From: Eeyore on


jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote:

> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >T Wake wrote:
> >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >> > 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.
> >
> >Maybe they're afraid ppl will see that science disproves God ? That's what
> >happened to me actually in a rather amusing way.
>
> Then you were not taught the Scientific Method...or rather,
> you did not learn the Scientific Method.

I learnt that ppl weigh more than air.

My 'Bible Teacher' tried to teach that the ascension was real. I pointed out
that humans can't rise up to heaven because they weigh too much. She said they
could so I knew thereafter that Christian teaching was based on lies ( aged ~
9 ) .

Graham

From: jmfbahciv on
In article <45378D92.1903B626(a)hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote:
>
>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>
>> >They gave their 95% confidence interval.
>>
>> The news said that the questions that were asked was if
>> anybody knew anybody who died. Adding these up will not
>> give a correct count.
>
>The 'news' was wrong then.
>
>In most cases ( ~90 % ) a death certificate was shown.

And the death certificates said that all the deaths were
due to US killing them?
From: jmfbahciv on
In article <acGdnTunitrAPqrYnZ2dnUVZ8tadnZ2d(a)pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote:
>
><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message
>news:eh7odg$8qk_006(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
>> In article <HItZg.15972$e66.4379(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message
>>>news:eh53u8$8qk_009(a)s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
>>>> In article <009aj2dksthbu9fopngsr64nhfofi1dnjl(a)4ax.com>,
>>>> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Tue, 17 Oct 06 12:40:58 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <odi8j25ttpiuu9t6tbg4jne9cdut88qmin(a)4ax.com>,
>>>>>> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:38:14 +0100, Eeyore
>>>>>>><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> JoeBloe <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > All of Islam (read the moslems) believe that all others that are
>>>>>>>>> > not
>>>>>>>>> >moslem are "infidels" and that killing them is not, nor should not
>>>>>>>>> >be
>>>>>>>>> >a crime.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are lying.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I suspect it's what he learnt at Church.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>American Christian fundamentalists are as dangerous if not more so
>>>>>>>>than
>>>>>>their
>>>>>>>>Muslim counterparts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yeah, all those Southern Baptist suicide bombers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sigh! Wait. If this gets results it will be tried.
>>>>>>Have you not noticed what's been happening lately?
>>>>>>And it's not just Southern Baptist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Judiasism and Christianity have generally considered suicide to be a
>>>>>sin.
>>>>
>>>> So did Islam.
>>>>
>>>>> Radical Islam considers it to be a holy act. It also helps get
>>>>>rid of the young males, making the world safe for lecherous old-fart
>>>>>polygamists.
>>>>
>>>> Now think again. Christians admire and praise people who are
>>>> martyrs. It doesn't take an IQ of greater than 60 to figure
>>>> out how to turn that one into making suicide bombers heroes.
>>>> Islam has figured out how. You need to listen to some
>>>> of Falwell's speeches. Turn to that religious channel that
>>>> is on your cable, arm yourself with a 10 gallon barf bag,
>>>> and listen to what those believers are getting told.
>>>
>>>
>>>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.
>
>False conclusion drawn on an inaccurate assumption. There is no competition
>for Islam to "win" in that sense.
>
>If the West changed to Islamic based societies life would continue largely
>as normal.

I know you think this. I realize that all anti-Bushers
believe this. You are wrong.

/BAH

From: jmfbahciv on
In article <39a8b$45395c28$49ecfc2$30835(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>,
unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote:
>Eeyore wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>This sort of denial is meaningless. I was used to
>hearing it from very young school children who
>didn't like the facts they were denying byt had
>absolutely no grounds for argument.
>
>It is obvious you have no knowledge of history.

What is really frustrating about these people is that
they don't have to know any history. All they have
to do is notice what goes on in countries that are
currently ruled, or recently ruled, by these extremists.

>
>Brother killing brother was not stopped by
>conversion to Islam. It remains prevalent in
>the culture.

Actually, I think is still fighting their first war.

/BAH
From: jmfbahciv on
In article <4538F261.C1E065D4(a)hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote:
>
>> Yes. The history we (US kids) learned in elementary school seems
>> to have been a lot of myth. What a waste of learning time.
>
>Now stop to think what else might be based on popular myths ?

One of them is that Europe doesn't teach history their kids any
better than the US.

/BAH