-Caveat Lector- In a message dated 99-05-27 16:48:32 EDT, you write: << >> > >> Nurev, you are either incurably ignorant as to the facts in the above > cases, > >> or worse, you do not care, or the mountain of evidence proving massive > >> government malfeasence is inconvenient to your argument so you ignore it. > > > >I'm not doubting government malfeasance. I'm doubting your judgment. > >Not all these pet paranoias are facts either. The reason I answered yes to > all > >your your examples of paranoid foolishness is because they have nothing to > >do with YOU. > > > > Yes they are facts. You can deny them till you're blue in the face.Ask > Charles Key about OKC, if you can be bothered. Bu then again, if what he says > doesn't fit your dogma you'll dismiss it just like everything else that is > contrary to your mindset. You are so simple minded that you think that those > incidents do not > effect me or others? Are you that stupid? Do you think Waco hasn't greatly > exacerbated people's fears about the government? They have everything to do > with me when the government kills people because maybe I am next. That is > not paranoid delusions, that is facing facts. Why would you be next? Gavin; Stupid question. Ask the surviving Branch Davidians if they thought they were next. Ask the woman at Ruby Ridge who got shot in the face if she thought she was going to be next. Ask the woman in Salisaw Oklahoma who got shot through the arm, nearly blowing it off, when the cops raided her house for drugs finding nothing, if she thought she was next, ad infinitum. > > >> Gavin; > >> > >> I am not a "true believer" in anything except religious matters. > > > >I hoped this was a joke but it's not. The term " true believer," is > >rooted > >in religion. It means that you are blinded by your belief system. > > Gavin; > Au contrair, what about your Darwinian evolution religious belief system? Darwinian evolution does not require belief. It is a common observable fact. It is unfortunate for you that you can't make the same claims for your " religious matters." Gavin; I will get to punctuated equilibrium later. Lets deal with Darwinism first which is what most biologists adhere to, including one of the most pre-eminent evolutionists of them all, Oxford University's Stephen Dawkins. Darwinian evolution does require belief because it has never been observed or repeated in a laboratory. When I talk about Darwinnian evolution I am referring to macroevolution as opposed to microevolution which is what you are talking about. Microevolution refers to birds getting longer beaks, animals slightly modifying their shape in order to help them catch prey or avoid being eaten. These changes are factual and observable. The hypothesis of macroevolution is when one species totally changes into another species, fish to reptiles, reptiles to birds, monkey to man. This has never been observed or proven in a laboratory because it supposedly happens over billions of years. Darwinian macroevolution requires 1000's of minute random mutations in order to go from one species to another. This is when Darwin embarrassed himself when he wrote in the first edition of The Origin of Species; quote page 162 "The Facts of Life" by Richard Milton "I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale." In later editions he ommitted this. Nonetheless, this is what Darwinian macroevolution is saying. Darwinists speculated that if a Finch could change the size of it's beak in order to adapt to it's island home, then maybe by the same process one species could change into a completely different species. One of the major problems with this hypothesis is that the genetic code for whales is not present in bears, the genetic code for reptiles is not present in fish, etc. Further, when man has selectively bred domesticated animals such as dogs, cats there are strict limitations as to what is possible. You can get a dog as big as a Great Dane or as small as a chihuahua. You cannot make a dog as small as a mouse or as big as a horse. After so much inbreeding the line goes sterile. The biologists favorite insect, Drosophils, the fruit fly,which has a very short gestational period of a month, for all the tens of thousands of offspring that have been manipulated by man, not random mutation as in Darwinism, all they have is a fruit fly. They have got fruit fly's with more hairs, or bigger fruit fly's, after a while they go sterile. Darwin said; "This preservation of favourable individual differences and variations, and the destruction of those which are injurious, I have called natural selection, or the survival of the fittest." But, as Milton says in The Facts of Life page 147 "As natural selection or differential reproduction is such an important mechanism, one might expect to find a large body of technical literature on the subject, with many detailed studies and observations from the natural world. Regretably the worlds library's will be searched in vain for such studies...natural selection cannot be studied in any experimental way...How do we measure the fitness of an animal? By it's capacity to survive say Darwinists. So the fit survive and those who survive are the fittest." As milton says, it has been excepted by modern evolutionists that the term "survival of the fittest" is a useless tautology and has