Re: Ben Stein: Win His Career


"Ye Old One" <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:vbba34hja1tudkdk9f8529d5pkrm4gecro@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 22 May 2008 00:51:25 -0500, "Suzanne" <shiloh7@xxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"Ye Old One" <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pgr334phvtbrk8gg9lhkocq7gsu9d6iibu@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 19 May 2008 14:48:37 -0500, "Suzanne" <shiloh7@xxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"Ye Old One" <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:a3e334hqflikpflrj2amgonil012050ngn@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 19 May 2008 11:33:48 -0500, "Suzanne" <shiloh7@xxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"Rupert Morrish" <rupert@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:482cf8f0$0$13102$8d2e0cab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Suzanne wrote:
"Ritsjoena" <bramvandam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e2161537-089f-4eed-a827-c110c88ab7fa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On May 12, 6:34 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Glend" <interelectromagne...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
[major snip]
No, idiots have tampered with people reading the
Bible in school or any reference to any kind of
religion. So it's not really the same as it was when
I was a child. That's what my comment above was
all about. It never was disallowed to teach evolution
theory. What this is about now, is not that they want
the right to teach evolution, that never was not taught.
But the Bible has been attacked and the people do not
want that.

Your use of English makes it very hard to work out what you are
saying. "It never was disallowed to teach evolution theory." is a very
badly put statement that is also wrong.

Saying that something "never was disallowed" is a
literary form of protest against someone saying
that something never was allowed. This is a form of
editorial writing. It's not wrong, it's considered to be
very colorful.

It is TOTALLY wrong, and any English teacher would throw the book at
you for using such appalling phrasing.

Something like "The teaching of evolution theory has never been
disallowed" would have been better - even though you would still be
wrong because we all know it was banned.

Bob, you misunderstand some things.

Rarely.

Do tell.

I don't
know where you live,

Gloucester, UK.

OK, UK.

but haven't you ever heard,
someone say "you can't do (something)," and a
person responds by saying "you can't (afford to)
NOT do (something)"...?

There are people who abuse English in that way - it doesn't make it
right.

All right, we have established that you are
not familiar with American English. Probably
also not Irish English, or Australian English,
or South African English, or Goergia English,
or New York English, or Bostonian English, or
Florida English, or Alabama English, or Texas
English, or Minnesota English, or California
English, either. We all speak it a little differently
than you probably do.

You are talking to
someone that teaches ESL, Conversational English,
Accent Reduction, and Basic Understanding of
Spoken and Written Styles of English?

Then you should learn to write English correctly.

I do know how to write English correctly, Bob, but
I am in a newsgroup speaking converstational
American English and not the proper King's
English. For that matter, you no longer speak
the King's English, either, because you don't
use "thy," "thou," or "thine." Even your English
has changed, Bob.

Have you
never heard catchey expressions replied to common
styles, for example, someone says "No way!" and
another responds, "Yes, way!!"...? I normally don't
tell anyone this, but I've had people that are orators
say they love the way that I put words together, and
that it is modern and refreshing.

It is also, from many example here, wrong.

There is a standard of English that is acceptable in the street, on a
face to face basis. The standards are higher when you come to written
English.

Ok, your error ridden text read: "It never was disallowed to teach
evolution theory. What this is about now, is not that they want the
right to teach evolution, that never was not taught. But the Bible has
been attacked and the people do not want that."

Should have read: "The teaching of evolution theory was never
disallowed. What this is now about is not that they want the right to
teach evolution, but that the bible has been attacked and some people
do not want that."

That has now put it into reasonably correct English. However, it still
contains one major error, the very first sentence is factually wrong.

How many people in here have been so lucky
as to have gotten an English lesson from you?
I've seen some positively atrocious usage of
English in here. I am so lucky, I must say. : )

Perhaps where you
live, they don't allow this...? You can't pick up a
novel, see a movie, or a play, or read a good editorial,
but what it is displayed that people do talk and also
write this way. The expressive modern ways of talking
and writing are meant to make the reader, or hearer,
stop and really think about what the author is saying,
and not just skim past it blindly.

