If the US was more like the rest of the world then we would not be
powerful and so influential in the world. If all the other countries in
the world was more like the US then we would not be the most powerful
and influential country in the world because they would be the US's equal.

The citizens of the United States should always vote what is best for
our country, not what is best for other countries. The world should not
dictate to the US what type of government we have. The Kyoto treaty is
an example of the world trying to stop our technological growth and our
strong economy.

lynn

BCITORGB wrote:
Larry C says:
===============
The reason that I assert that the the the liberal left has lost touch
with America is that they have consisitantly lost ground in recent
elections to the Republic/moderate/right.

Frankly, I find the idea that since my guy didn't win, the people that
supported the winner are stupid and gullible as elitist at best.

But it's pretty evident from
recent elections that the Republicans have presented a program more to
their liking than the Democrats.
==============

Clearly, for you Americans, it is YOUR election and your government.
Unfortunately, as a nation, you are so powerful and influential that
who you elect has an impact on virtually every other soul on this
planet. YOU may have decided that the Bush right-wing agenda is right
for America. Many (the vast majority) of us outside of the United
States do not agree.

I find it curious and disheartening that America can be so out of step
with prevailing global opinions. The rest of the western world is
clearly "blue". Likely we could color the prevailing
anti-intellectualism of places like Afghanistan and other
fundamentalist cultures "red".

frtzw906

Lynn Tegrity wrote:

If the US was more like the rest of the world then we would not be
powerful and so influential in the world.

If the U.S. was more like the rest of the world, we wouldn't have had so
many wars involving the U.S. and so many dirty wars started because of
the U.S. influence.

If all the other countries in
the world was more like the US then we would not be the most powerful
and influential country in the world because they would be the US's equal.

There used to be the Soviets, who had the military advantage up untill
the late seventies, and right now China and the EU are catching up with
the U.S. economically with big steps.

If the U.S. hadn't alienated so many of the other countries, maybe more
countries would want to be allied with it in its illegal and unjust wars.

The citizens of the United States should always vote what is best for
our country, not what is best for other countries.

The citizens of most countries vote for what is good for them, however,
there is not necessarily a discrepancy between voting what is good for
you and what can also be good for most other people. The joke is that
the citizens of the U.S. have a tendncy to vote for what seems to be
good for them right now, conveniently forgetting the long term
detrimental effects, or pushing their long term negative effects down
the throats of future generations. Very egoistical thinking that will
burden your children, grandchildren and maybe even more with the
irresponsible financial and environmental behaviour of the current
generation. Talking about behaving anti-socially...

The world should not dictate to the US what type of government we have.

The world won't, the rest of the world will just start to recognise it
for the selfish double standard lying warmongers that the U.S.
administration really is.


The Kyoto treaty is an example of the world trying to stop our
technological growth and our strong economy.

What strong economy?

It's a watered down version of what could be done to do the very least
to limit the wholesale destruction and pollution of our environment.
Since the average U.S. citizen uses up five times as much energy per
person as the rest of the western world and causes a similarly
staggering amount of pollution that isn't just limited to the U.S., who
are you to tell others that you can keep going on this egoistical course
without doing anything to limit the impact for everyone else?

Do you also drive your car through your neighbour's lawn, throwing your
spent BBQ ashes over his fence after sending the smoke over into his
garden where the clean launndry was drying and their children were
playing, ignoring their outcry, because you simply don't care what they
think or say?

One day you will need that neighbour, who has been stupid enough to keep
the company that you work at afloat with his investment money for so
long and they will not help you because you didn't treat them with
respect for so long. The U.S. debt is skyrocketing, the trade balance is
losing roughly a billion and a half dollars a day and the only way
that you will keep afloat is with the help of those insane enough to
think that by investing even more money into that bottomless pit that
your economy has become, it will return their previous investments.

I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. economy crash will happen within my
lifetime.

--
Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.---
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:43:47 -0700, Scott Weiser
wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself Galen Hekhuis wrote:

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:22:54 -0700, Scott Weiser
wrote:

Again, you make the erroneous presumption that the theory of evolution is
"the truth."

