|
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 00:20:30 GMT, "jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org>
thought hard and said:
<snip>
Ah, but evidence of any god has never been found by any scientific
study. Well, any unbiased study.
It has, but as mentioned before it gets laugh off. I posted an article of
two scientist, that simply stated the red sea crossing could have occured..
It got laughed off.
As I stated before, it is not the evidence per se, it is the "who"that
validates it.
take a look at OJ simpson case.. same evidence.. 2 different court decisions
why?
|
| |
| |
On 14 Feb 2004 22:26:47 -0800,
vitruvian@globalfrequency.org (Vitruvian) spake thusly:
No one claimed that science covered every question of importance; it
is by nature more descriptive than prescriptive.
really????
here a question.
based on scientific observation. Is Rape part of human evoltuion?
now I am asking for a biological observation based on human behaviour
not a moral one
Same thing they say about homosexuality. So by this
logic (and I'm not attacking you), people should have
the legal right to rape, considering that just as the
homosexuals argue, it is genetic (no proof of that), it
is natural and we can see it in the animal kingdom.
and that is the argument that got all the supports banned from the
talk.orign group. the implication of the evolutionary theory is wide spread.
all supposed negative behaviour can be deemed as necessary for human
evolution, and since some says evolution is a very long process, rape is a
vestigal behaviour.
A man who rapes a women, could use the defense, he was compelled by his
biological need to reproduce at all cost. in the legal sense a plea for
insanity can be made for a rapist, and in a few month, the man is free to
walk the streets again.
|
| |
| |
"jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote in message news:<2NNXb.8381938$Id.1389173@news.easynews.com>...
and that is the argument that got all the supports banned from the
talk.orign group. the implication of the evolutionary theory is wide spread.
all supposed negative behaviour can be deemed as necessary for human
evolution, and since some says evolution is a very long process, rape is a
vestigal behaviour.
A man who rapes a women, could use the defense, he was compelled by his
biological need to reproduce at all cost. in the legal sense a plea for
insanity can be made for a rapist, and in a few month, the man is free to
walk the streets again.
This would no more wash than similar defenses for murder (anger is
natural), theft (greed is natural), or eating one's neighbors or their
pets (hunger is very natural). Did you miss the part where you
specifcally asked for a scientific answer, NOT a moral one. There are
many, many crimes which consist of ways of satisfying natural urges
which society is nevertheless not willing to condone.
You also seem to be under the misapprehension that the primary motive
of rapists is reproduction. While the root cause of a desire for sex
may be a drive to reproduce, that is probably not foremost on the
minds of most offenders, given that rapes have been documented where
the attacker was sterile or wore a condom. In fact, these crimes
frequently seem to be more about power and dominance than simple lust.
Also, an insanity plea can only be made in most states based on a
mental defect preventing the defendant from realizing that what they
were doing was wrong; there is little or no provision for
'compulsion'. Even if such a plea is successful, commitment to an
institution is for an indeterminate period of time, and most
psychiatrists have by now caught on to the fact that sex offenders are
incredibly difficult to treat and have a horribly high recidivism
rate, so a release date of a few months is *highly* unlikely.
|
| |
| |
jabriol wrote:
It has, but as mentioned before it gets laugh off. I posted an article of
two scientist, that simply stated the red sea crossing could have occured..
It got laughed off.
It's NOT the Red Sea, it's the Sea of REEDS.
And it could have happened during the tsunami caused by the explosion
of Santorini.
|
| |
| |
jabriol wrote:
It's NOT the Red Sea, it's the Sea of REEDS.
Quite correct:
"Pharaoh's chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea: his chosen
captains also are drowned in the Red sea."
(Click on the word "Red" for a translation from the Hebrew.)
http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=ex+15:4&version=str&st=1&sd=1&new=1&showtools=1
And it could have happened during the tsunami caused by the explosion
of Santorini.
A fascinating hypothesis, though I understand there are problems with the
timeline. It would certainly qualify as a miracle for most people of the
time, and would explain the pillar of smoke by day and the pillar of fire by
night.
|
| |
| |
Zachriel wrote:
And it could have happened during the tsunami caused by the explosion
of Santorini.
A fascinating hypothesis, though I understand there are problems with the
timeline. It would certainly qualify as a miracle for most people of the
time, and would explain the pillar of smoke by day and the pillar of fire by
night.