The bible has no place in school - other than in a comparative
religion class. It certainly has no place in a science class.

The Bible does have a place in school.

Yes, but ONLY in a comparative religion class where is can be compared
with other religious works on an equal basis.

Possibly you are younger than I am,

I'm 54.

I'm 68. En Garde.

but when I was
growing up, it was a wonderful part of our lives in
school.

No, it was a complete waste of time.

That bad, huh?

It was not in a class, it was a lifestyle that
was conveyed and it was a good lifestyle that it put
forth. The few people that were atheists did not take
issue over it and were glad that there were goals and
ideals being upheld that had been advanced by the
reading of the Bible,

What about Jews, Muslims, Hindus....? What about 'other' christian
faiths that do not approve of the KJV bible? In today's society it is
not acceptable to impose religion on kids.

If you don't introduce children to the Bible, then
YOU have decided for them and have pushed YOUR
belief down their throats. In so doing that, you don't
allow them to have the freedom to choose for
themselves what to believe, and in fact, you will have
hidden things from them that people the world over
put their trust in. Great Scott, Man, even the Muslims
read the Bible! Didn't you know that?

and many of them today can
quote the Bible, and even admire some of the better
known and quoted verses.

Poor kids.

Poor kids, baloney! They still will get into problems,
but at least this way, when the going gets rough, they
will have something to encourage them to do better.

It could, just remotely, have a place in a history class in a lesson
on "look at the stupid things our ancestors used to believe."

I am happy to know that you can express yourself
freely in speech, even though I do not agree with
you.

own comments and not allow anyone else to make their own
comments. Dawkins, for example, was allowed to read his
whole description of God. He was allowed to express what
he believed, and his statements were allowed to be in the
film. Of course Stein stated his opinion, too. But he still
allowed Dawkins comments to be in the film and Dawkins
also must have approved of his role in being in the film as
See the controversy about that. Dawkins approved of a film of a
different kind.

Thank you, I shall.
well. Ben expressed how he felt about many things, and
all of them were his opinion. Both Dawkins and Stein seemed
to be in agreement that a single cell is a very, very complicated
structure, far more so than people formerly believed. The
animation within the film of the intracies of a single cell was
worth the price of admission, by itself, alone. It goes without
saying that I would believe that a single cell is created by a
Creator, since you all know me to be a Christian. But for
whatever reasons you think about it's origins, don't act as
though a single cell is so simple.
The cell being complex is not enough reason for me that a creator
must
exist. I see no reason why such a thing could not arise by natural
means. The cell might be complex, its origins (or the processes by
which is becomes so) does not have to be complex (can be complex
of
course).

That's very interesting. I don't know that we have enough
information to say how an original cell started.

Several current hypotheses are summarized here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

I have previously read this, thank you. It is very
interesting, truly. It does not tell the complications
of a single cell though,

It wouldn't. It is talking about a point far earlier in the
development of life.

and that is what there is
no evidence of...a simple single cell that started
life

The cell came long after the start of life.

You were there? : )

My ancestors were.

And did they actually tell you that they were
non-cells at one time?

Yes, they have done that by leaving parts of their DNA/RNA in modern
life.

No, you don't have the first life forms.
You don't know how life began on the
earth. All you have is what has been found.
Don't you know there are millions of things
you don't know, that have not been found,
that are pieces of the puzzle? Sure, form a
"picture" of things with what you have got.
But don't make that be absolute. Leave some
room for differences that you don't know
about. Let me give you an example:
-
You undoubtedly know about plate movements
on the earth and how the continents have drifted
apart...that there was at one time a single continent
that we call Pangaea? That continent split into
Eurasia and Gondwanaland. It used to be that
in my lifetime, people didn't even know that much.
Now we know that before there was a Pangaea, there
was another configuration of continents that were
strewn in a ring around the earth laterally, and that
those continents came together to form Pangaea.
New information keeps changing one's concept of
what the beginning was.