If it is, care to explain why sharks are still sharks 400 million years
later? It only took 2 million years or so for man to evolve from monkey,
according to evolutionary theory, so why haven't sharks changed appreciably
in 400 million years. If evolution is "the truth," then the world should be
being run by incredibly intelligent sharks, who ought to have evolved far
beyond what they are today. They haven't.

Interesting conundrum, isn't it?

Not really. Sharks may well be more intelligent than man. They may have
such great intelligence that they thought about running the world, rejected
the idea, and then stayed in the sea, masking their far superior
intelligence from creatures like man. It's kind of easy to score highly on
"intelligence tests" that you make up the questions for, grade, referee,
etc.

Feel free to try to prove this asinine assertion. Get back to us when you've
been peer-reviewed.

It was just a suggestion, Scott, you needn't take it so hard. Relax.
Don't drink so much coffee. The point is that it is easier to claim that
"We're #1" when it is we who decide on the criteria for being #1. Who's to
say that the most highly evolved creature is not some bacteria numbering in
the trillions and trillions and able to adapt to survival almost anywhere.
Man, with all his intelligence, hasn't even managed to number 10 billion,
let alone a single trillion.

Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Illiterate? Write for FREE help

....stuff deleted

Here I thought you were an open minded liberal conservative scientist
that was interested in knowledge where ever he could find it. Shame on
me for assuming again. Narrowminded anti-religious scientist are well -
narrowminded. Not much difference that narrowminded fundementalist that
have their mind made up, no more data needed! A mind is a terrible
thing to waste, and waste, and waste! TnT


There you go making assumptions and giving out labels. You've done this
so many times, and you haven't been right yet. Still, why should that
stop you?

Sadly, you know little to nothing about evolution and make statements
like there are scientific "observations in the bible." When challenged
to present one, you didn't (nor could you, since they don't exist).
Having read both the bible and the "Voyage of the Beagle," I can claim
to have a somewhat better understanding of evolution than you. I was
taught that life began on earth, in the oceans, about 2.5 billion years
ago. The current thinking is that lifeforms that exist on the black
smokers (volcanic effusions on the ocean floor) may be the first
lifeforms on the planet and they, eventually, colonized the oceans and
adapted to the new conditions in the shallower waters. If this is where
life began, life on earth is even older than previously thought. This is
how science works. Good scientists use evidence to establish hypotheses,
and then test, or observe, to see if there is evidence to support those
hypotheses. You must have an open mind to do this.

So, let's go back to the bible, then. "Judge not lest you be judged,"
for example. Ever hear that one? Keep your labels and insults to
yourself and everyone will get along with you a bit better. Perhaps,
over time, I could develop some respect for you. It would not be
difficult to improve over what little, if any, I can currently muster.

Rick

....stuff deleted

They can't fix it, Michael. It's an integral part of their system to
criminalize use of soft drugs, to hand out ridiculous sentences to those
who use soft drugs, so that those people can be used in the
commercialised prison industry as a kind of legalised slave labour.


Actually, Wilko, it is worse than this. The drug wars are extremely
profitable to the importers of drugs. Were the drugs decriminalized, or
worse, socialized, the prices would drop through the table, the profits
would disappear, and those who are really pushing the crap (including
the CIA, who ran one of the largest drug distribution industries in the
world, and who may do still), would lose money. Al Capone was in favor
of Prohibition, not against it. It made him millions and he did
everything he could, even spend his "hard earned cash" to ensure that
government was in no hurry to legalize alcohol. This is a lesson that
was well learned in 1920, but forgotten by 1930.

....all to logical stuff deleted

The enormous amounts of money wasted by the DEA and other agencies to
try to stem the flow of drugs have not worked at all in the past
decades, and I doubt that the so called "War on drugs" has been
beneficial for anyone but the increasing budget of the DEA and the
increased income of the drug cartels due to the very high price of drugs
on the street.


But it keeps the hypocritical politicians from admitting that the drug
wars are lost, and "supporting the use of drugs by US citizens." Sadly,
many of these invidiuals are in the business of taking PAC money from
the same individuals who are operating the drug import business. As Mark
Twain said, "...it's the best government that money can buy."

