An "Intelligently Designed" Ruling?

Okies, thanks!

As we both acknowledge, a serious uprise in crime starting somewhere around 1962...
The reason according to you is the banning of school prayer.

The real reason, according to most, is the more lenient justice system: conviction rates seriously dropped, and sentences were much shorter than before. Politicians were getting softer on crime (because of a fear to be called racist, mostly, since the majority of crimes was being committed by African-Americans and Hispanics). Criminals don't care about whether or not school prayer is allowed; they care about their chances of getting caught, and if caught, how long they'll have to serve.

Another reason: between 1960 and 1985, the number of police officers FELL more than 50 percent (relative to the population). Don't you think that that's got more to do with it than school prayer?

Around 1990, the crime rates started dropping. The reasons: mandatory minimum sentences (which are absolutely racist, but that's another discussion), the legalization of abortion some 15 years ago, and crack cocaine.

Why?

Longer prison sentences: High prison sentences are a negative incentive for criminals (the causality has been proven, no need to argue about it),
Legalization of abortion, or Roe v Wade in 1973. In the first year after Roe v Wade, 750,000 women had an abortion , and by 1980 over 1.5 million abortions were performed (per year!). Who were those women? Low-class, uneducated ones... the ones whose sons and daughters have a high chance of ending up in crime... there you go, no need to discuss it: the causality has been proven numerous times.
crack cocaine: the huge incentives of pure cocaine fell away with the introduction of crack cocaine. In other words: not money was to be made with it, so why risk it?

There you go: two real reasons (causality has been proven!) for the uprise of crime since 1962, three real reasons (causality has been proven!) for the decline of crime since 1990.

Okies, thanks!

As we both acknowledge, a serious uprise in crime starting somewhere around 1962...
The reason according to you is the banning of school prayer.

The real reason, according to most, is the more lenient justice system: conviction rates seriously dropped, and sentences were much shorter than before. Politicians were getting softer on crime (because of a fear to be called racist, mostly, since the majority of crimes was being committed by African-Americans and Hispanics). Criminals don't care about whether or not school prayer is allowed; they care about their chances of getting caught, and if caught, how long they'll have to serve.

Another reason: between 1960 and 1985, the number of police officers FELL more than 50 percent (relative to the population). Don't you think that that's got more to do with it than school prayer?

Around 1990, the crime rates started dropping. The reasons: mandatory minimum sentences (which are absolutely racist, but that's another discussion), the legalization of abortion some 15 years ago, and crack cocaine.

Why?

Longer prison sentences: High prison sentences are a negative incentive for criminals (the causality has been proven, no need to argue about it),
Legalization of abortion, or Roe v Wade in 1973. In the first year after Roe v Wade, 750,000 women had an abortion , and by 1980 over 1.5 million abortions were performed (per year!). Who were those women? Low-class, uneducated ones... the ones whose sons and daughters have a high chance of ending up in crime... there you go, no need to discuss it: the causality has been proven numerous times.
crack cocaine: the huge incentives of pure cocaine fell away with the introduction of crack cocaine. In other words: not money was to be made with it, so why risk it?

There you go: two real reasons (causality has been proven!) for the uprise of crime since 1962, three real reasons (causality has been proven!) for the decline of crime since 1990.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by HTRegz
Hey Hey,

I considered not posting... but since this is the only time that Evil Moo and I will probably ever agree I had to say something...

---

Lol. I'm not a religious man (obviously), but I think this gives us all reason to start praying. This must be one of the signs of the apocolypse. What's even more omnious, is at the time HT posted there was a massive thunder and rain storm occuring where I'm at! Coincidence? I think not...

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Relyt
Since prayer in school has been banned as well, it has been replaced with sex, knives, gangs, guns, and all manner of other vile things. Utter chaos rules the schools Now what are your future leaders learning?

---

As to the new topic, I can't say that students today are really that dangerous. I just graduated last summer from my fourth high school. Mind you, I (a white male) was a minority at 3 of them. Two of my school were filled with "wannabe" gangsters and thugs, yet the only weapon any of these kids weilded, or had probably even seen was a vicious sense of attitude, shallowness, and irreverence in general.

I really don't think the absence of religon in school has anything to do with these problems. The DoD schools I had attended had an environment of respect, discipline, and value without being religous, or even militant for that matter. I mostly blame parents not raising their children; letting public schools and pop-culture do it for them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by HTRegz
Hey Hey,

I considered not posting... but since this is the only time that Evil Moo and I will probably ever agree I had to say something...

---

Lol. I'm not a religious man (obviously), but I think this gives us all reason to start praying. This must be one of the signs of the apocolypse. What's even more omnious, is at the time HT posted there was a massive thunder and rain storm occuring where I'm at! Coincidence? I think not...