been discarded. Furthermore the falacy that nature is a constant battle for survival has also been shown to be wrong. Observation of nature has proven that there is far, far more cooperation in the wild than fighting. > >> Stop making > >> assumptions. I have never shot or owned a gun in my life. > > > >I'll say it again. It's not that the government's propaganda has > >fooled silly > >me into thinking that Americans should be disarmed. I HAVE COME TO > >THAT CONCLUSION ON MY VERY OWN. I don't think Americans are sane, mature, > >or responsible enough to own guns. So if the government thinks that way > >too for whatever nefarious reason, I DON'T CARE! At this point in time > armed > >Americans are more of a threat to all of us stuck with each other, than the > >government.In your paranoid world ,it's the government that's the biggest > threat. > >In my world, its way too many guns in the hands of way too many people that > >is the threat. I DON'T have to buy in to your paranoia. > > Gavin; > But "silly you" is using the governments rhetoric and demogoguery after > tragedies such as Colombine to help ban guns. Does "silly you" think that > some of these events could have been staged by our "friends" in government so > as to have further > excuses to ban guns. NO! And that's why I think you're a paranoid loony. > > >The reason this is paranoid lunacy, is because, it's a sexy and > >dramatic story, > >IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU. > > > Gavin; > Once again you wade in with total drivel and your favorite word, "paranoia." > It has everything to do with me. Does anything effect you Nurev, except > trying to make a credible argument and having to work with frazzled brain > cells? > snip> > >And they are changing their minds in my direction. Every shooting and > >massacre > >will be another nail in the coffin of the NRA. > > Gavin > My point is, wow it's really dense in here,(read it s-l-o-w-l-y) people will > rapidly change their opinion if the body count gets to high. W-h-a-t b-o-d-y c-o-u-n-t l-o-o-n-y b-i-r-d ? The only body count that is changing people's minds here on planet Earth, are gun related deaths. And more people want less guns. Gavin; Ad hominems again. I'll spell it out. The body count of Americans killing Americans when the government tries to take guns away from Texans, Kentuckians and the other good ol boys. Then you will see a rapid change in public opinion. Of course you see a relatively bloodless gun confiscation. I do not. We will have to agree to disagree. > > > >> If the time ever came when the government passed a law > >> to ban all weapons and there were hundreds of Wacos going on, you might > find > >> their opinion rapidly changing. Don't count on support from sheep. They > go > >> wherever public opinion and emotion herds them. > > > >They go wherever they see safety for their children. And that's OK > >because > >that's their job. They are coming to the conclusion that there is easy > >access to > >guns, and it's now scaring them. > > > Gavin; > The government is scaring them, along with the mainstream media whores. > Whipping them up into a tizzy, and it's okay by you because the end > justifies the means, right? It's more than OK by me. > > >> > You so quickly forget history's many lessons of dictators disarming the > >> > citizenry only to be followed by genocide. What about the Warsaw > uprising in > >> > which a handful of Jews took on and held their own for quite some time > >> > against the Nazis' s after they had managed to obtain some firearms. snip> > >The Jews died. But what does this have to do with YOU? > >I am not a Statist. If I were I would say so. I don't consider it an > >insult. I > >consider Libertarianism to be an insult. And I'm not against human > >rights. In > >fact, I spend much of my time as an activist for human rights. But > >there is no > >such thing as " inalienable " rights, just as there is no such thing > >as virgin > >births, and coming back to life after you die. These are all beliefs > >of a true > >believer and just because they are your beliefs, that doesn't mean > >they are one > >whit real. What is real is the astronomical number of gunshot > >tragedies every > >single day. > > "just as there is no such thing as virgin births, and coming back to life > after you die. These are all beliefs > >of a true believer and just because they are your beliefs," > > Once agan making false assumptions. At first I thought that these were just > brain farts on your part, now I see them for what they are. Purposely trying > to pigeon hole me as some religious zealot. Pretty cheap, but that's par for > the course with you though. Let me clear are the fog in your brain somewhat. > I believe that there is some kind > of spernatural being which you can call God. This is what i'm talking about. There are no supernatural beings. Gavin; According to polls and people I speak to, you're in the minority there. At least 70% of Americans believe in a God. Your religion is Darwinism. > I do not practice any type of > religion. I do not beleive in the bible chapter and verse, the earth was made > in 6 days etc. I know through reading several books on evolution that it is > complete nonsense with only a few bones as "proof" that it happened. This is entirely wrong. This is the pathetic