Rick

Michael Daly wrote:

On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:


The theory of evolution is that all organisms evolve continuously

YOu keep tossing around this "theory of evolution" as if it is a
single definition of a single law of science. Could you please
post a reference to such a definition and also a reference that
clearly demonstrates that such definition is the only one that
is widely accepted by the scientific community.


That original statement is completely false. Darwin stated that
organisms evolve to fit the environment in which they live, or they face
extinction. The oceans, for example, are an extremely stable
environment. Sharks will evolve, or go extinct, when the oceans change
in some appreciable way that threatens shark survival. Those offspring
that survive will produce offspring that are more likely to survive in
those new conditions. Most who do not understand evolution make those
broad statements which prove their lack of knowledge.

...stuff deleted


I stand by my original post.

Mike

As you should.

Rick

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott weiser says:
===================
The difference between the Taliban and the Catholic Church is that the
Taliban demanded that *everyone* believe in radical Islam, and they
would
beat and/or kill you if you didn't do as the religious authorities
demanded,
====================

And my point is that religion, unfettered, becomes the Taliban.

That's a broad and largely untrue statement. I would agree that any dogma,
unfettered, CAN become totalitarian, but so what?

I see
that you refer to the Catholic Church today. But how do you account for
the Catholic Church of the Inquisition?

That was then, this is now.

Or the Catholic Church that
scared the beejeesus out of anyone doing science?

That was then, this is now. Even the Catholic Church can change.

I'll stick with my
initial proposition: there's only a fine line between one group of
fundamentalists and another.

A not unreasonable proposition, which you can apply just as easily to
"fundamentalist" scientists.


Weiser says:
================
And yet the Catholic Church is one of the only religions on the planet
that
is seeing an increase in members.
====================

Is this a good thing?

Is it a bad thing? I say that anything that gets you through the day, makes
you happy and doesn't hurt someone else is a good thing.




But why is it losing people in Europe?

Is it losing people? Are you sure?


Can it be that educated people
find little of value in the teachings of the church.?

Can it be that you are wrong?


frtzw906


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Rick wrote:
...stuff deleted

Here I thought you were an open minded liberal conservative
scientist
that was interested in knowledge where ever he could find it. Shame
on
me for assuming again. Narrowminded anti-religious scientist are
well -
narrowminded. Not much difference that narrowminded fundementalist
that
have their mind made up, no more data needed! A mind is a terrible
thing to waste, and waste, and waste! TnT


There you go making assumptions and giving out labels. You've done
this
so many times, and you haven't been right yet. Still, why should that

stop you?

Sadly, you know little to nothing about evolution and make statements

like there are scientific "observations in the bible."

What I said was,

"I have problems with faith mascarading as science as well. The Bible
is
a book of faith, not science, though there are amazing observations
recorded in the Bible, that parallel the practice of science.


It is when we get into the explanation part of the observable facts
that we get into trouble, especially when Science tries to become
faith. If science were to restrict itself to pure science, there would
be little conflict."

I did not say scientific observation, as you try to indite me of
saying. Five thousand years ago, when some of the Bible record was
first being written down, there were no evolutionary scientist making
any sort of enlightened observations. The so called scientist did not
show up until the last 4 or 5 hundred years. So any observations of the
solar cycle for example were not made by scientist but by various
religious types. Medical/Biology the same. Chemistry, Mathematics, you
name it. All these folks made observations and tried to come up with
some rational understanding of their observation. They did not have all
the tools available, like telescopes and microscopes, etc. but the
observations they made were often times astute and amazing. Granted
they were not involved in the theoretical science that we have today,
and tended to be of a more practicle subject matter for their time.

But then that brings me to my point about so called science today, is
often time of a theorical nature, and only recently in conflict with
the scriptures. Please note, that I did not say religion. Religion has
found many ways to get crosswise with truth of any vein, because it
could not allow for truth outside of its own scope of vision. The
scriptures are not presented as scientific document, and should not be
used as such. Faith as presented in the scriptures, was not intended
primarily as a support of science, nor science of faith, but as an
adjunct to each other. In other words, I do not believe that they are
in conflict with each other, nor dependent upon each other for
veracity. It is just our limited understanding of the scripture,
science, and the events that we are trying to observe, and interpret
that distorts their relationship to faith and science, and results in
apparent conflict.