I'm not sure about the timeline, either. It might also explain some
of the plagues, though. (Although I can't see how "darkness" could be
BEFORE the tsunami....)
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 17:13:35 GMT, "jabriol"
<jabriol@borijan.org> spake thusly:
and that is the argument that got all the supports banned from the
talk.orign group. the implication of the evolutionary theory is wide spread.
all supposed negative behaviour can be deemed as necessary for human
evolution, and since some says evolution is a very long process, rape is a
vestigal behaviour.
A man who rapes a women, could use the defense, he was compelled by his
biological need to reproduce at all cost. in the legal sense a plea for
insanity can be made for a rapist, and in a few month, the man is free to
walk the streets again.
And yet, we watch the evolutionists fail to see this.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"Few paleontologists have, I think ever supposed that
fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the
conclusion that evolution has occurred. An examination
of the work of those paleontologists who have been
particularly concerned with the relationship between
paleontology and evolutionary theory, for example that
of G. G. Simpson and S. J. Gould, reveals a mindfulness
of the fact that the record of evolution, like any
other historical record, must be construed within a
complex of particular and general preconceptions not
the least of which is the hypothesis that evolution has
occurred. ...The fossil record doesn't even provide any
evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the
weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with
it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary
theories, and revolutionary theories and special
creationist theories and even historical theories."
(Kitts, David B., "Search for the Holy Transformation,"
review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P.
Grass, Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, pp. 353-354)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
|
| |
| |
Dave wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 17:13:35 GMT, "jabriol"
<jabriol@borijan.org> spake thusly:(snip)
A man who rapes a women, could use the defense, he was compelled by his
biological need to reproduce at all cost. in the legal sense a plea for
insanity can be made for a rapist, and in a few month, the man is free to
walk the streets again.
And yet, we watch the evolutionists fail to see this.
Great Dave. Agreeing with one of usenet's sleaziest posters. Why am I
not amazed? I pity any congregation that has anything to do with you.
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis "Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!"
Planetech Services -Hobbes
585-442-2884
"Proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor,
the straight jacket of conventional thought." - C.
Cagle
**********************************************************
|
| |
| |
Zachriel wrote:
And it could have happened during the tsunami caused by the explosion
of Santorini.
I'm not sure about the timeline, either. It might also explain some
of the plagues, though. (Although I can't see how "darkness" could be
BEFORE the tsunami....)
Most such eruptions are a series of events, sometimes over weeks or even
years (though there was at least one particularly violent explosion which
devastated Thera). Certainly, the volcano could have put tons of ash in the
air long before the actual explosion at issue.
More information is required before any firm conclusions can be made, of
course.
|
| |
| |
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 17:13:35 GMT, "jabriol"
<jabriol@borijan.org> spake thusly:
And yet, we watch the evolutionists fail to see this.
And yet, we watch the creationists fail to understand the law. The law is
not concerned with what is "natural", it concerns itself with whether or
not one has violated the agreed upon rules of a society. There is no
way that a rapist could make use of the insanity defense (at least in
the US--YMMV if you're elsewhere) on the grounds that "he was compelled
by his biological need to reproduce at all cost". To put the M'Naughten
Rule at it's most basic: is the person capable of understanding the
difference between right and wrong? "Right" and "wrong" being defined
by the society in which one lives. If someone insults my mother, it
might be my "natural" reaction to punch him in the nose. That would not
defend me from an assault charge (n my home state, "fighting words" are
not really recognized).
BK
|
| |
| |
"jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote in message
news:<2NNXb.8381938$Id.1389173@news.easynews.com>...
On 14 Feb 2004 22:26:47 -0800,
vitruvian@globalfrequency.org (Vitruvian) spake thusly:
No one claimed that science covered every question of importance;
it
is by nature more descriptive than prescriptive.
really????
here a question.
based on scientific observation. Is Rape part of human evoltuion?
now I am asking for a biological observation based on human
behaviour
not a moral one
Okay, then - we would have to conclude that rape is part of the
observed range of human behavior. Whether it is genetically or
culturally determined is open to question, but granting that culture
itself is a product of human minds and brains as evolved through
natural selection, the yes, we would have to say that rape as a
behavior results ultimately from human evolution. Just like the
entire
range of positive and negative human behaviors.
