Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 19 Oct 2006 10:45 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> > >> >Judiasism and Christianity have generally considered suicide to be a > >> >sin. > >> > >> So did Islam. > > > >So DOES Islam. > > In case you haven't noticed, this has changed. No it hasn't. > It is not > suicide if you kill others when you kill yourself. This is fiction. > Do you > not find something odd about this thinking, considering > what the Koran says? You have it wrong. Graham
From: Eeyore on 19 Oct 2006 10:45 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <HItZg.15972$e66.4379(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >Now you're finally starting to catch on. There are far bigger dangers, both > >ideological and potential physical threats, within our own borders than > >without. > > You are wrong. It is a secondary danger. If Islam wins, the > internal danger won't exist because none of those people > will be alive. Neither will you be alive so the internal > danger is a null job. Islam is *not* at war with us. Graham
From: MooseFET on 19 Oct 2006 10:48 Eeyore wrote: > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > > > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > > >> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote > > >> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > >> > > >> >> You haven't been paying attention. That is the reward for > > >> >> murdering thousandS and millions of people. > > >> > > > >> > Actually, I have been paying attention. The toughest job in heaven > > >> > these days is virgin wrangler. > > >> > > >> Is that someone who wrangles virgins, or a wrangler who has not yet > > >> gotten laid? > > > > > > Thanks. You just helped me get it. > > > > OK, I have to admit I'm a little slow. Can you explain it to me? My > > comment was mostly smartass meant to inject humor into the discussion. > > The virgin wrangler would indeed be one who wrangles virgins. Presumably > because the virgins need 'persuasion' to be concubines for the martyr. ..... and there aren't enough to go around. > > Graham
From: Lloyd Parker on 19 Oct 2006 06:02 In article <qplej2togo8vfd6f05tc51k7ota3hni0gi(a)4ax.com>, JoeBloe <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:10:06 +0100, Eeyore ><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >> >> >>John Fields wrote: >> >>> And you're defending that pig? Shame on you. >> >>I'm criticising the USA. And the 650,000 deaths you've caused. >> >The number is wrong. It would still be high even if cut in half. And how do you know? The researchers, from Johns Hopkins, employed time-tested sampling and statistical methods. One of the most respected, peer-reviewed journals, Lancet, published it.
From: Lloyd Parker on 19 Oct 2006 06:06
In article <45376EAA.AF2F3DBB(a)earthlink.net>, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >Lloyd Parker wrote: >> >> Why then would a designer make every life form use almost the same DNA? Why >> have a flower have the same basic DNA as a human? > > > Because that designer knows his tools, and how to use them. Do you >think that a bridge should be made of plastic, because steel had been >used for cars that will cross it? Would you design a bridge with the same basic structure as, say, a pair of shoes if you were starting from scratch? > > Do you think a designer should learn a whole new disciple for every >project they do? Maybe we need an infinite number of elements so we >never use the same in any two designs? > > I would think an infinite god would have introduced a little variety into his designs. |