So any label of narrowmindedness that is available, is yours to wear if
you choose. I still prefer to keep all my options open. I am glad that
you are so well read, "the bible and the Voyage," and so well taught. I
too was so taught, and not raised in a Christian home. I was not
exposed to the scriptures, growing up, but to evolution. My dad was a
geophysicist with Exxon, and he and I still have some rather strained
conversations. However, I think that you show your lack of
understanding, to say I don't know what I am talking about, you don't
hardly know me to judge me!


When challenged
to present one, you didn't (nor could you, since they don't exist).
Having read both the bible and the "Voyage of the Beagle," I can
claim
to have a somewhat better understanding of evolution than you. I was
taught that life began on earth, in the oceans, about 2.5 billion
years
ago. The current thinking is that lifeforms that exist on the black
smokers (volcanic effusions on the ocean floor) may be the first
lifeforms on the planet and they, eventually, colonized the oceans
and
adapted to the new conditions in the shallower waters. If this is
where
life began, life on earth is even older than previously thought. This
is
how science works. Good scientists use evidence to establish
hypotheses,
and then test, or observe, to see if there is evidence to support
those
hypotheses. You must have an open mind to do this.

There is a big difference between not knowing what I am talking about,
and choosing not to talk about it. There are plenty of books to be read
that go into great detail about science and the scripture. I am sure,
that as well read as you are, and a lover of knowledge that you claim,
that you would find these volumes enlightening. You may not agree with
them, but please don't limit yourself to the base of knowledge you have
acknowledged so far.

As far as myself, I opened the can of worms, knowing that it would
likely attract a feeding frenzy. That did not mean I intended to jump
into the water myself. If you notice, you will find that I have limited
my own participation in this thread since then. I figured I would learn
more by doing more listening. I realize that this is a subject that
some can not resist getting into a real bruhahhah over. Personally I
doubt that anything that any of us say in this forum, is the last word
on most any subject, and certainly not this subject, but it appears
that some think so of themselves. I just like to have a good time
getting to know folks a little better, sometimes at my expense,
sometimes at theirs. I don't think of it as trolling, because I am
still here, checking other subjects, and I love paddling to boot and a
good laugh now and then when folks get so serious.


So, let's go back to the bible, then. "Judge not lest you be judged,"

for example. Ever hear that one? Keep your labels and insults to
yourself and everyone will get along with you a bit better. Perhaps,
over time, I could develop some respect for you. It would not be
difficult to improve over what little, if any, I can currently
muster.

Rick

Okay, let's go back to the Bible, and I capitalize the name as an
acknowlegement of respect. The Bible is a great book that has been
around for a long time, and stood the test of that time. And since you
know at least the one scripture, "Judge not lest you be judged." Then
you certainly understand that judgement takes on at least two forms.
Condemnation and discernment. This scripture says don't condemn others,
or you will be condemned with the same condemnation. There are plenty
of other scriptures that tell us to be discerning, for example- "Be
wise as the serpent, harmless as doves." So in one case, we are told
not to judge, and in the other we are told to judge. Now this apparent
contradiction is based on the limits of our language, and often times
our unwillingness to honestly seek to resolve the conflict.

There is another troubling scripture. "The fool has said in his heart
that there is no God." We understand that the heart is not the center
of our thought process, scientifically speaking. However, the men of
faith understood that the issues of life originated in our heart, the
center of faith. In our culture we have emphasised science, and
forgotten the heart. Ironically the word fool has to do with the
inability to think at all, as in a vegetative state. So according to
the scriptures, the man who says there is no God in the depths of his
heart, ends up being unable to trully think at all, scientifically
speaking. True scientist would have to be men of faith by definition.
So do you believe there is no God? TnT

Rick wrote:
...stuff deleted

Here I thought you were an open minded liberal conservative
scientist
that was interested in knowledge where ever he could find it. Shame
on
me for assuming again. Narrowminded anti-religious scientist are
well -
narrowminded. Not much difference that narrowminded fundementalist
that
have their mind made up, no more data needed! A mind is a terrible
thing to waste, and waste, and waste! TnT


There you go making assumptions and giving out labels. You've done
this
so many times, and you haven't been right yet. Still, why should that

stop you?