Rape is not unique to humans, by the way. It has been observed in
ducks, for example.
Same thing they say about homosexuality. So by this
logic (and I'm not attacking you), people should have
the legal right to rape, considering that just as the
homosexuals argue, it is genetic (no proof of that), it
is natural and we can see it in the animal kingdom.
and that is the argument that got all the supports banned from the
talk.orign group. the implication of the evolutionary theory is wide
spread.
all supposed negative behaviour can be deemed as necessary for human
evolution, and since some says evolution is a very long process, rape
is a
vestigal behaviour.
A man who rapes a women, could use the defense, he was compelled by his
biological need to reproduce at all cost. in the legal sense a plea for
insanity can be made for a rapist, and in a few month, the man is free
to
walk the streets again.
This would no more wash than similar defenses for murder (anger is
natural), theft (greed is natural), or eating one's neighbors or their
pets (hunger is very natural). Did you miss the part where you
specifcally asked for a scientific answer, NOT a moral one.
It is, and all the one above falls under the same category., A lawyer would
certainly use nature as a defense.. a man rob a hotdog to eat.. etc
a jury would be more lenient to a person who rob food.
ancient warfare was based on the need for a tribe to survive, including the
wiping out of another tribe.
|
| |
| |
Dave wrote:
A man who rapes a women, could use the defense, he was compelled by his
biological need to reproduce at all cost. in the legal sense a plea for
insanity can be made for a rapist, and in a few month, the man is free
to
walk the streets again.
Great Dave. Agreeing with one of usenet's sleaziest posters. Why am I
not amazed? I pity any congregation that has anything to do with you.
ad-hom noted
|
| |
| |
Pastor Dave wrote:
And yet, we watch the creationists fail to understand the law. The law is
not concerned with what is "natural", it concerns itself with whether or
not one has violated the agreed upon rules of a society.
as for me I am not a creationist, as for the law.. at least here in the
sates, they based on judeo-christian traditions and practice. As you can see
with the homosexula fight.
also as mentioned in another post, a jury is more lenient with a person who
steal food because of hunger, than greed.
There is no
way that a rapist could make use of the insanity defense (at least in
the US--YMMV if you're elsewhere) on the grounds that "he was compelled
by his biological need to reproduce at all cost".
talk a lawyer.. you would be surprised
To put the M'Naughten
Rule at it's most basic: is the person capable of understanding the
difference between right and wrong? "Right" and "wrong" being defined
by the society in which one lives.
are you living under a rock? right and wrong is being redefined.. it is a
moral issue, not realted to science.
If someone insults my mother, it
might be my "natural" reaction to punch him in the nose. That would not
defend me from an assault charge (n my home state, "fighting words" are
not really recognized).
BK
but yet if a lawyer tell a judge, thate reason you puch the offender in the
nose, was beacuse you have an underlying mental condtion.. you will walk?
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 23:59:51 GMT, "jabriol"
<jabriol@borijan.org> spake thusly:
A man who rapes a women, could use the defense, he was compelled by his
biological need to reproduce at all cost. in the legal sense a plea for
insanity can be made for a rapist, and in a few month, the man is free
to walk the streets again.
And yet, we watch the evolutionists fail to see this.
And yet, we watch the creationists fail to understand the law. The law is
not concerned with what is "natural", it concerns itself with whether or
not one has violated the agreed upon rules of a society.
as for me I am not a creationist, as for the law.. at least here in the
sates, they based on judeo-christian traditions and practice. As you can see
with the homosexula fight.
They don't seem to get it. Even using their rules, the
majority of Americans do not want gay marriage
legalized. So when they talk about the "agreed upon
rules by a society", it is they who try to buck the
"agreed upon rules", not those who oppose rape and
homosexual marriage.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
http://www.unlimitedglory.org/evcha3.htm
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
|
| |
| |
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<0c2230pfe4qn18i9g9nr8ru6luhnbm414f@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 17:13:35 GMT, "jabriol"
<jabriol@borijan.org> spake thusly:
And yet, we watch the evolutionists fail to see this.
Dave, don't get sucked into JabberTalk. You wind up making a very silly
conclusion if you support his weirdness in any way.
