Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 20 Oct 2006 12:06 unsettled wrote: > T Wake wrote: > > > If the West changed to Islamic based societies life would > > continue largely as normal. > > Normal in Islamic based societies is brothers killing > brothers in religious fanaticism, thank you very much! No it isn't. Graham
From: T Wake on 20 Oct 2006 12:19 "Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message news:ehafo7$ot9$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu... > In article <ehab1j$8qk_001(a)s949.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>In article <1161169073.347610.229970(a)b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, > >> >>The people I've been talking to appear to believe that only >>the US government knows how to make these things. > > > >>They >>seem to believe that only the US government can OK >>all chemical invoices. > > >>Weapons? Yes. Certain chemicals? Yes again. > >>Our business and politics do not >>work that way. I think a lot Europeans are confused by >>this because their businesses are generally government >>controlled. > > A total lie. Europe is very capitalistic. > >>and/or union controlled > > Aw, corporations give their workers a voice in how they're run. Gee, what > a > radical idea. Straight out of biblical-era communes and Pilgrim New > England. > >>espeically in the >>manufacturing and mining areas. >> >>In the US, the federal government isn't allowed to do anything. > > Except start wars. > > >> This >>is gradually getting destroyed; everytime you hear about >>a Supremem Court ruling about the Constitution deals with whether >>the states or feds have power. >> >>> >>>Buying the bulk reagents from Western sources at high purity allowed >>>them to concentrate on the hard part of industrial scale synthesis and >>>improved yeilds. >> >>I understand that. However, that was convenience and it was possible. >>What these Europeans (with whom I'm talking) are really saying is >>that the US government should take control of all business and >>make the decisions of what, who, what and where. IOW, they >>want the US to become, not socialist, but communist. >> > > You are a liar. > > > Geez, the "red under every bed" paranoia went out with McCarthy! Apparently not.
From: lucasea on 20 Oct 2006 12:23 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehab9m$8qk_002(a)s949.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <dibcj2tfi7bdp7nbh74tr3upfnku9as0de(a)4ax.com>, > George O. Bizzigotti <gbizzigo(a)mitretek.org> wrote: >>On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 03:20:23 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>>Maybe not the "Founding Fathers" as in Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, >>>etc, >>>but in fact, yes. The famous "shot heard round the world" was a British >>>soldier firing on an angry mob, some of whom were throwing stones. >> >>I can't resist being pedantic, because I think this is a conflation of >>the "Boston Massacre" on March 5, 1770, in which British soldiers >>fired on an angry mob, some of whom were throwing stones, and the >>Battle of Concord on April 19, 1775, which Longfellow immortalized as >>the shot heard round the world. To make things even more confusing, >>the "shot heard round the world" has become connected in popular >>culture with the "first shot" of the Revolution earlier on April 19 in >>Lexington; it's not known whether the first shot at Lexington was >>fired by a British soldier or an American militiaman. In Longfellow's >>poem, the shot is fired by the colonial side, "the embattled farmers," >>at the Concord bridge. > > Yes. The history we (US kids) learned in elementary school seems > to have been a lot of myth. Not in this case. The way he recounts it is exactly how I learned it. > What a waste of learning time. The only waste in this case is that my memory is no longer what it was. That, and you have lost whatever you were ever taught about critical thinking, as regards US foreign policy. Eric Lucas
From: T Wake on 20 Oct 2006 12:24 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:imofj29h93bfvjvft7db137ksfm6qrnb7u(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:44:11 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>message >>news:p0mdj29rrhlrl7g74vu9kkqsg2ib9d0lb9(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 20:56:56 +0100, "T Wake" >>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>One thing I find odd, is that you don't think DNA/RNA mutation and >>>>evolution >>>>is amazing and wonderful in itself. Isn't it amazing how four bases can >>>>produce such variety? >>> >>> The four bases are a programming language. The *programs* and their >>> high-level structure will turn out to be astonishing in their own >>> right. >> >>It is already astonishing that ACGT can spell out a human and a fruit fly. >>The analogy of a programming language may be accurate, and is certainly >>attractive, but answers nothing. >> > > Is it fun, being dull and dogmatic all the time? Yes. Everyone has areas in which they will be dull and dogmatic. I don't need to think that there is some magic being who directs the evolution of species to appreciate with awe the amazement of nature. I think inventing an invisible friend who directs everything somewhat spoils the amazement. It reduces it down to just something someone has done (although who created that person is the route to madness).
From: T Wake on 20 Oct 2006 12:26
"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message news:dmlfj25op757rfkedb13g109r3crqem0se(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:26:44 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >>news:45379C79.FAA049BF(a)earthlink.net... >>> Lloyd Parker wrote: >>>> >>>> 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? >>> >>> >>> We are talking building blocks. Steel is used in both, as are >>> synthetic materials for cushioning. >>> >>> >>>> > 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. >>> >>> He doesn't have to do what you want, he did what he wanted. If the >>> DNA wasn't similar, where would the proteins you need come from? >> >>He could make them up any way he wanted. > > This points up the problem of arguing design. I agree. ID is not science because at each question the answer *can* indeed be "because" with little room for argument. > We have no idea what a > designer would or would not do/use. So until we develop a theory of > such design, there is no way we can recognize such design as being > design. We wouldn't know it if it hit us in the face, right now. We > just don't have the perspective. Yes. |