Sadly, you know little to nothing about evolution and make statements

like there are scientific "observations in the bible."

What I said was,

"I have problems with faith mascarading as science as well. The Bible
is
a book of faith, not science, though there are amazing observations
recorded in the Bible, that parallel the practice of science.


It is when we get into the explanation part of the observable facts
that we get into trouble, especially when Science tries to become
faith. If science were to restrict itself to pure science, there would
be little conflict."

I did not say scientific observation, as you try to indite me of
saying. Five thousand years ago, when some of the Bible record was
first being written down, there were no evolutionary scientist making
any sort of enlightened observations. The so called scientist did not
show up until the last 4 or 5 hundred years. So any observations of the
solar cycle for example were not made by scientist but by various
religious types. Medical/Biology the same. Chemistry, Mathematics, you
name it. All these folks made observations and tried to come up with
some rational understanding of their observation. They did not have all
the tools available, like telescopes and microscopes, etc. but the
observations they made were often times astute and amazing. Granted
they were not involved in the theoretical science that we have today,
and tended to be of a more practicle subject matter for their time.

But then that brings me to my point about so called science today, is
often time of a theorical nature, and only recently in conflict with
the scriptures. Please note, that I did not say religion. Religion has
found many ways to get crosswise with truth of any vein, because it
could not allow for truth outside of its own scope of vision. The
scriptures are not presented as scientific document, and should not be
used as such. Faith as presented in the scriptures, was not intended
primarily as a support of science, nor science of faith, but as an
adjunct to each other. In other words, I do not believe that they are
in conflict with each other, nor dependent upon each other for
veracity. It is just our limited understanding of the scripture,
science, and the events that we are trying to observe, and interpret
that distorts their relationship to faith and science, and results in
apparent conflict.

So any label of narrowmindedness that is available, is yours to wear if
you choose. I still prefer to keep all my options open. I am glad that
you are so well read, "the bible and the Voyage," and so well taught. I
too was so taught, and not raised in a Christian home. I was not
exposed to the scriptures, growing up, but to evolution. My dad was a
geophysicist with Exxon, and he and I still have some rather strained
conversations. However, I think that you show your lack of
understanding, to say I don't know what I am talking about, you don't
hardly know me to judge me!


When challenged
to present one, you didn't (nor could you, since they don't exist).
Having read both the bible and the "Voyage of the Beagle," I can
claim
to have a somewhat better understanding of evolution than you. I was
taught that life began on earth, in the oceans, about 2.5 billion
years
ago. The current thinking is that lifeforms that exist on the black
smokers (volcanic effusions on the ocean floor) may be the first
lifeforms on the planet and they, eventually, colonized the oceans
and
adapted to the new conditions in the shallower waters. If this is
where
life began, life on earth is even older than previously thought. This
is
how science works. Good scientists use evidence to establish
hypotheses,
and then test, or observe, to see if there is evidence to support
those
hypotheses. You must have an open mind to do this.

There is a big difference between not knowing what I am talking about,
and choosing not to talk about it. There are plenty of books to be read
that go into great detail about science and the scripture. I am sure,
that as well read as you are, and a lover of knowledge that you claim,
that you would find these volumes enlightening. You may not agree with
them, but please don't limit yourself to the base of knowledge you have
acknowledged so far.

As far as myself, I opened the can of worms, knowing that it would
likely attract a feeding frenzy. That did not mean I intended to jump
into the water myself. If you notice, you will find that I have limited
my own participation in this thread since then. I figured I would learn
more by doing more listening. I realize that this is a subject that
some can not resist getting into a real bruhahhah over. Personally I
doubt that anything that any of us say in this forum, is the last word
on most any subject, and certainly not this subject, but it appears
that some think so of themselves. I just like to have a good time
getting to know folks a little better, sometimes at my expense,
sometimes at theirs. I don't think of it as trolling, because I am
still here, checking other subjects, and I love paddling to boot and a
good laugh now and then when folks get so serious.