Joe
|
| |
| |
jabriol wrote:
... as for the law.. at least here in the
sates, they based on judeo-christian traditions and practice.
False. Our laws are generally based on Deist traditions,
not necessarily Judeo-Christian.
|
| |
| |
Elmer Bataitis <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote in message news:<40310EBE.7424463C@frontiernet.net>...
Dave wrote:
And yet, we watch the evolutionists fail to see this.
Great Dave. Agreeing with one of usenet's sleaziest posters. Why am I
not amazed? I pity any congregation that has anything to do with you.
I'm actually shocked that the "Pastor" took this long to
come to the defense of a fellow loony.
-Chris Krolczyk
|
| |
| |
jabriol wrote:
False. Our laws are generally based on Deist traditions,
not necessarily Judeo-Christian.
and the deist were?? atheist?
I do know about deism....
|
| |
| |
jabriol wrote:
and the deist were?? atheist?
I do know about deism....
Apparently not.
|
| |
| |
but yet if a lawyer tell a judge, thate reason you puch the offender in the
nose, was beacuse you have an underlying mental condtion.. you will walk?
|
| |
| |
jabbers wrote:
"Elmer Bataitis" <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
ad-hom noted
Facts spoken.
***************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!
Planetech Services -Hobbes
585-442-2884
"...proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor, the
straight jacket of conventional thought."
***************************************************************
|
| |
| |
vitruvian@globalfrequency.org (Vitruvian) wrote in message news:<700af493.0402162015.24fb59cf@posting.google.com>...
but yet if a lawyer tell a judge, thate reason you puch the offender in the
nose, was beacuse you have an underlying mental condtion.. you will walk?
Not unless you can convince a *jury* (not a judge) that this condition
prevented you from recognizing that punching the guy was illegal and
wrong.
same thing... that why lawyers are lawyers..
|
| |
| |
"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote in message news:<40317D98.DE6E78CC@sprintmail.com>...
jabriol wrote:
Apparently not.
apprently so.. a deist believess in God or a God, just say God does not care..
short short version
|
| |
| |
but yet if a lawyer tell a judge, thate reason you puch the offender in the
nose, was beacuse you have an underlying mental condtion.. you will walk?
Not unless you can convince a *jury* (not a judge) that this condition
prevented you from recognizing that punching the guy was illegal and
wrong.
same thing... that why lawyers are lawyers..
Well, certainly, some lawyers will try any tactic conceivable. Doesn't
mean that it will work, and doesn't mean that evolution provides a
particularly fertile field for this kind of argument. Not as fertile,
as, say, religion, anyway... after all, Son of Sam claimed the Devil
made him do it, and plenty of other defendants have said God told them
to kill somebody, although I haven't heard about anybody blaming
original sin or bad design on the Creator's part as yet.
But then, there is no legal doctrine saying that just because a
behavior derives from our evolutionary history, the law has to make
allowances for it. If there were, for example, nobody could ever be
successfully prosecuted for solicitation of prostitution or hunting
without a license, either.
|
| |
| |
JaBrIoL wrote:
"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote in message news:<40317D98.DE6E78CC@sprintmail.com>...
apprently so.. a deist believess in God or a God, just say God does not care..
short short version
No. A deist is one who believes in ONE God.
|
| |
| |
JaBrIoL wrote:
No. A deist is one who believes in ONE God.
sigh! here is the long version so you won't emabarass yourself in front of
millions again:
http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm
|
| |
| |
but yet if a lawyer tell a judge, thate reason you puch the offender
in the
nose, was beacuse you have an underlying mental condtion.. you will
walk?
Not unless you can convince a *jury* (not a judge) that this condition
prevented you from recognizing that punching the guy was illegal and
wrong.
same thing... that why lawyers are lawyers..
Well, certainly, some lawyers will try any tactic conceivable. Doesn't
mean that it will work, and doesn't mean that evolution provides a
particularly fertile field for this kind of argument. Not as fertile,
as, say, religion, anyway... after all, Son of Sam claimed the Devil
made him do it, and plenty of other defendants have said God told them
to kill somebody, although I haven't heard about anybody blaming
original sin or bad design on the Creator's part as yet.