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Relyt
Since prayer in school has been banned as well, it has been replaced with sex, knives, gangs, guns, and all manner of other vile things. Utter chaos rules the schools Now what are your future leaders learning?

---

As to the new topic, I can't say that students today are really that dangerous. I just graduated last summer from my fourth high school. Mind you, I (a white male) was a minority at 3 of them. Two of my school were filled with "wannabe" gangsters and thugs, yet the only weapon any of these kids weilded, or had probably even seen was a vicious sense of attitude, shallowness, and irreverence in general.

I really don't think the absence of religon in school has anything to do with these problems. The DoD schools I had attended had an environment of respect, discipline, and value without being religous, or even militant for that matter. I mostly blame parents not raising their children; letting public schools and pop-culture do it for them.

Hmmmm,

I am confused by those who are so vehemently opposed to intelligent design. They encounter it every day don't they?....................this computer is the result of intelligent design, so is a spider's web. The only difference is that we know who did it in those examples.

I also don't see the mutual exclusivity of evolution and creationism. Supposing the "creator" built a system that was self sufficient and evolutionary in its nature...............In the end science is just studying the system, not where it came from.

In computer terms scientists are attempting to decompile object code, they don't have the source, and they don't know who wrote it.

And don't forget that "religion" is a creation of man, which is why there are so many different ones ;)

Hmmmm,

I am confused by those who are so vehemently opposed to intelligent design. They encounter it every day don't they?....................this computer is the result of intelligent design, so is a spider's web. The only difference is that we know who did it in those examples.

I also don't see the mutual exclusivity of evolution and creationism. Supposing the "creator" built a system that was self sufficient and evolutionary in its nature...............In the end science is just studying the system, not where it came from.

In computer terms scientists are attempting to decompile object code, they don't have the source, and they don't know who wrote it.

And don't forget that "religion" is a creation of man, which is why there are so many different ones ;)

Here's a bit of science:

ID+religion = utter bollocks

Feel free to quote that.
I genuinely belive that religion is one of mankinds worst inventions (ideas).
Started off by a caveman wacked out on mushrooms trying to explain why the sun rises and sets and why the seasons change.
Continued as a useful method to control a population.

Time to move on.

In Arthur C Clarks Rama series God was a scientist in another dimention/reality. It manipulated the conditions in the big bang and after that only observed the results. IT created many big bangs and universes in differenet ways. But basically we're on our own.

I prefer that idea of a god, "Yup I made you now feck off and get on with it".

Here's a bit of science:

ID+religion = utter bollocks

Feel free to quote that.
I genuinely belive that religion is one of mankinds worst inventions (ideas).
Started off by a caveman wacked out on mushrooms trying to explain why the sun rises and sets and why the seasons change.
Continued as a useful method to control a population.

Time to move on.

In Arthur C Clarks Rama series God was a scientist in another dimention/reality. It manipulated the conditions in the big bang and after that only observed the results. IT created many big bangs and universes in differenet ways. But basically we're on our own.

I prefer that idea of a god, "Yup I made you now feck off and get on with it".

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by nihil
Hmmmm,

I am confused by those who are so vehemently opposed to intelligent design. They encounter it every day don't they?....................this computer is the result of intelligent design, so is a spider's web. The only difference is that we know who did it in those examples.

I also don't see the mutual exclusivity of evolution and creationism. Supposing the "creator" built a system that was self sufficient and evolutionary in its nature...............In the end science is just studying the system, not where it came from.

In computer terms scientists are attempting to decompile object code, they don't have the source, and they don't know who wrote it.

And don't forget that "religion" is a creation of man, which is why there are so many different ones ;)

---

The major problem with creationsim is that it reaches the conclusion before it even investigates, and it cannot be tested. Even if we are only "studying the system" and eventually figure it out how evolution occurs completely, we have no reason to assume it was done by some greater power. The only thing creationists use to justify their theory is religon. The only thing IDers use to justify their theory is doubt.

"We are here because God put us here", is not a scientific statement or reasoning; it is religous belief.

"Life is too complex to not have been intentionally created by some higher form of being", is not a scientific statement or reasoning; it is lazy doubt.

In the end, Evolution answers our questions as human-beings. ID does not, and is just a spiral staircase.

"If we are too complex to simply have occur naturally, then our creators too must have been created, for they are even more powerful and complex than ourselves. That statement continues infiniately, unless either a) God created them b) they developed naturally over the course of eons through growth and adaptation; otherwise known as Evolution."

So as I see it, you're either a Creationist hocking religion in disguise, or you're an Evolutionist--regardless of how we came into existance.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by nihil
Hmmmm,

I am confused by those who are so vehemently opposed to intelligent design. They encounter it every day don't they?....................this computer is the result of intelligent design, so is a spider's web. The only difference is that we know who did it in those examples.