Or did someone else tell
you what he thought they were and when he
thought they lived?...someone attempting to at
least try to figure it out, given the limited
knowledge that he had some years ago?

Knowledge is building all the time, and that includes our ability to
decode the messages past life have left us.

But you are saying that in the beginning life
began a certain way that you expect, and you
are not able to say how it began in the beginning
because you are basing your ideas only on what
is known. You are not factoring in the unknown.

and managed to produce all that we have that
is very complicated. That part is still just theory.
What amazes me is this idea said in this article
that even allows that alien forms of life could
be what started life on the earth. This shows that
no one knows how life began on this planet.

Of course there is a possibility that life started off-planet, but not
a high probability. Certainly many of the building blocks of life came
from space where they are quite common.

And where did life come from on that
supposed alien source? And what alien
source are you considering?

Personally I don't favour panspermia, but if it is true then it just
moves abiogenesis to another point in our galaxy.

If scientists come to a place where they can see
that an intelligent being in some other location in
the universe actually was responsible for life forming
on the earth, I wonder if they will ever see that it's
possible that this "alien" being's name might be
already known on earth as "God?"

Gods are the invention of primitive man, we have outgrown the need for
them now.

That may be true of some gods. But that is not true
of the God of the Bible. He is what is keeping our
planet and our univese from flying apart into a million
pieces.

There is a great
difference between who some think that God is,
and who he really is. Think of him as being the
intelligent alien that created life on earth,

Then he would not be a god. Look up the definition of a god.

Why not!
Number 1 answer: Merriam-Webser online:
God:
1. captitalized: the supreme or ultimate reality: as a:
the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who
is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe.

that also
desires to make contact with his creations through
internal, built in means and inward thoughts.

That part
surely is still a theory.

No, none of them yet have survived sufficient attempts at
falsification
to
be called a theory.

I am meaning that it is still a theory as to how
life began on the earth.

No, it is not yet a theory.

It is a theory how life began on earth unless
one considers what the Bible says.

No. It is NOT a theory. Learn what is meant by a "theory" in science.
We know, beyond all doubt, that abiogenesis occurred, we can see it
from the geological record. However, we need a lot more research
before action theories of how abiogenesis occurred can be put forth.

If you cannot prove how life began on the earth,
and you can't, then that part is a theory.

Once again, please go away and learn what the 'theory' is in science.

I know what theory means in science. I am talking
about your THEORY about how life began on the
earth, not about the systematic "theory" study of a
field of science based on known evidences.

At best,
you surely must realize opinions about how life
began on the earth are simply opinions based on
what facts are currently known. Unless you think
you have all the facts there are to know (and
scientists do not think that), then you have to call
that part a theory.

Learn what the 'theory' is in science.

Learn the other usage of the word "theory,"
and don't get them confused again.

No more of this thing you are
saying that I need to learn what theory is. That's
nonsense. I am not talking about the study of
evolution as scientific theory, I am <ahem>
talking origins. (Catchey name...what?)

But you need to learn what the word 'theory' means in science. You
keep misusing it.

No, I am NOT misusing it. If I say you have a
theory as to how life began on the earth, I am
not speaking of a scientific field of study. I am
speaking of your own personal viewpoint of
how life began on the earth.

I just think that people are surprised
to find out that a single cell can be as complex as it is.

Way more complex than any known designer would make it, for sure.

I saw a news article in the past year that said scientists
had finally figured out what it is that makes aged wine
taste like aged wine. But thousands of years ago, Jesus
made new wine at the wedding in Cana,

No he didn't.

Yes he did.

No he did not. It is not possible to change water into wine - it is a
fairy story.

Is real.

Rubbish.