But then, there is no legal doctrine saying that just because a
behavior derives from our evolutionary history, the law has to make
allowances for it. If there were, for example, nobody could ever be
successfully prosecuted for solicitation of prostitution or hunting
without a license, either.
as I said laws are changing...
|
| |
| |
jabriol wrote:
sigh! here is the long version so you won't emabarass yourself in front of
millions again:
http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm
The long version is correct as to the beliefs the founders
had in common.
|
| |
| |
But then, there is no legal doctrine saying that just because a
behavior derives from our evolutionary history, the law has to make
allowances for it. If there were, for example, nobody could ever be
successfully prosecuted for solicitation of prostitution or hunting
without a license, either.
as I said laws are changing...
In some cases to be more permissive, in others to be more restrictive.
There is still no general doctrine of the sort you imply, nor a big
movement to base law on sociobiology.
|
| |
| |
"jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote in message news:<2NNXb.8381938$Id.1389173@news.easynews.com>...
and that is the argument that got all the supports banned from the
talk.orign group. the implication of the evolutionary theory is wide spread.
As compared to what?
all supposed negative behaviour can be deemed as necessary for human
evolution, and since some says evolution is a very long process, rape is a
vestigal behaviour.
I don't believe that I've ever seen the word "rape" in the context of
evolution. Further, I don't see that it has any place. Survival of the
fittest, that's the ticket. If you reproduce, your genes are fit to be
passed on. If you don't, you're an evolutionary dead end. So WRT
evolution, we have only reproductive behavior. We have only sex, or
whatever passes for sex in that species.
In some species, the entire reproductive behavior might be classed as
rape (by humans). Sharks, for example. I've seen that nursing sharks
reproduce by the male forcing the female to submit, that's just the
way it's done. It works, we have enough baby sharks to keep the
species alive. I don't know that all the sharks reproduce this way but
I don't think that most species have radically different reproductive
strategies among their sub-species.
Interestingly enough, in other contexts many preach the doctrine of
'diversity', but there extreme limits on what kinds of diversity is
acceptable. For some reason, it seems that we need more arabs in the
US, because diversity is what made America great. On the other hand,
the taliban is evil because it does not treat women as feminists deem
they should. And somehow feminists claim to be pro-diversity. I've not
seen another contry where the very real cultural diversity is
apperciated and supported, apparently 'diversity' means basically that
the US has too many employed white males.
A man who rapes a women, could use the defense, he was compelled by his
biological need to reproduce at all cost.
We allow women to have as many children as they want, and almost
always assign the very real costs elswhere. Can you tell me why this
is?
in the legal sense a plea for insanity can be made for a rapist,
Oddly enough, women who murder their newborns have a ready made
instanity defense, post-partum depression. But if anyone else were to
murder her children, then they are the scum of the earth and the legal
system treats their actions very seriously.
and in a few month, the man is free to walk the streets again.
We rarely even charge women who rape, or make false rape accusations.
When a woman rapes a minor boy and gets pregnant, the State assigns
her custody and the rape victim child support. Explain to me exactly
how wrong rape is and why women who rape don't get the same legal
treatment and social stigma as men.
Rich
|
| |
| |
rpayne@mybluelight.com (Rich) wrote in message
As compared to what?
ask them
all supposed negative behaviour can be deemed as necessary for human
evolution, and since some says evolution is a very long process, rape is a
vestigal behaviour.
I don't believe that I've ever seen the word "rape" in the context of
evolution.
because you havent seen it, means it never implied right..???
look it up, google rape evolution. Have fun
|
| |
| |
Jabriol@excite.com (JaBrIoL) wrote in message news:<d222de3e.0402190419.3685ae3b@posting.google.com>...
rpayne@mybluelight.com (Rich) wrote in message
ask them
Ask whom?
all supposed negative behaviour can be deemed as necessary for human
evolution, and since some says evolution is a very long process, rape
is a vestigal behaviour.
I don't believe that I've ever seen the word "rape" in the context of
evolution.
because you havent seen it, means it never implied right..???
Actually I was referring to blokes like Darwin. As in the Scopes
trial, people ascribe all manner of things to Darwin that Darwin did
not say or intend.
look it up, google rape evolution. Have fun
Then I can read more of your screed? Oh joy.
I imagine it's unreasonable to expect you to defend your thesis here
and now.
Rich
|
| |
| |
|