So, let's go back to the bible, then. "Judge not lest you be judged,"

for example. Ever hear that one? Keep your labels and insults to
yourself and everyone will get along with you a bit better. Perhaps,
over time, I could develop some respect for you. It would not be
difficult to improve over what little, if any, I can currently
muster.

Rick

Okay, let's go back to the Bible, and I capitalize the name as an
acknowlegement of respect. The Bible is a great book that has been
around for a long time, and stood the test of that time. And since you
know at least the one scripture, "Judge not lest you be judged." Then
you certainly understand that judgement takes on at least two forms.
Condemnation and discernment. This scripture says don't condemn others,
or you will be condemned with the same condemnation. There are plenty
of other scriptures that tell us to be discerning, for example- "Be
wise as the serpent, harmless as doves." So in one case, we are told
not to judge, and in the other we are told to judge. Now this apparent
contradiction is based on the limits of our language, and often times
our unwillingness to honestly seek to resolve the conflict.

There is another troubling scripture. "The fool has said in his heart
that there is no God." We understand that the heart is not the center
of our thought process, scientifically speaking. However, the men of
faith understood that the issues of life originated in our heart, the
center of faith. In our culture we have emphasised science, and
forgotten the heart. Ironically the word fool has to do with the
inability to think at all, as in a vegetative state. So according to
the scriptures, the man who says there is no God in the depths of his
heart, ends up being unable to trully think at all, scientifically
speaking. True scientist would have to be men of faith by definition.
So do you believe there is no God? TnT

Wilko wrote:
Lynn Tegrity wrote:

If the US was more like the rest of the world then we would not be
powerful and so influential in the world.

If the U.S. was more like the rest of the world, we wouldn't have had
so
many wars involving the U.S. and so many dirty wars started because
of
the U.S. influence.

If all the other countries in
the world was more like the US then we would not be the most
powerful
and influential country in the world because they would be the US's
equal.

There used to be the Soviets, who had the military advantage up
untill
the late seventies, and right now China and the EU are catching up
with
the U.S. economically with big steps.

If the U.S. hadn't alienated so many of the other countries, maybe
more
countries would want to be allied with it in its illegal and unjust
wars.

The citizens of the United States should always vote what is best
for
our country, not what is best for other countries.

The citizens of most countries vote for what is good for them,
however,
there is not necessarily a discrepancy between voting what is good
for
you and what can also be good for most other people. The joke is that

the citizens of the U.S. have a tendncy to vote for what seems to be
good for them right now, conveniently forgetting the long term
detrimental effects, or pushing their long term negative effects down

the throats of future generations. Very egoistical thinking that will

burden your children, grandchildren and maybe even more with the
irresponsible financial and environmental behaviour of the current
generation. Talking about behaving anti-socially...

The world should not dictate to the US what type of government we
have.

The world won't, the rest of the world will just start to recognise
it
for the selfish double standard lying warmongers that the U.S.
administration really is.


The Kyoto treaty is an example of the world trying to stop our
technological growth and our strong economy.

What strong economy?

It's a watered down version of what could be done to do the very
least
to limit the wholesale destruction and pollution of our environment.
Since the average U.S. citizen uses up five times as much energy per
person as the rest of the western world and causes a similarly
staggering amount of pollution that isn't just limited to the U.S.,
who
are you to tell others that you can keep going on this egoistical
course
without doing anything to limit the impact for everyone else?

Do you also drive your car through your neighbour's lawn, throwing
your
spent BBQ ashes over his fence after sending the smoke over into his
garden where the clean launndry was drying and their children were
playing, ignoring their outcry, because you simply don't care what
they
think or say?

One day you will need that neighbour, who has been stupid enough to
keep
the company that you work at afloat with his investment money for so
long and they will not help you because you didn't treat them with
respect for so long. The U.S. debt is skyrocketing, the trade balance
is
losing roughly a billion and a half dollars a day and the only way
that you will keep afloat is with the help of those insane enough to
think that by investing even more money into that bottomless pit that

your economy has become, it will return their previous investments.

I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. economy crash will happen within
my
lifetime.

--
Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.---
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

So what do you think anyone should do about Syria? TnT