defense of supernaturalists. Evolution is is a daily observable process. Also, you need to get yourself updated on the " Bones " issue. There are MANY almost complete fossil records to demonstrate the evolutionary process. I suggest you read " The Beak of the Finch " for a clear and recent demonstration of evolution at work. Gavin; You are completely wrong and really should do far more research into the glaring loopholes in your hypothesis before making an ass of yourself. There are obviously 100's of bones and skeletons of animals from millions of years ago. What evolutionists do not have, and they admit this, is the 1000's of transitional bones when one species changes into another species. As Phillip Johnson says in the article I have posted; "The most important is the fossil problem, because this is a direct record of the history of life on earth. If Darwinism were true, you would expect the fossil evidence to contain many examples of Darwinian evolution. You would expect to see fossils that really couldn't be understood except as transitions between one kind of organism and another... " "In reality, the fossil record is something that Darwinists have had to explain away, because what it shows is the sudden appearance of organisms that exhibit no trace of step-by-step development from earlier forms....In short, if evolution is the gradual, step-by-step transformation of one kind of thing into another, the outstanding feature of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution." To try and get around this problem some evolutionists have proposed other theories which are just as ridiculous as gradualistic evolution. Richard Goldsmidt proposed the theory of "hopeful monsters" where one day a reptile would lay an egg and out popped a bird. Trouble is he would need another totally improbable event, another hopefull monster being hatched at the same time in the same area in order for them to breed. The other problem is that there should be thousands of hopeless monsters littering the fossil record. There are none. Harvard University's Stephen Jay Gould proposed punctuated equilibrium. Gould postulated that perhaps species remain in stasis (the same) for millions of years. Then only a few isolated breeding groups change into different species. As Milton says;; "The difficulty with punctuated equilibrium is that it is wholly speculative and has been introduced simply to account for the lack of fossils that ought exist in the neo-Darwinist theory." Once again, there is no concrete proof for either hypothesis. > Not > only books by Christian scientists, but books by scientists such as Michael > Denton's, Evolution : A Theory in Crisis and the recent Darwin's Black Box : > The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael J. Behe Assoc. Prof. of > Biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania in which Behe mounts an > insurmountable challenge to gradualistic evolution with his irreducibly > complex molecular > machines (tens of thousands in nature)which are so complicated ( thousands of > trillions against)it is impossible for Darwnian gradualistic evolution to > ecompass it. Also Darwin on Trial by Philip Johnson and The Bone Peddlars by > Fry are also good critiques of Darwinian evolution. Lets clarify a few things here. These are refutations of Darwin's theory as written down over a century ago. Darwin believed that evolution was gradualistic. Many other evolutionists were not gradualists. They, however, were swept under the rug because their theories of a catastrophic evolutionary process seemed to agree with the Bible's themes of catastrophism. So the scientists who did see themselves as the standard for truth, poo pooed anything that resembled or buttressed religion. They were wrong. It turns out that evolution is generally a steady state of being punctuated by sudden and catastrophic changes in the environment where some species or individuals survive the changes and others do not. There is an EXTENSIVE fossil record for MANY species going back hundreds of millions of years. So you may have these people able to prove that gradualism in evolution is crap, because it is, but it's downright stupid to claim that evolution isn't real. Gavin; They are both wrong. For your information there are many evolutionists, including zoologist Stephen Dawkins who still adhere to gradualstic Darwinian evolution. As I said before, there is no substantial evidence to prove punctuated equilibrium, that is why many evolutionists do not advocate it. Both gradualistic evolution and punctuated equilibrium are unprovable hypothesis regarding one species completely changing into another species. I have already defined the fossil problem. Here is more from Johnson; "how do you know it's true if it isn't recorded in the fossils? Where is the proof? It's not in genetics. And it's not in the molecular evidence, which shows similarities between organisms but doesn't tell you how those similarities came about. So the proof isn't anywhere..." > > If you had read anything on the subject you would know that there is no > unequivocal proof that we evolved from apes or that reptiles turn into birds > etc. One christian > scientist named Dr. Duane Guish debated ecolutionary biologists, > anthropologists and other scientitsts at university's and he