I also don't see the mutual exclusivity of evolution and creationism. Supposing the "creator" built a system that was self sufficient and evolutionary in its nature...............In the end science is just studying the system, not where it came from.

In computer terms scientists are attempting to decompile object code, they don't have the source, and they don't know who wrote it.

And don't forget that "religion" is a creation of man, which is why there are so many different ones ;)

---

The major problem with creationsim is that it reaches the conclusion before it even investigates, and it cannot be tested. Even if we are only "studying the system" and eventually figure it out how evolution occurs completely, we have no reason to assume it was done by some greater power. The only thing creationists use to justify their theory is religon. The only thing IDers use to justify their theory is doubt.

"We are here because God put us here", is not a scientific statement or reasoning; it is religous belief.

"Life is too complex to not have been intentionally created by some higher form of being", is not a scientific statement or reasoning; it is lazy doubt.

In the end, Evolution answers our questions as human-beings. ID does not, and is just a spiral staircase.

"If we are too complex to simply have occur naturally, then our creators too must have been created, for they are even more powerful and complex than ourselves. That statement continues infiniately, unless either a) God created them b) they developed naturally over the course of eons through growth and adaptation; otherwise known as Evolution."

So as I see it, you're either a Creationist hocking religion in disguise, or you're an Evolutionist--regardless of how we came into existance.

Taking any kind of info that has been orally transfered for years and written down by a couple of different writers litterally is stupid..
Oral history is as good as the weakest links.. Hell try it out.. If you can't even keep a story the same with 20 people let alone hundreds over thousands of years..
And that was even before the Vatican and the Kings of Europe started messing with history..

IMHO the Thora, Bible and Quoran are in the same line of trusworthability as a historic refference as the fairytales of the brothers Grimm..

Taking any kind of info that has been orally transfered for years and written down by a couple of different writers litterally is stupid..
Oral history is as good as the weakest links.. Hell try it out.. If you can't even keep a story the same with 20 people let alone hundreds over thousands of years..
And that was even before the Vatican and the Kings of Europe started messing with history..

IMHO the Thora, Bible and Quoran are in the same line of trusworthability as a historic refference as the fairytales of the brothers Grimm..

Quote:

---

So as I see it, you're either a Creationist hocking religion in disguise, or you're an Evolutionist--regardless of how we came into existance.

---

That is way too simplistic.

Only things that have already been created can evolve. The question is how did the creation come about?

The real argument then becomes:

Religion: "By divine intervention"
Non-religion: "By chance"
???: "Exactly as in that camp fire story told by primitive bronze age nomads thousands of years ago"

To put it crudely, religion is about how/why we got here and what should we do about it now we have arrived?

Science is about the observation and analysis of "here" (of which we are a part)

So, "evolution" has been dragged into the argument as the antithesis of "creation", which it clearly is not. Remember that science is about facts and religion is about beliefs.

It has been common practice to attempt to use science to justify "chance" or "God" Neither will work, because we cannot make the required observations.

Quote:

---

So as I see it, you're either a Creationist hocking religion in disguise, or you're an Evolutionist--regardless of how we came into existance.

---

That is way too simplistic.

Only things that have already been created can evolve. The question is how did the creation come about?

The real argument then becomes:

Religion: "By divine intervention"
Non-religion: "By chance"
???: "Exactly as in that camp fire story told by primitive bronze age nomads thousands of years ago"

To put it crudely, religion is about how/why we got here and what should we do about it now we have arrived?

Science is about the observation and analysis of "here" (of which we are a part)

So, "evolution" has been dragged into the argument as the antithesis of "creation", which it clearly is not. Remember that science is about facts and religion is about beliefs.

It has been common practice to attempt to use science to justify "chance" or "God" Neither will work, because we cannot make the required observations.

What makes me giggle uncontrollably about this whole ID furore is the fact that people automatically equate ID with a supreme being without regard for the possibility that the ID _might_ have been simply superior being(s). So off we go down the separation of church and state road when anyone tries to teach it.

ID is _far_ more likely and logical than creation itself. ID is no more or less likely than pure evolution from a common ancestor since the design may have been from a single, "low level" species. The argument that evolution has holes that _should_ be there but aren't - therefore invalidating the theory - is specious at best. I have a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle with 4 pieces missing - does that invalidate my entire puzzle or can I reasonable assume that the pieces exist somewhere but I have had no luck in finding them. Of course, they may also have been destroyed, in which case I will never find them - is my jigsaw puzzle still invalid because I am missing 4 pieces or can I, through appropriate interpolation, still see the picture?

