| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
Posted on 04/04/2002 10:05:32 AM PST by Heartlander
Of course no one can give scientific evidence for what is in the mind of man, however, there are strong indications that my statement is correct. For example Darwin himself was against helping the sick and lame. We also know quite well of the deeds and behavior of such atheists like Clinton, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Idi Amin and numerous others. However that atheism is clearly an excuse for breaking the very moral code of the Ten Commandments and those of common morals is quite clear. People who believe in the divine creation of life are much less likely to consider life valueless. People who believe that life came from God are much less likely to kill humans as if they were vermin than those who do not so believe.
(Out of coffee... maybe I can find a used filter to chew on...)
It's only strange that the a- prefix isn't used the same way in atheism ;-)
No I did not call you immoral. My position is quite simple really. Religion, and specifically the Christian Ten Commandments do restrain people who believe in God from doing evil. Atheism does not have any such restraints therefore atheism is more likely to lead to immorality than Christianity. I do not see how this can be doubted.
I posted this in a different thread yesterday:
I know of athiests with a well-developed sense of right and wrong. Ayn Rand comes to mind. So do all those Greek philosophers, and legions of "virtuous pagans" from antiquity. Yet, in spite of this evidence, people continue to say that without god there is no morality. But there obviously is. On the other hand, there are allegedly religious people with ghastly morality (Jim Jones is a great example.) Religious folks say "Oh, he's not REALLY religious!" But it seems to me that the existence of morality is quite separate from belief in god.
It is statements like this that form the basis for the reason why no educated person on FR takes anything you write seriosly. The orbits of Mercury and Pluto are modestly eccentric; the rest have eccentricities that are less than 0.10. And Pluto is THE ONLY planet that comes closer to the sun during PART of it's orbit than the next closest planet.
The only thing that is close to being "wildly eccentric" is your behavior on FR.
You may not realize it, but your statement above is a clear indication that evolution is not supported by the scientific evidence. Clearly if the same evidence can be shown to prove a different hypothesis than the one which evolutionists claim it proves, then the evidence for evolution is not very compelling.
I also find it quite interesting that none of the evolutionists here are willing to discuss the article which started this thread! The sudden changes shown in Darwin's finches proven by the research recounted in the article show quite clearly that there was no evolution at play here, but the adaptation of the finches to environmental conditions according to already existing traits in the species.
Oc course this doesn't prove god but only that a belief in a god (whether he exists or not) can restrain people from killing each other.
The good old No-True-Scotsman fallacy.
What a joke! What a lousy example! Ayn Rand cuckholded her husband with his closest friends. Her philosophy, like Darwin's shows a brutal disregard for the sick and the weak. No, there is nothing moral in the absolute selfishness that she proposed. Doing what one pleases is not a moral code.
Never said that it proved that there is a God. However, I am glad you agree with me that atheism leads to immorality.
And I didn't say that either. Atheism doesn't have to lead to immorality. An atheist is simply someone who does not believe in any deities and that allone says nothing about him being a moral or immoral person (unless you consider a lack of belief in a god or especially your god to be immoral).
Sure, a belief in a god can prevent people to kill each other as well as it can lead some to fly planes into buildings depending on what is believed that such a deity wants.
It's similar to being told that you are roasted alive if you push a certain button. Even if that isn't the case it prevents you from actually pushing that button if you believe what you're being told. But why should someone tell you that? Well maybe because that person thinks (or knows) you're not capable of understanding what really happens if you push that button. So as long as you don't push that button it doesn't really matter why you refrain from doing it.
Ah, but you left out the caveat that RA gave you: even circular orbits are "elliptical" in that they can be characterized as an ellipse of eccentricity = 0.
As to how "wild" they are is pure semantics, sort of like the meaning of 'alone' (in a room, in a building, in a city, in a country, on earth, in the universe). I will not waste my time with such hair-splitting.
Ah, the Clintonian response. It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is..... You're dead wrong, as I'll show momentarily.
Elliptical orbits are characterized by a parameter called the "eccentricity" represented by the letter "e." The value of that paramater ranges from 0 for circular orbits, and approaches 1 at the other extreme, as the orbit approaches parabolic.
Orbits that have small values of "e" (low eccentricity) are rightfully characterized as "nearly circular" as "Junior" stated. Orbits that have very high eccentricity (the value of "e" approaches 1) are highly elliptical and could be characterized as being "wildly" elliptical. Periodic comets typically have highly, or "wildly" elliptical orbits; Halley's is a good example. But no PLANET has an eccentricity remotely close to 1. Hence, it is impossible to correctly use the phrase "wildly elliptical" to describe the the orbit of ANY planet in our solar system.
As has already been pointed out to you, all but two planets have eccentricities of LESS THAN 0.10. These can only be characterized as "slightly eccentric" or "nearly circular" because that is exactly what they are.
The two remaining planets, Mercury and Pluto, have eccentricities that lie in the range between 0.20 and 0.25. Such an orbit vould be characterized as "modestly" or "moderately" elliptical, but NEVER as being "wildly" elliptical. 0.25 is not remotely close to being equal to 1.0 when the value ranges from 0 to 1.
In conclusion, "Junior" was right in that most planets have nearly circular orbits, and the two that aren't are only modestly eccentric, and your characterization of planetary orbits as being "wildly eccentric" is not true for ANY planet. The data provided by "RadioAstronomer" in NO way support your inaccurate characterization of planetary orbits.
If you think otherwise, I DARE you to ping him and see what he says.
You guys take up page after page of these crevo threads with crap lifted straight from the talk.origins www site and post your own links and then do this fabulous crybaby act when I post my own little set of links or the little God-Hates-Idiots article and none of you have any clue what the word "spam" actually means, which is basically commercial messages being forced upon a captive audience.
Basically, you and your clique have moved from the realm of hypocrisy to that of chutzvah.
But chutzvah appears to be your middle name, doesn't it? I mean, the little episode with the question of albedo on Venus kind of took the prize for ignorant, arrogant, and mean-spirited performances on the forum and anybody who was watching at the time knows it.
enjoy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.