Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 17 Oct 2006 14:47 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eh2d87$8ss_003(a)s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <J--dnVkzKZ7JR67YnZ2dnUVZ8sudnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:egvl52$8qk_005(a)s806.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <45322EC3.EA750F9A(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>>> >>>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>> >>>>> > You had an implication that they are not as dangerous with a crude >>>>> > bomb than with a sophisticated bomb. >>>>> >>>>> Well, the fact is, they probably aren't. Their weapons are probably >>>>> fairly >>>>> crude, and their delivery systems are probably extremely crude and may >>>>> have >>>>> to rely on something decidedly low-tech, like sailing it into New York >>>>> harbor on a 35' yacht out of Cuba or some small, under-the-radar >>>>> Caribbean >>>>> island. This would still be very dangerous, don't get me wrong. >>>>> However, >>>>> it's inarguably more dangerous to deliver a sophisticated >>>>> fission-fusion-fission device by a ground-launched missile from their >>>>> own >>>>> country. >>>> >>>>You'd have to conceive of a situation where N Korea could benefit from >>>>such >>>>action for it to make sense though. >>> >>> Do you understand that the leader of N. Korea is also its Godhead? >>> Demonstrating power is a natural act for this kind of thinking. >> >>A methodology not unlike that weilded by the President of the United >>States. > > You appear to be utterly, one hundred percent, completely > ignorant about how the US governs itself. You appear to be utterly, one hundred percent, completely ignorant. <snip>
From: T Wake on 17 Oct 2006 14:47 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4534CC41.CE89467A(a)hotmail.com... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote >> >> >> Do you understand that the leader of N. Korea is also its Godhead? >> >> Demonstrating power is a natural act for this kind of thinking. >> > >> >A methodology not unlike that weilded by the President of the United >> >States. >> >> You appear to be utterly, one hundred percent, completely >> ignorant about how the US governs itself. > > You appear to be 100% ignorant of humour. Not uncommon for a certain type of American.
From: T Wake on 17 Oct 2006 14:48 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45345803.9077A66A(a)hotmail.com... > > > MooseFET wrote: > >> mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> > Eeyore<rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: >> > >Someone else said >> > >> It is a war. Refusing to recognize it as such will not make it go >> > >> away. >> > > >> > >It's not a meaningful war since the 'enemy' isn't an identifiable >> > >entity but a 'view'. >> > > >> > That just makes it a far worse and more dangerous war. >> > >> >> What we really need is a war on the incorrect use of the term "a war >> on". Right now people are talking of a "war on terror" as though >> somehow the emotion "terror" was an external threat. Once the "war on >> terror" is over, I expect they will start the "war on ennui" or "a war >> on limerence". > > How about a 'war on gullibilty about imaginary threats' ? We did that a few weeks ago :-)
From: T Wake on 17 Oct 2006 14:57 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:nkv9j2d0ee4vblnks4gaqfa4o7fnnhngb7(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 04:17:52 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >>"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 > > Thanks > >>and attempt at a distraction. > > Sorry, I thought it was relevant to the issue at hand. > >>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". >> > > Maybe that's his nickname. It doesn't matter. It does. Very few people are willing to sacrifice themselves for the Supersmart Kid on Science Project. >>> 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. > > If you exclude considering possibilities because it might give you > something vaguely in common with Believers, then your mind is as > handicapped as theirs, likely more. ID is not considering possibilities in a legitimate sense. ID provides no answers or solutions and simply diverts questions. It requires an abandonment of the scientific method to even begin to be used. Shall we spend money teaching the possibility that the Universe is actually on the stem of a Giant Tree in the sixth dimension? This is a possibility and *equally* probable as a detity /creator. If you assert ID is the _only_ other possibility there needs to be some serious scientific evidence produced. >> >>You really do need to take a more critical look at the wackos in your own >>political party > > I belong to no political party. My wife and my kid vote Democrat, > which is fine with me. > >>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. >> > > Oh relax. Things are going to be fine. I wonder if that was written with as much ironic humour as it appears to hold.
From: T Wake on 17 Oct 2006 15:02
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:i60aj2hre318dnmojrm2pje9jkpck9o7gg(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 05:57:25 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan > <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:14:47 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:50:08 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan >>><jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>American Christian fundamentalists are as dangerous if not more so than >>>>>their >>>>>Muslim counterparts. >>>> >>>>More so, because they (through political influence over the power of >>>>US action) have so much greater power by which they can act. (They >>>>are a very large, very well funded, and highly-catered minority here >>>>and they often pass around internal lists of who to vote for, as >>>>well.) >>>> >>> >>>And you think the Mother Jones crowd doesn't have their own lists? You >>>seem to imply that there's something wrong with political organizing >>>among people you don't agree with. Stalin thought that, too. >> >> >>John, I've never seen a list for liberals to vote towards. Not ever. > > Now you have: > > http://www.emilyslist.org/ > > There are lots more... just look. People in the west are somewhat indoctrinated to believe and obey church leaders. Religious people suffer this even more, but so do atheists and agnostics. When a GodBotherer of any denomination appears on TV for example there is extra perceived gravitas in his/her statements. A Church leader telling their congregation to vote for XYZ carries a lot more weight for the congregation than a person telling others how to vote. The Christian church has spent two thousand years building and maintaining a position of secular authority for its members. |