Why do people always equate ID to evolution when it probably should be more appropriately applied to the big bang or wherever else you want to place as the origin of the universe as we know it? Evolution is being held up in the court of science because of a few missing pieces but the big bang theory goes practically unchallenged by most. Is it because the concept is too difficult for the masses? Most probably.... But then evolution or ID is hardly a cakewalk for your average, (Read: Braindead), citizen. The big bang is a far more appropriate place to be considering ID because without that point of origin being designed intelligently the remainder of ID would be proportionately unintelligent - OIW, it would be patches applied to the existing system rather than the system itself being properly suited to the subsequent design elements.

Yes, I fully understand that the big bang crashes headlong into creationism and that creationism does not necessarily crash headlong into ID or the big bang but I firmly believe that both ID and creationsism suffer from the same problem - they are both being touted as occurring at the hand of an individual - which is why people balk at it because it is not _their_ individual.

IMO, teach ID, teach evolution and teach creationism. Why? It's far more important to teach kids how to think than it is to teach them how to repeat what you or someone else believes to be the facts. We end up with the same braindead population if we go that route.

What makes me giggle uncontrollably about this whole ID furore is the fact that people automatically equate ID with a supreme being without regard for the possibility that the ID _might_ have been simply superior being(s). So off we go down the separation of church and state road when anyone tries to teach it.

ID is _far_ more likely and logical than creation itself. ID is no more or less likely than pure evolution from a common ancestor since the design may have been from a single, "low level" species. The argument that evolution has holes that _should_ be there but aren't - therefore invalidating the theory - is specious at best. I have a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle with 4 pieces missing - does that invalidate my entire puzzle or can I reasonable assume that the pieces exist somewhere but I have had no luck in finding them. Of course, they may also have been destroyed, in which case I will never find them - is my jigsaw puzzle still invalid because I am missing 4 pieces or can I, through appropriate interpolation, still see the picture?

Why do people always equate ID to evolution when it probably should be more appropriately applied to the big bang or wherever else you want to place as the origin of the universe as we know it? Evolution is being held up in the court of science because of a few missing pieces but the big bang theory goes practically unchallenged by most. Is it because the concept is too difficult for the masses? Most probably.... But then evolution or ID is hardly a cakewalk for your average, (Read: Braindead), citizen. The big bang is a far more appropriate place to be considering ID because without that point of origin being designed intelligently the remainder of ID would be proportionately unintelligent - OIW, it would be patches applied to the existing system rather than the system itself being properly suited to the subsequent design elements.

Yes, I fully understand that the big bang crashes headlong into creationism and that creationism does not necessarily crash headlong into ID or the big bang but I firmly believe that both ID and creationsism suffer from the same problem - they are both being touted as occurring at the hand of an individual - which is why people balk at it because it is not _their_ individual.

IMO, teach ID, teach evolution and teach creationism. Why? It's far more important to teach kids how to think than it is to teach them how to repeat what you or someone else believes to be the facts. We end up with the same braindead population if we go that route.

Quote:

---

Yes, I fully understand that the big bang crashes headlong into creationism

---

Not really, you could ask "who created the big bang"? :)

I believe that in education you should teach science in science classes and theology in theology classes.

The real argument is divine intervention against chance, and both are beyond the scope of our science.

:)

Quote:

---

Yes, I fully understand that the big bang crashes headlong into creationism

---

Not really, you could ask "who created the big bang"? :)

I believe that in education you should teach science in science classes and theology in theology classes.

The real argument is divine intervention against chance, and both are beyond the scope of our science.

:)

Relyt: Quit lieing about the foundign faterhs...most where masions, most where diests not christian and very much not evangelical..and soem like jeferson that you quoted where blak mass style satinsts (we would probably lable them humanists today)

Relyt: Quit lieing about the foundign faterhs...most where masions, most where diests not christian and very much not evangelical..and soem like jeferson that you quoted where blak mass style satinsts (we would probably lable them humanists today)

Tiger Shark: don't try and drag astrophysicas down into the mud, biology is having enough pain. Big bang while a thory has a rather large mountain of evidence supporting (they found singularities, galixy red shift, the ambiant radiation, the "noise" created by the big bang that can be detected today.)

Tiger Shark: don't try and drag astrophysicas down into the mud, biology is having enough pain. Big bang while a thory has a rather large mountain of evidence supporting (they found singularities, galixy red shift, the ambiant radiation, the "noise" created by the big bang that can be detected today.)

I do need something explained by the ID proponents...wh ydo you insist of trying to shove a religious view down our thorates, when from a religiuos contect most christians don't accept creationism...if your thology isn't even main stream theology why do you think you can trick the rest of us into thinking its science?

