org/
> http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/
> 
> Someone
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45715

Anna <annaliddell@lycos.com> wrote in news:497283bc-1de1-44fc-b2b3-
8955b77d1147@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com:

>> Evolution is science. Creation, and its deriviatives are religion. We
>> teach science in public schools and not religion. This is not
>> complicated.
> 
> Don't teach either. Then no controversy. Let the student decide
> whether he or she wants to learn about evolution when he or she goes
> to college.
> 

Don't teach any science? Yeah that will be good for our place in the world 
economy.

Lane

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46169

Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:Xns9BC485E1DD6D1absolutelaneyahoocom@85.214.105.209: 

> Don't teach any science? Yeah that will be good for our place in the
> world economy.

Don't teach anything controversial, like math, reading or even civics.

Oh wait, we DON'T teach these as can be evidenced by the 8 years "W" was in 
office!

Never mind! :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45719

On Mar 4, 8:58 am, Lane <absolutel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com> wrote innews:ebbd2b84-c8d5-48a5-afb1-35f798ffa25e@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> It is the government, such as schools, that is restricted from
> >> promoting one set of beliefs over another, a fact nudists need to
> >> use. Most citizens in the USA are a member of one religion or
> >> another. None is dominate except locally, so these all end up as
> >> local battles.
>
> > Is it really that important, at a High School level at least, to teach
> > something that is so controversial?
>
> That some people might fervently believe that 2+2=5 does not make
> arithmetic controversial.

Show me these people.

> Evolution is science. Creation, and its deriviatives are religion. We
> teach science in public schools and not religion. This is not
> complicated.

Don't teach either. Then no controversy. Let the student decide
whether he or she wants to learn about evolution when he or she goes
to college.

Oh, free choice.  Can't have that now.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | rec.nude

csiph-web