Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 18 Oct 2006 15:13 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:t8ccj2t79b5pm0rmal01mqnl98mejpik4q(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 16 Oct 06 11:01:16 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) Gave > us: > >>Yes, by all means, label those who disagree with you as traitors. Worked >>for >>Hitler, worked for Stalin, Bush is trying it... why should a little >>pissant >>Nazi like you be any different? > > SAid the retarded twit that obviously hasn't read the US hating spew > that the DonkTARD has been putting out. Bone up on a thread before > you interlope into it, jack-off! As usual, nothing you have said is relevant to the comment you are trying to disagree with. You really do not have the language skills to engage in a USENET debate with anything other than pointless insults and vague threats.
From: Daniel Mandic on 18 Oct 2006 15:16 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Maybe, but there's a big difference between the Jewish/Catholic (and > most Protestant sects') teachings, which take most New- and > Old-Testament stories as allegorical, and Christian Fundamentalism, > which treat those stories as literal truth (this is the basis for the > name "Fundamentalist"). An allegory about the formation of the > universe is a lot less damaging than a fairy tale that is to be taken > literally. Jewish/Evangelic/Christian Islam Buddhism Hinduism Manitou Je Best Regards, Daniel Mandic P.S.: Ute (former Utah)
From: T Wake on 18 Oct 2006 15:44 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eh54ge$8qk_011(a)s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <e9ednZ8s0K3l2ajYRVnyuA(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:4535424A.C08609A3(a)hotmail.com... >>> >>> >>> T Wake wrote: >>> >>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>>> >>>> > Certainly a lot of the details of Darwin's theories have been subject >>>> > to >>>> > question and modification over the years. What has not changed is >>>> > the >>>> > basic idea of evolution. >>>> >>>> Very true. There is a conflict of terminology and if the people on the >>>> radio >>>> show were talking about "Darwin's theories" specifically they are a bit >>>> behind the curve. Modern evolutionary theory has progressed beyond the >>>> specifics Darwin described. >>> >>> I've noticed that there is now a common tendency for those who reckon >>> they >>> know >>> better to dismiss such things as 'just theories' as if that meant they >>> had >>> no >>> vailidity ! >> >> >>I love that phrase "just theories." It really makes me smile when some >>creationist goes on about how "evolution is just a theory." >> >>Like Newtonian Gravity isn't "just" a theory. :-) > > Yes. It is just a theory. It is the human race's best > guess at how nature and its laws work. > > Fundamentalists understand the difference between just a theory > and their belief. They get threatened when teachers of their > kids present evolution as a belief; These teachers should be fired. > the implication of this > is that the goal of teaching evolution is to substitute > the religion known as evolution for the religion of God. Only in the mind of fundamentalists.
From: T Wake on 18 Oct 2006 15:47 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:PpiZg.13928$GR.7848(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... > > "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 ! > > > There appears to be a tendency in humans to want certainty in life. > Science provides absolutely no certainty, only explanations of varying > degrees of usefulness. Religion provides absolute certainty, and > religious explanations are therefore very appealing. In some sense, some > of the theories of science (notably, evolution, but I think there are > others) cast doubt on this certainty, and the religions appear to be > fighting back by highlighting the uncertainty of the science, and the > certainty of their religious offering. Sadly, the result is the ongoing > decline of US science education, and a dearth of good American-born > graduates at all levels of many sciences. Who knows where that will lead, > but my gut feel is that it ain't good for the US economic or technical > world hegemony. Unfortunately it isn't just the US. Universities in the UK are closing science departments all over the country, and starting numerous courses in "new media" or other arts type courses ("Surf management" for example)
From: mmeron on 18 Oct 2006 15:54
In article <1161180088.789377.65880(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> writes: > >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> In article <1161136120.854490.3840(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> writes: >> > >> >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> >> In article <1161093618.810074.46780(a)m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> writes: >[....] >> >> > >> >> >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> >> >> In article <1161055552.800809.247610(a)m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, " >> >> It is the status they grant themselves that matters far more than the >> >> status we grant them. >> > >> >I disagree. At least up until the last several years, the word of the >> >US would have counted for a great deal on this subject. What they call >> >themselves doesn't matter at all. It is what others consider them that >> >matters. If they are considered criminals they will be arrested if >> >they are considered freedom fighters they will get aid. >> > >> In nations and societies which sponsor them and see them as heroes, >> they'll not get arrested, in fact they'll get aid, regardless of what >> you call them. > >In those cases, the US gains nothing by calling it a war either. If >the US calls it a war, they will be called "freedom fighters" so >nothing is gained. In those cases where the US does have some control >over public opinion, what the US calls them matters. In those places, >calling them criminals is better. > You can call them "guntzetzvarthers" and it still won't matter. It is not what you call them but what means you employ that's the issue. > >> >> And viewing it as pure crime is >> >> counterproductive as in the case of crime there is little you can do >> >> *until* an even happened, and even then you're pretty much limited to >> >> going after the specific peole involved with the event. That's fine >> >> for dealing with a lose collection of individuals, not with a vast >> >> organization. >> > >> >In the US there is a law called the RICO statute. I assume that most >> >other countries have a law like this too. >> >> You assume a lot. > >Yes I do. Am I wrong on this. Doesn't Italy (for example) have a law >like this? Some countries do, many don't, and since a law of this nature is very vague, it'll be used (or not used) based on political contingencies. > >> >> > It makes it a crime to be a >> >member of an on going criminal enterprise. Also most countries have >> >conspiracy laws that don't require the police to wait for the crime to >> >be commited. >> >> But they require to have evidence that'll stand in court, a >> requirement which is fine for dealing with individuals and small >> groups, but cannot be satisfied when dealing with global ideological >> movement. > >I don't see why not. If it is a world wide movement with many people >involved, there should be even better evidence than if there are just a >few people. The more people in a conspiracy the more likely it is >someone will talk. So he'll talk, so what. So you'll get few low level operatives convicted (assuming you can find them in the first place). Will do very little good. > >> > There are lots of legal tools that can be used without >> >calling it "a war". For that matter calling it "a war" doesn't really >> >add any new tools. >> > >> See above. > >I looked above. I don't see any new tools. What did you have in mind? > You should read a bit about the difference between war and criminal investigation. Criminal investigation is aimed at individuals and uses precise but limited tools. It is conducted under conditions which severely limit what can and cannot be done (as it should be, under the circumstances). War is aimed at large entities and uses blunt tools with few apriori limits on what can and cannot be done. War means dirtying your hands (something you seem averse to) and, unfortunately, lots of collateral damage. Yet, in severe cases, that's what is necessary. If you see a mouse in your living room, by the china cabinet, you'll be a fool to use a shotgun (assuming you've one). If you see a tiger there, you'll be a fool not to use the shotgun. > >> It appears to me that you believe that it is not a war unless you call >> it so. Would be nice, but it ain't so. > >No, what I believe is that calling it "a war" is a bad idea. As I said >at the start it is granting the other side a status that they should >not be granted. I know you said it and I said that what you do or don't grant is hardly of relevance here. What is of relevance is proper assessment of risks. > >> >[....] >> >> >Obesity has won. They have taken over. They sell you hambergers and >> >> >then little pills to prevent the hambergers from having their natural >> >> >effect. >> >> > >> >> Sure. then we'll get the little pills to counteract the effects of >> >> the first little pills, etc. >> > >> >... and then a operation to repair the damage the second ones caused. >> > >> Lots of jobs, all around:-) > >All in all, I'd rather have moden medical stuff be available than not >however. > Well, yes. Longevity figures, so far, agree with you on this. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" |