I do need something explained by the ID proponents...wh ydo you insist of trying to shove a religious view down our thorates, when from a religiuos contect most christians don't accept creationism...if your thology isn't even main stream theology why do you think you can trick the rest of us into thinking its science?

Quote:

---

wh ydo you insist of trying to shove a religious view down our thorate

---

It's all about money. BTW, spellcheck? LOL
:cool:

Quote:

---

wh ydo you insist of trying to shove a religious view down our thorate

---

It's all about money. BTW, spellcheck? LOL
:cool:

Quote:

---

I do need something explained by the ID proponents...wh ydo you insist of trying to shove a religious view down our thorates

---

Because if you believe in a creator you must believe in a God of sorts, and that is a religious viewpoint. But please note that not all religions are creationist/ID.

Quote:

---

when from a religiuos contect most christians don't accept creationism.

---

That is not correct. Strictly all Christians are creationists. Most do not accept the Book of Genesis as an accurate account of anything, it is an allegory or legend.

How did we know what God did on what day?...................because he "told" a shower of primitive, bronze age nomads?.............how did God know the day..............Checked it with his Rolex GMT Master? :D Anyway, why would God bother to tell mankind, it is totally irrelevant information.

:)

Quote:

---

I do need something explained by the ID proponents...wh ydo you insist of trying to shove a religious view down our thorates

---

Because if you believe in a creator you must believe in a God of sorts, and that is a religious viewpoint. But please note that not all religions are creationist/ID.

Quote:

---

when from a religiuos contect most christians don't accept creationism.

---

That is not correct. Strictly all Christians are creationists. Most do not accept the Book of Genesis as an accurate account of anything, it is an allegory or legend.

How did we know what God did on what day?...................because he "told" a shower of primitive, bronze age nomads?.............how did God know the day..............Checked it with his Rolex GMT Master? :D Anyway, why would God bother to tell mankind, it is totally irrelevant information.

:)

bballad:

Quote:

---

Big bang while a thory has a rather large mountain of evidence supporting

---

Are you implying that evolution doesn't? I'd be happy to wager that the body of evidence for evolution is significantly greater than the body of knowledge for the big bang.... The funny thing is that even with all the evidence there are many that pick holes in evolution yet do so while defending Genesis on the evidence of 4000 year old heresay....

Furthermore, it is far more logical to consider ID to have begun in the first few days of Genesis assuming that the story of those days was the story of the creation of our universe as we currently understand it since any for of design, if it is indeed intelligent, would be in place from the start. Yet all the proponents of ID are, quite wrongly, arguing it in place of evolution. To do so shows they clearly haven't even thought through their own argument and leaves them utterly open to the argument that they are only arguing it to push forward their own religious belief - a thought to which I proscribe.

Nihil:

Quote:

---

Most do not accept the Book of Genesis as an accurate account of anything, it is an allegory or legend.

---

Funny how they can so easily discard the very beginning of their religious text and yet cling so fiercely to the remaining chapters.... I wonder how long it takes them to discard the other chapters that, with convincing evidence, no longer seems so supportable? It makes me question the strength of their religious belief if they can discard portions of their god's word so easily.

Interestingly enough atheism and ID are not mutually exclusive - when taken in the context that ID does not imply an individual had the intelligence and did the design. looking around this universe there is some argument for "design".... It sometimes is difficult to look at the complexities and interactions in the world alone and not think that there might have been some design.... But at the same time it is not at all difficult to look at those same complexities and interactions and understand that with the time periods involved and the diversity of influences
and environments.

bballad:

Quote:

---

Big bang while a thory has a rather large mountain of evidence supporting

---

Are you implying that evolution doesn't? I'd be happy to wager that the body of evidence for evolution is significantly greater than the body of knowledge for the big bang.... The funny thing is that even with all the evidence there are many that pick holes in evolution yet do so while defending Genesis on the evidence of 4000 year old heresay....

Furthermore, it is far more logical to consider ID to have begun in the first few days of Genesis assuming that the story of those days was the story of the creation of our universe as we currently understand it since any for of design, if it is indeed intelligent, would be in place from the start. Yet all the proponents of ID are, quite wrongly, arguing it in place of evolution. To do so shows they clearly haven't even thought through their own argument and leaves them utterly open to the argument that they are only arguing it to push forward their own religious belief - a thought to which I proscribe.

Nihil:

Quote:

---

Most do not accept the Book of Genesis as an accurate account of anything, it is an allegory or legend.

---

Funny how they can so easily discard the very beginning of their religious text and yet cling so fiercely to the remaining chapters.... I wonder how long it takes them to discard the other chapters that, with convincing evidence, no longer seems so supportable? It makes me question the strength of their religious belief if they can discard portions of their god's word so easily.