kept winning. Winning what? The debate? I don't believe you. Gavin; I don't care what you believe. You have already displayed your total ignorance on this subject. If you had done your homework you would be aware of the mountain of problems macroevolution has and the major problems evolutionists have in trying to prove it. Phillip Johnson, Duane Gish and others have had many successes in debates with evolutionists because of the many large credibility and logic gaps inherant in macroevolution, some of which I have referenced. > So now they refuse to debate him. There attitude to open intellectual debate > is to quit when your pet theory is repeatedly shown to be lacking the > neccessary proof to convince people it is correct. The little evidence that > does exist (Lucy) 9 some bones) that may point to a possible evolutionary > link is highly subjective and is argued for and against by scientists who > "believe" in evolution. They are not arguing about evolution. They are arguing about lineage which is certainly subject to debate. Gavin; They are arguing about the total lack of evidence for macroevolution. > Evolution appeals to mainstream scientists and people like you with mighty > ego's who desperately want to be able to explain everything. Man is the > pinnacle, right Nurev. We are so brilliant we can explain all of nature by > the simple means of, enough time and anythings possible, and natural > selection. You are not only extremely arrogant, but you also do not know that > your religion, evolution, is a long long way from established fact. Poor > Nurev. He thought his religion was fact. Pathetic dweeb. You don't know enough to poo poo evolution. And as a matter of fact, what you are describing is Humanism. You're getting all your " isms " confused in your desperate and pathetic attempt to justify your superstitious beliefs. Gavin; I know far more than you. It is not just only myself who knows Darwinism is a religion. As Phillip Johnson says; ..Darwinism is fundamentally a religious position, not a scientific position. ...It is religion in the name of science, and that means that it is misleading people about both religion and science. I think that people who believe in supernatural beings without a single shred of evidence to back up that belief, suffer from an obvious mental disorder and therefore should be prohibited from owning firearms. And shoelaces too. Gavin; I think people who say that their religion is fact are totally bonkers , and should immediately visit the proctologist in order to remove their head form their ass. Anyone who is interested should read Johnsons review of Michael Behe's book, ( I posted an edited version)Darwins Black Box. Evolutionists such as Dawkins are completely out of there league when trying to show how massively complex organs came about in a step by step process. As Johnson says; "What molecular biology has to say is determined not by what the biologists say to a popular audience, however, or even to each other in conversation, but by what they publish in the leading scientific journals. Behe reports that what they do not ever publish in those journals is detailed scenarios of how even a single complex molecular system could have evolved by a Darwinian process." Puntuated equilibrium and Darwinism are both dead as a theory of life on this planet. As for the genesis of life, one prominant evolutionist(later abdicated)Fred Hoyle, said the chances of even the simplest bacteria (still more complex than a stealth fighter)forming from some primevel soup billions of years ago was "about as likely as assembling a Boeing 747 by sending a whirling tornado into a junkyard." > > > >> Yes these things happened. But they are only a POSSIBILITY at this > >> point in this country. Why should I take your word for it that you can > see the > >> future? What IS A FACT is that there are far too many gun related deaths > NOW. > >> > >> Gavin; > >> > >> A possibility which is becoming a very realistic reality if you study the > >> dozens of illegal and pernicious activities of our government/depsots in > the > >> last 20 years in particular. I cannot see the future. But I can see many > >> hundreds of thousands more gun related deaths if they try to ban guns > >> completely, and possibly civil war. There are many states which would > refuse > >> to give up guns, with law enforcement lining up alongside the citizens. Dream on buddy. This is one of your ( pl ) favorite fantasies. > > > >Good. Let's see you put your guns where your mouths are. > > Gavin; > Can't wait for the massacres, can you? Well at least you are sane enough to realize that holdouts won't have a chance. Gavin; Massacres on both sides of the issue and a far more divided and disenfranchised people. > By the way, how long do you think it > will be (in massacres if you like) before there is a total gun ban. 2, 8, > how many massacres and or time before the gun ban? I don't know. It depends what happens in politics. This is shaping up to be the divisive issue de Jure for the next elections. Abortion has sort of petered out after religios started killing doctors to save lives. If there are more glitzy massacres before then, there is a good chance that a gun control candidate will be elected. This includes Republicans. I'm sure we all agree that gun control laws