Your problem is that you don't believe the Bible
is true. You should see the program on TV that
is called "The Naked Archaeologist." Last week, they
showed writing from the Hebrews found in caves
that quote the great Shema, that is 1,000 years older
than the oldest manuscript of the Bible that is found
in the Dead Sea Scrolls. I highly recommend this show.
http://www.historyinternational.com/nakedarchaeologist/

and he made it
so that it would have the flavor of aged wine. The
servants, Mary and Jesus alone knew this. The maitre d'
did not and he tasted the wine and exclaimed that he
thought the host had saved the best wine for the last.
It was the custom that you served the best wine first
then, so that when people were slightly tipsy, they
may not notice the flavor of the later distributed wine.
When they ran out of wine, Jesus still made the best.

Fairy story.

No, it's not.

Yes it is.

Jacob struggled with God, and came to the conclusion
because of the struggle that God was certainly there,
and he wanted God's blessing upon his inner emptiness
for having cheated his brother and father. God took away
all his "evil" (sins) and left him with a peace, that he
even acknowledged years later: Genesis 48:16. This was
upon the occasion of the blessing of the sons (grandsons)
he had from Jacob. On that earlier occasion, Jacob's name
was changed curiously to Israel, which meant that he
was one who had struggled with God and who also prevailed.
Within his name that he was then given anew, is the presence
of a pagan god right up against the true God, curiously:
Is-ra-el. Most people struggle with this internal battle where
a false god is struggling to survive against the true God.
Some prevail. Prevailing seems to mean that the person
more than believes, he receives (the blessing.). It's real.

Bronze age fairy stories.

No it's not.

It would be no problem for the Lord to have made a
vintage earth and universe.

Why?

Why not? : )

So you cannot answer the question.

I did answer the question, with a question that you
cannot answer.

Then you did not answer the question.

I did answer the question with a question that
is prerequisite to answering the question. That's
your problem, not mine. You didn't answer it.

That's called a Mexican Standoff.

If your "why" means why would the Lord create
an earth and universe that was already vintage, I
can think of several reasons. 1.) He wanted one that
functioned correctly so he caused it to already
be the way it would be if it really were billions
of years old. And 2.) he wanted to get man's attention
at least to see it all the way that Einstein described
one would see it when he talked about how we are
in a situation like a child that goes into a great big
library full of books from many nations. He says
the little one has the idea that there has to be
someone who wrote all those books, but he doesn't
know how they were written. The child deeply
perceives of a mysterious order in the way the books
are arranged, yet he can't figure out what this
arrangement is. Einstein relates that this is the epitome
of what he thinks the most intelligent human being
has towards God. You can see the original quote
online:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
The part about Spinoza that I have not quoted (which
see article) are disputed by some, but the objections
are objected to, as well, by others:
http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/spinoza.html

Suzanne

Come back when you can think of a sensible reason.

Best Regards,
Suzanne

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight"
    ... I have been reading "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight" by Thom Hartmann ... environment - that the condition of this planet earth which affects human ... life, itself depends on the behaviour of human beings and their societies ... from Nature and from themselves and from God. ...
    (soc.religion.islam)
  • What Evidence Do We Have From the Cosmos (or From the Bible) That Human Beings Are "Valuable?"
    ... What Evidence Do We Have From the Cosmos That Human ... and even some of the tiniest forms of life live ... our home planet, the earth, has been struck by large objects from ... Assuming God exists, how do we know for sure that God "values" human ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Snags: Even Paul thought hed be better off dead!
    ... >in *this* life, what can make life worth living. ... things of this earth don't have any purpose or meaning of their own, ... apart from God. ... we can use the things of earth in the ...
    (soc.religion.christian)
  • Re: Do dogs go to heaven?
    ... planets, means precisely the same thing, and in no sense whatsoever, in ... life in the first place. ... elsewhere but not that there might be a creator God. ... on earth are estimated to have first appeared around 4 billion years ago ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Abiogenesis vs Old Earth Creationism
    ... the initial creation of life was a ... There is no firm evidence that life exists elsewhere in the ... Even saying that God created the universe merely passes onto God the ... I'm not up on the taxonomy, but OEC should mean either that the earth ...
    (talk.origins)