Interestingly enough atheism and ID are not mutually exclusive - when taken in the context that ID does not imply an individual had the intelligence and did the design. looking around this universe there is some argument for "design".... It sometimes is difficult to look at the complexities and interactions in the world alone and not think that there might have been some design.... But at the same time it is not at all difficult to look at those same complexities and interactions and understand that with the time periods involved and the diversity of influences
and environments.

How can someone not believe in something higher than themselves? Darwin is an idiot. For people who believe in evolution:

How about you tell me how eyes were made ;) From what I've read, that's something even you no Faith no reason to live jack asses can't explain.

The Universe didn't fart and make toads from the gas.

When I was in high school, my whole family thought I was a satanists. I'm not, but it would have been easier to be because then they'd tell me I was lying. I didn't though. I believe in God. There is to much to this World / Universe to say some planet farted and made us all. That's such Bullshit.

My best friend, oddly enough, is athiest. He doesn't believe in much of anything, but he knows how I am and what lines not to cross. Hell we have had some great talks about this.

As for violence on the rise.. What did you think was going to happen when Nixon, that stupid excuse for a human, started the DEA, and then every drug that was legal at the time, was put to pasture with the others. How and why the govt can't understand this makes crime sky rocket is beyond me.

and I know someone is goign to argue this with me. Well, go ahead, it's a fact, look at Al Capone, he didn't get rich from being a kind hearted man in the used car business. Hell no, he sold Alcohol.

When I make my next album I'm going to ask permission for a certain quote.

It was on the History channel and it was this lady saying:

"I believed very strongly in prohibition, I thought it would change America for the better. Sadly, I'm wrong, dead wrong, and now I'm doing what I can to get Prohibition to end. I don't feel safe anymore, gangsters have taken over the cities, they are getting rich and they murder right in the streets... I was so wrong".

Heh, boy did I have a grin on my face. You'd think they would have learned their lesson though. But no, because it's happening even today with laws on other intoxicants.

All drug laws have something in common:

They at first, were passed over racism. Opium was made against the law in 1906 when a Man who hated the Chinese said "Chinks use it to rape white woman". California should have said go to hell, they would have been rich because they had a tax on smoking Opium.

Cocain was next, that was made against the law when the idiots down south used it on their slaves. They used it to make them work harder without sleep, then when people had reactons to it they ran to the feds and said "We need to make Cocain against the law right now!"

Of course they were turned down. Everyone was hooked on it. The Pope, The President, and Thomas Edison who invented the light bulb in MY town of Port Huron Michigan.

So that same guy decided to falsify new reports "Coked up negros are attacking White families.".... And boom, another racist gets his way and another drug is treated almost as un fairly as the people they used to make the laws.

Prohibition is the reason crime rates are so high.

Neg, this is for you:

Name one country that isn't third World, or you'd call a "super power", where laws are in place to put you in prison for something you ut in your own body. TheJinx is in the Netherlands, he can go to a coffee shop and buy hash and pot. Some parts of the UK have Morphine over the counter (Small doses), Canada has 222s.... The USA has guns.

There is somewhere in Colorado where you sign up for a bank account and they give you a free gun.... Am I the only one that can understand why that is stupid?

Tiger Shark you're not out of the woods either, you once told me if I need anything but beer coffee and smokes... Well, Coffee was taken to the Pope as people wanted it against the law too just as Heroin is... Beer was for a time not legal. And smoking... Lol, Nicotine is more addictive than any drug known to man. I've watched people rob a car for a pack of smokes. I just don't understand.

I ever win the Lotto I'm buying my own country. You're all invited but before you hop off the boat you're getting an IQ test, and the laws are my own. Oh and you have to pledge allegiance to Germany. And you can't be French. I don't want to get my country taken over because the army doesn't know what Victory looks like. Neg you can come as long as you don't speak French there :) lol.

How can someone not believe in something higher than themselves? Darwin is an idiot. For people who believe in evolution:

How about you tell me how eyes were made ;) From what I've read, that's something even you no Faith no reason to live jack asses can't explain.

The Universe didn't fart and make toads from the gas.

When I was in high school, my whole family thought I was a satanists. I'm not, but it would have been easier to be because then they'd tell me I was lying. I didn't though. I believe in God. There is to much to this World / Universe to say some planet farted and made us all. That's such Bullshit.

My best friend, oddly enough, is athiest. He doesn't believe in much of anything, but he knows how I am and what lines not to cross. Hell we have had some great talks about this.

As for violence on the rise.. What did you think was going to happen when Nixon, that stupid excuse for a human, started the DEA, and then every drug that was legal at the time, was put to pasture with the others. How and why the govt can't understand this makes crime sky rocket is beyond me.

and I know someone is goign to argue this with me. Well, go ahead, it's a fact, look at Al Capone, he didn't get rich from being a kind hearted man in the used car business. Hell no, he sold Alcohol.

When I make my next album I'm going to ask permission for a certain quote.

It was on the History channel and it was this lady saying:

"I believed very strongly in prohibition, I thought it would change America for the better. Sadly, I'm wrong, dead wrong, and now I'm doing what I can to get Prohibition to end. I don't feel safe anymore, gangsters have taken over the cities, they are getting rich and they murder right in the streets... I was so wrong".

Heh, boy did I have a grin on my face. You'd think they would have learned their lesson though. But no, because it's happening even today with laws on other intoxicants.

All drug laws have something in common:

They at first, were passed over racism. Opium was made against the law in 1906 when a Man who hated the Chinese said "Chinks use it to rape white woman". California should have said go to hell, they would have been rich because they had a tax on smoking Opium.

Cocain was next, that was made against the law when the idiots down south used it on their slaves. They used it to make them work harder without sleep, then when people had reactons to it they ran to the feds and said "We need to make Cocain against the law right now!"

Of course they were turned down. Everyone was hooked on it. The Pope, The President, and Thomas Edison who invented the light bulb in MY town of Port Huron Michigan.

So that same guy decided to falsify new reports "Coked up negros are attacking White families.".... And boom, another racist gets his way and another drug is treated almost as un fairly as the people they used to make the laws.

Prohibition is the reason crime rates are so high.

Neg, this is for you:

Name one country that isn't third World, or you'd call a "super power", where laws are in place to put you in prison for something you ut in your own body. TheJinx is in the Netherlands, he can go to a coffee shop and buy hash and pot. Some parts of the UK have Morphine over the counter (Small doses), Canada has 222s.... The USA has guns.

There is somewhere in Colorado where you sign up for a bank account and they give you a free gun.... Am I the only one that can understand why that is stupid?

Tiger Shark you're not out of the woods either, you once told me if I need anything but beer coffee and smokes... Well, Coffee was taken to the Pope as people wanted it against the law too just as Heroin is... Beer was for a time not legal. And smoking... Lol, Nicotine is more addictive than any drug known to man. I've watched people rob a car for a pack of smokes. I just don't understand.

I ever win the Lotto I'm buying my own country. You're all invited but before you hop off the boat you're getting an IQ test, and the laws are my own. Oh and you have to pledge allegiance to Germany. And you can't be French. I don't want to get my country taken over because the army doesn't know what Victory looks like. Neg you can come as long as you don't speak French there :) lol.

Quote:

---

Funny how they can so easily discard the very beginning of their religious text and yet cling so fiercely to the remaining chapters

---

Actually Tiger~ "Christian" means just that.................a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings. The New Testament is their religious text.

;)

Quote:

---

Funny how they can so easily discard the very beginning of their religious text and yet cling so fiercely to the remaining chapters

---

Actually Tiger~ "Christian" means just that.................a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings. The New Testament is their religious text.

;)

Gore:

I have two Diadema Urchins in my aquarium that will demonstrate rudimetary eyes for you... I stopped reading your post at the eyesight point..... It made it look silly and uninformed.

Nihil:

Sorry old chap.... The New Testament is an addendum to the Old Testament in the eyes of Christians - hence you find the Old Testament in the Bible. The Jews do not accept the New Testament becuase they do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah.... They are still waiting for him... :)

You're wrong..... Respectfully, of course.... :D

Gore:

I have two Diadema Urchins in my aquarium that will demonstrate rudimetary eyes for you... I stopped reading your post at the eyesight point..... It made it look silly and uninformed.

Nihil:

Sorry old chap.... The New Testament is an addendum to the Old Testament in the eyes of Christians - hence you find the Old Testament in the Bible. The Jews do not accept the New Testament becuase they do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah.... They are still waiting for him... :)

You're wrong..... Respectfully, of course.... :D

Okay....I see where I have to come out of the closet and set everyone straight (lol), the secret to mankinds existence, rests with my ancestors, those of "Druidic" blood, not for nothing we have fairies and little people in Eire, yes Druids used to hang out in Wales, but they did move around a bit, it was only when the Romans with their false gods, started to hunt down the Druids (The First People), that they all ended their days in Wales....