are worthless and ineffective. Which is why that is exactly what the politicians will do. Make more laws. If the economy goes down and crime goes up, then we will see serious attempts at a real gun ban. Then the shit will hit the fan. Then we'll see which of you big mouths are stupid enough to die for such an idiotic reason as guns. And all those that will, will prove once again that among Homo Sapiens Sapiens, those that don't Sapiens go extinct. Darwin rules. Gavin; Are there any principles that you would fight for and possibly die for Nurev? > > >> Do you really think banning guns in this country would significantly > reduce > >> gun related deaths > > > >Yes. Very much. > > > >> given the massive black market that would take place of > >> your local gunsmiths? Criminals will still be able to obtain guns, and > >> probably easier than before because they always had to get them through > the > >> black market anyway. > > > >Really? How do you know this is what would happen? Is this another one > >of > >your visions? > > snip> > > That's right dear, the millions of guns would just dry up and go away, just > like the drug business has gone away with the heavy sentences being handed > down in the last few years. Guns are not drugs. Drugs are addictive and guns are not. Drugs relieve pain, and guns cause pain. There is no comparison. This is a stupid and phony analogy. Gavin; Not at all. It is only phony because it destroys your absurd assumption that guns will greatly dissipate after your gun ban. Whenever the government has tried to ban things that a large percentage of the population wants there is an immediate black market to supply that need. Drugs, guns, prostitutes, alcohol, gambling, green cards, drivers licenses and on and on. Once again I say your prediction of a gun ban having any significant effect on gun availabilty is total bullshit and historical fact does not back up your argument. Yes there very well might be a black market in guns. That's OK. That means guns will be harder to get than they are now. And that's OK too. So the prisons will fill with gun dealers and illegal owners. That just great. If guns become like drugs in the society, that would be a vast improvement over going down the street to buy a lethal weapon as if it were a toaster. Gavin; What a great idea. Massivley increase the already vastly overcrowded prisons with more people who hate the government. That will help society, especially when they get out and buy a gun on the black market. > >> You want to give up the right for law abiding citizens to bear > >> arms because you will feel safer when only criminals and government > appointed > >> agencies have guns. > > > >You almost made sense here but then ruined it with your silly paranoid > >crap. I > >will feel safer when NONE of you have guns. > Gavin; > Which reality are you living in? Not planet earth, that's for sure. I lived > in England for many years, a country with some of the strictest gun laws in > the world and criminals had no problem getting guns. Criminals will still be > able to get guns here too, even with your gun ban. That may be true. But criminals with guns are not the big problem. Americans with guns are the problem. Accidental shootings are the problem. Jilted lovers with guns are the problem. Cuckolded spouses with guns are the problem. Angry young men who can get guns at a gun show are the problem. Drunken morons with gun racks are the problem. Nervous and frightened citizens in bad neighborhoods with a pistol under the pillow are the problem. Are you beginning to see the problem? The problem is guns. Gavin; Once again you distort facts to suit your argument. At least for the last 20 years drug dealing is the number one cause of shootings in this country. Ask any big city cop. I was talking to a nurse who works in an Emergency unit in a dowtown Chicago hospital. She told me virtually every shooting is drug dealing related. I would bet that armed robberies are responsible for more shootings than your pet theory of; "Accidental shootings are the problem. Jilted lovers with guns are the problem. Cuckolded spouses with guns are the problem. Angry young men who can get guns at a gun show are the problem. Drunken morons with gun racks are the problem." Maybe this was the case in the 60's or 70's but it certanly is not the case today. These mass shootings such as Colomine come along now and again and make a big splash in the mainstream media. Drug related shootings in New York, L.A., Chicago, Miami, Atlanta, Dallas etc. are happening each and every day, and when combined there are probably more victims each week than the death toll at Colombine. Are you beginning to understand the facts?! Even with armed criminals in England, do you know what the death rate is due to violence? Do you know what it is in the USA? In Japan? In all of Western Europe? I suggest you look up these numbers and grow the fuck up. Joshua2 >> Gavin; Language, language. Maybe you are living proof of devolution in action. The numbers are far, far less. But do not ever dream that even with your fantastical gun ban in place the death toll in America will get anywhere close to Englands very low numbers, even allowing for the difference in population. Totally different cultures. DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
