Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 17 Oct 2006 17:00 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4535424A.C08609A3(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> >> > Certainly a lot of the details of Darwin's theories have been subject >> > to >> > question and modification over the years. What has not changed is the >> > basic idea of evolution. >> >> Very true. There is a conflict of terminology and if the people on the >> radio >> show were talking about "Darwin's theories" specifically they are a bit >> behind the curve. Modern evolutionary theory has progressed beyond the >> specifics Darwin described. > > I've noticed that there is now a common tendency for those who reckon they > know > better to dismiss such things as 'just theories' as if that meant they had > no > vailidity ! I love that phrase "just theories." It really makes me smile when some creationist goes on about how "evolution is just a theory." Like Newtonian Gravity isn't "just" a theory. :-)
From: T Wake on 17 Oct 2006 17:01 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45354337.ADC81796(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >> message >> >> > 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? >> >> Yes, it may well be the case that this has happened. Science does not >> deal >> with things like this. If you want to believe a genius kid in a parallel >> dimension created our universe, feel free to do so. Who created the kid? >> How >> can we falsify the existence of the kid? When we get to hard questions >> (are >> quarks fundamental for example) the answer becomes "if the kid wants it >> that >> way." > > Quite so and one the religios simply don't get. > > My conclusion is that the universe sits in a goldfish bowl on someone's > coffee > table because it makes as much sense. Your theory here is _just_ as scientific as God creating the universe and just as probable.
From: David Bostwick on 17 Oct 2006 16:55 In article <eh34ou$nc5$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <eh30er$n6o$1(a)news-int.gatech.edu>, > david.bostwick(a)chemistry.gatech.edu (David Bostwick) wrote: [...] >>Are you also willing to include left-wing "fundamentalists" with every >>killer who is anti-religion or unreligious? > >By definition, left-wingers aren't fundamentalist anything. Of course they are. The term fundamentalist simply means anyone who believes the fundamentals of a belief system. It has become linked to religion, but fundamentalism can be religious, economic, political, or whatever. You can try to change the definition, but we're still on this side of the looking glass. > >>Can I lump Ted and Barney in with anyone >>who kills just because he wants to? > >If you'll tell me whom they murdered and why. > You put people who have done nothing wrong into the same category as those who have committed crimes. What's good for one side is good for the other. (And Teddy's a gimme.) >>There's probably a killer out there who >>believes most of what you do, but I don't think you're a danger to anyone. >> >>People kill because they are evil. They may use a belief to hide behind or to >>rally followers, or they may really believe what they say. If you want to say >>that everyone who believes X is bad because an evil person says he believes X, >>your're going to have a lot of labels to make. >> >> >> >True; my post was in response to those lumping all Moslems in as such. And then you did *exactly* the same thing.
From: David Bostwick on 17 Oct 2006 16:58 In article <K38Zg.17285$6S3.4370(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:100aj2tujd38kum9omn0ni4tcbd22cfdbe(a)4ax.com... [...] >> >> There are plenty of tax-exempt nonprofits on both sides, or rather all >> sides. > >The ones I'm objecting to are the religious ones, and they're almost >invariably aligned with the right. > > So you haven't been in many African-American churches, eh?
From: Eeyore on 17 Oct 2006 17:07
T Wake wrote: > "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message > > > And I guess you can't be accused of being moralistic if you don't have > > morals. Like you can't be accused of hypocracy if you don't have > > principles. > > You cant be accused of being tanned if you don't have a sun tan. Is that like not being 'a little pregnant' ? Graham |