If they hadn't of been hunted down and all killed (very first genocide/holocaust), then today they would let everyone in on the big secret. They were famous for leaving little notes around (made of bark of course) so that the Romans would find them, and on these notes were hints, like the next King and Queen of England would be named "Adam & Eve", or that the guy from the other tribe was named Allah, and that fat fella "Buddha" was always drinking their mead... ;)

Sequence of Events:

1. Universe farts (Gore's words)
2. Planets form
3. Space dust seeds planet (or Klingons)
4. one celled protozoa begins to "Evolve"
5. fish appear in the oceans
6. fish decide to grow legs and lungs for air and migrate to land
7. Insects appear (most likely from the carcasses of dead animals/or plant life)
8. Small type rodents appear
9. big type rodents appear
10. lizards and snakes and crocodiles appear
11. Dinosaurs
12. Bigger Dinosaurs
13. Mammals appear
14. Dinosaurs disappear
15.Ice Age
16. Mammals flourish
17.First Anthropoids appear
18.Man Appears
19.The first Prophet (Life of Brian man in hole) appears
20. Chinese and Eqyptian dynasties (long before their was a Christ)
21. Tribal Idols (All of the tribes on the planet had their own gods)
22. -01/01 (BC or AD) take your pick
23. Everybody's God's rules
24. George W Bush.

Note: this is over a period of a few million years, give or take a hundred million or so.

Moral: Keep the Science in the Classroom and the Religion in your own home......children are impressionable at that young of an age, and to me, unless at the age of 10 you completely understand....then it is a form of Propaganda, math is backed up by facts, reading/writing is supported by facts, history is backed up by facts (some of it is subjective), chemistry,Biology,physics, backed up by facts, geography backed up by facts.....religion is pure fantasy backed up by the old man in the hole....... :p

Okay....I see where I have to come out of the closet and set everyone straight (lol), the secret to mankinds existence, rests with my ancestors, those of "Druidic" blood, not for nothing we have fairies and little people in Eire, yes Druids used to hang out in Wales, but they did move around a bit, it was only when the Romans with their false gods, started to hunt down the Druids (The First People), that they all ended their days in Wales....

If they hadn't of been hunted down and all killed (very first genocide/holocaust), then today they would let everyone in on the big secret. They were famous for leaving little notes around (made of bark of course) so that the Romans would find them, and on these notes were hints, like the next King and Queen of England would be named "Adam & Eve", or that the guy from the other tribe was named Allah, and that fat fella "Buddha" was always drinking their mead... ;)

Sequence of Events:

1. Universe farts (Gore's words)
2. Planets form
3. Space dust seeds planet (or Klingons)
4. one celled protozoa begins to "Evolve"
5. fish appear in the oceans
6. fish decide to grow legs and lungs for air and migrate to land
7. Insects appear (most likely from the carcasses of dead animals/or plant life)
8. Small type rodents appear
9. big type rodents appear
10. lizards and snakes and crocodiles appear
11. Dinosaurs
12. Bigger Dinosaurs
13. Mammals appear
14. Dinosaurs disappear
15.Ice Age
16. Mammals flourish
17.First Anthropoids appear
18.Man Appears
19.The first Prophet (Life of Brian man in hole) appears
20. Chinese and Eqyptian dynasties (long before their was a Christ)
21. Tribal Idols (All of the tribes on the planet had their own gods)
22. -01/01 (BC or AD) take your pick
23. Everybody's God's rules
24. George W Bush.

Note: this is over a period of a few million years, give or take a hundred million or so.

Moral: Keep the Science in the Classroom and the Religion in your own home......children are impressionable at that young of an age, and to me, unless at the age of 10 you completely understand....then it is a form of Propaganda, math is backed up by facts, reading/writing is supported by facts, history is backed up by facts (some of it is subjective), chemistry,Biology,physics, backed up by facts, geography backed up by facts.....religion is pure fantasy backed up by the old man in the hole....... :p

Hey Tiger~

The Old Testament is a book in its own right. The Jews, Moslems and Christians trace their origins back to it, but their interpretations of the significant (to them) parts of it are very different.

For example the Moslems consider the Koran to be their primary holy book, just as Chritians consider the New Testament. It is not an "addendum" that is a fallacy brought about by publishers lumping both books between the same covers.

The reaction of the Jewish establishment to Jesus' teachings should tell you the same?

If you give evidence in a UK court you are offered a selectin of Bible versions AND New Testaments on their own. If the Old Testament was considered THAT important, why would they do this thing then?



:)

Hey Tiger~

The Old Testament is a book in its own right. The Jews, Moslems and Christians trace their origins back to it, but their interpretations of the significant (to them) parts of it are very different.

For example the Moslems consider the Koran to be their primary holy book, just as Chritians consider the New Testament. It is not an "addendum" that is a fallacy brought about by publishers lumping both books between the same covers.

The reaction of the Jewish establishment to Jesus' teachings should tell you the same?

If you give evidence in a UK court you are offered a selectin of Bible versions AND New Testaments on their own. If the Old Testament was considered THAT important, why would they do this thing then?



:)