Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 17 Oct 2006 00:17 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:qdk8j29a18e3jpjv10oqht1vkhv1ecdv13(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 23:36:51 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > >>Intelligent design is a dead end as far as science goes because it defeats >>the quest for knowledge. Comparing a scientific theory to creationism (or >>ID >>or what ever you want to call it) is a basic fallacy. From a logical >>position, ID/Creationism can be used to dismantle Monotheistic religions >>on >>exactly the same principle they try to dismantle (for example) >>evolutionary >>theory. >> > > Why so? If some supersmart kid in another spacetime designed this > universe as a science project, wouldn't we still want to figure out > how it works? Nice parable and attempt at a distraction. However, considering that even the Religious Right admits that ID was nothing but an attempt to get around the Supreme Court's decision on teaching Creationism, you know as well as I do that that "supersmart kid in another universe as a science project" is intended to be not-so-opaque code for "God". > If the origin of the universe is unknown, and maybe > unknowable, feeling that it was designed on purpose does no harm to > scientific inquiry. That's disingenuous. You know as well as I do that, the way ID/Creationism is currently being used by the Religious Right is precisely to attempt to shut down teaching of evolution, and thus to quell honest and open inquiry into evolutionary biology, at the very least. You really do need to take a more critical look at the wackos in your own political party and the damage that they're doing to our society. It's far worse than what a few wacko Islamic terrorists are doing or will do. Eric Lucas
From: Eeyore on 17 Oct 2006 00:19 John Larkin wrote: > You're still talking about what you don't like, and not even > explaining why. What's interesting to me about this discussion - > actually, I'm learning a lot - is that nobody here except me seems to > have a vision of a better world, other than that the US should do > less. Try this for an explanation. http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1002626006461047517&q=power+of+nightmares Gon on watch it. Graham
From: Eeyore on 17 Oct 2006 00:23 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > Any church that > dabbles in politics by telling their congregation how to vote should have > their tax-exempt status revoked. So what's stopping ppl ? Graham
From: mmeron on 17 Oct 2006 00:45 In article <vc97j2t5u0ugeni9jnqks988b3db7aounl(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes: >On Mon, 16 Oct 06 09:53:59 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>In article <45322D41.6B0FA0F9(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>John Larkin wrote: >>> >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> >Its interesting that the other "non wins" you mention are from almost >>200 >>>> >> >years ago. We have lost more recent wars as well. We can compare this >>to >>>> >> >Vietnam, I suppose. >>>> >> >>>> >> Which was a French mess and a continuation of WWII. >>>> > >>>> >It had ZILCH to do with WW2. >>>> > >>>> >Graham >>>> >>>> How could *anything* that happened after WWII have zilch to do with >>>> WWII? >>> >>>So WW2 is responsible for *everything* ???????? >>> >>Did you think that a political climate that culiminated with >>WWII went away when people quit fighting? > >It certainly changed. Communism was a lot different in philosophy and >tactics from facism. > Oh, of course. The point, though, is that war doesn't end when some formal documents are signed, it really ends when stability is restored. In the case of a great war, where a lot of the existing international structure is destroyed, restoring stability can take a very long time. And WWI (yes, I mean WWI, WWII was just a continuation after a short breather) was such a cataclismic event that its effects are still lingering. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 17 Oct 2006 01:02
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 03:39:16 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >Nicely written. Thanks. >Ever heard of a dinky, crappy little liberal arts college called Kent State? I'm not sure how you intend that to be applied, of course, since you don't say what you are thinking here. But I cannot even 'hear' Kent State without also thinking about Jackson State, that same year. It was basically a black university and two students were killed there with others wounded. The circumstances did not get as much attention as Kent and probably because it was black and not white. But that's not for sure. Speculation of mine. What is deeper in my memory is Fred Hampton, late 1969. He was an extremely charismatic, intelligent and young black working in Chicago. Fred was shot by two policemen, point blank to the head, after he was already in their custody after an early AM raid. We are talking about not so long ago -- the willingness of those in gov't control to kill our own children and young adults out of hate like this. Anyway, can you say how you meant Kent State in this context of how a European wide military might have to handle deployment to one of their own 'states?' My own memory is that Kent State was a result of the state's own guard (the Ohio ANG) and, so far as I'm aware, not federal troops. So it doesn't relate well to the question about a national (union) military deployed into a European Union 'state.' It was the misuse of state coercive forces within a state, instead. That kind of thing is common in the world, still today. But it is a different question, I think. Jon |