Mosquito control No Mo

[Patrick Foley]

Jonathan,

I have no special problem with Ron testifying to his faith every now and 
again, even though the Leps list may not be the finest pulpit. I do wish 
Ron would give other people a little credit for their views. If a 
scientist doesn't want to argue about Creation, is that because of 
anti-God feelings, or is it because we can make a lot more progress 
doing science than arguing about the 10,000 names of God? If the Journal 
of the Leps society rejects a paper, must it be due to environmentalist 
bias? Keeping in mind that most submitted papers are rejected, 
especially 41 page papers.

I'm sitting here listening to the Persuasions sing "Building a Home" 
(from the disk "Sincerely"), but I suspect Ron feels scientists and 
environmentalists are the enemy of all things spiritual and down-home 
American.  Should I be listening to Green Day's "American Idiot", Ron?

Patrick
patfoley at csus.edu

Jonathan Sylvestre wrote:

> No ! Please !
>
> I think I will be sick....   Stop talking about God or other unnatural 
> things generated by your brain....  This is not science ! This is 
> imagination and fabulation! ... There is no place for such thing here, 
> keep that for your family, tradition or whatever ... or e-mail 
> directly to people... but not on the list please.
>
> Human inside nature or not ?? Of course inside... but the difference 
> between Homo sapiens and all others species, is that human seem to not 
> obey to natural selection.
>
> We don't have the "responsability" to save the earth.... we "need" to 
> save (to stop destroying) the earth if we want that our species survive.
>
> You can believe what you want Ron.... but remember that if you believe 
> in something, its a belief and its not related to science.
>
> I read your text Ron... And you surely know that Its a paradox to say 
> "Creation science" ?
>
> And about mosquitos... when human tries to repar errors he made, it 
> make other errors and the problems become bigger. So let the nature 
> try to repare itself (unless we have enough knowing to help it). 
> Eventualy, "the nature will find" a good way to get rid of humans 
> (well... i still believe that we will stop destroying and overpopuling 
> before that).
>
>
> JS
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Gatrelle" <gatrelle at tils-ttr.org>
> To: "Stanley A. Gorodenski" <stan_gorodenski at asualumni.org>; "Leplist" 
> <Leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 1:57 PM
> Subject: Mosquito control No Mo
>
>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stanley A. Gorodenski" 
>> <stan_gorodenski at asualumni.org>
>> Subject: Re: Mosquito control
>>
>>
>>> To counter (for the sake of argument only), you have already said in
>>> previous posts that Man (Homo sapiens) is part of nature and not 
>>> outside
>>> of it. This was the justification in those posts for saying that those
>>> who criticize Man for altering the environment are off base because Man
>>> is just another creature on this earth, like the deer, bear, etc, 
>>> and is
>>> part of nature.
>>
>> ****************
>>
>> I dropped that thread because others were either 1) not smart enough to
>> understand what was being said or 2)  understood exactly and thus knew I
>> had em by their anti-god gonads. - and thus couldn't admit their error.
>> (Remember we're just having fun here.)
>>
>> Humanity is a alien life form on this planet because he is a created 
>> Spirit
>> being housed in a primate body.  His primary function when placed 
>> here was
>> to be steward of the planet - he almost immediately abandoned that and
>> failed.  But, this is still his responsibility.  When God made Adam, 
>> Homo
>> sapiens was already here as stated in scripture.  God "breathed" (put) a
>> spirit "offspring" into a sapiens body and Mankind "became" a living 
>> soul.
>> Quite some time later Eve was cloned from Adam (by a literal 
>> operation and
>> technology).   The purpose of the flood was to destroy the non spirit 
>> (only
>> "flesh") sapiens because the offspring of Adam were mating and 
>> reproducing
>> with them.   After that event, only Spirit beings in sapiens bodies
>> remained on the planet.  (see attachment)
>>
>> Only those who do not believe in Creation place Homo sapiens INSIDE 
>> nature.
>> In this view, there is no god and man is just another animal.   YET  
>> those
>> who frame sapiens as just another animal heap SOLE  responsibility 
>> upon him
>> for the ills of the planet.  A responsibility, that by the very fact of
>> being "just another species" is impossible.  It is the function of
>> evolution to cause every creature and creature group to look out ONLY 
>> for
>> themselves.   If only, and thus as, an animal sapiens is no different.
>>
>> So those anti-creationists and ant-divinity persons, who totally 
>> dominate
>> the natural sciences, have TAKEN the Jewish/Christian/Moslem RELIGIOUS
>> position when they claim Humanity has _responsibility_.   This is utter
>> hypocrisy - and THAT was the point of my posts.   Man is only 
>> responsible
>> if he is accountable.   There is no accountability among the biota - 
>> only
>> the Law of Survival.  Via Creation, man is accountable to God for his
>> actions in society and nature - and responsibility come from that alone.
>> (Other religions are not included above because they reject the Genesis
>> unilateral creation by the singular God of Abraham, Yahweh.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thus, his activities are not any more unnatural than
>>
>>> those of the deer, bear, etc. Accepting this view point for the sake of
>>> discussion, it follows then that if humans alter the environment it 
>>> is a
>>> "natural" occurrence, not an "unnatural" one, and so the rise in 
>>> harmful
>>> critters (assuming they are rising to extra dangerous levels because of
>>> human activity) due to human alteration of the environment cannot be
>>> "unnatural". It has to be a "natural" occurrence and, therefore,
>>> claiming they are at "unnatural" levels it is not a valid argument to
>>> justify getting rid of them.
>>>
>>> Stan
>>
>> ***************
>>
>> Two things.
>> 1)  The above should be the position of Darwinists - simple, natural, 
>> cause
>> and effect = causality.  So why do so many of them take a position 
>> that is
>> purely religious (responsibility/accountability).
>> 2)  But even in a purely nautral paradigm, the idea of *man interfereth,
>> and man interfereth some more* is just more doing what come naturally to
>> him.
>>
>> Cheers :-)
>>
>> RG
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
>   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
>

 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl