Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 21 Oct 2006 11:08 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehd506$8qk_005(a)s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <LKydnafehvClGavYRVnyrQ(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><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. > > They are if they don't preach the Bible, too. If science teachers are teaching the Bible, they need to be fired. If Religious Education teachers were teaching science, they 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. > > You need to listen more. Stop being so patronising and read what I wrote. > CSPAN aired some convention that > was to talk about this issue. Science teacher after science > teacher, who did not want to give Bible lessons in their classes, > kept using the language of "...I believe in evolution." > > Any fundamentalist will interpret this as the teacher substituting > evolution for Christain religious belief. Plus it is a useful > way to get public schools funds to hold their Sunday School clasess. Like I said, only in the mind of fundamentalists. If you spent less time trying to be patronising and imagining half the conversation you would be able to appreciate what I actually wrote. Saying "I believe in evolution" is a valid sentence. If someone reads that as saying "I believe in evolution THEREFORE I cant believe in the Bible" that is the fallacy. I believe in Newtonian Gravity. It works fine. It explains why I am sitting in my chair. I also believe in GR. It works fine. It explains why massive objects distort the path of light. Should be all start accepting alternative theories of gravitation so we can ensure balance? If the fundamentalists are so poorly educated that they can not understand the terminology used in science (i.e. what laws and theories are apart from anything else) then they really do have NO place in trying to determine what is taught.
From: T Wake on 21 Oct 2006 11:14 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehd4e0$8qk_001(a)s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <8_CdnfSowYEpP6rYRVnygg(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>Yes, and you accept this is a necessary bad thing to keep yourself safe. >>Part of the problem is Christianity has historically removed the "life" >>from >>groups that people were allowed to kill. Early followers of Jesus were >>100% >>pacifists, dying before killing another human. > > No, they weren't. Yes they were. > People thought that Jesus was David come again > and would lead an army to defeat the Romans. They were the Jews. The ones who followed Jesus' teachings became the Christians. These were the ones who refused to allow the Roman Emporer to be a "God" and refused to fight in the Roman army as Jesus had re-asserted the commandment Thou Shall Not Kill. Jesus was the son of God (Part of God if you belive in the holy trinity). He gave his life rather than kill. This is the basic tenet of early Christianity. It was modified significantly over the next three to nine hundred years until by the end of the first millenium, Christianity was a war like religion which appealed to the Scandinavians. > He died because > he disappointed people by not starting a fight. Paul, formerly Saul, > was the one who stopped killing Christians and started changing > the rules. He was no pacifist. Early Christians were. The one who remained pacifists were eventually persecuted sufficiently that the ones who modified their beliefs and did kill survived. Evolution through natural selection if you ask me. >>As Christianity evolved >>various reasons to kill others were introduced ranging from "killing to >>protect myself" to "killing to protect my family," "killing to protect my >>property" and even simply killing because the Pope declared the other >>person >>Heretic so it is now ok. > > Wow [awed emoticon] >> >>Killing Animals is a good example. The whole "not having a soul" thing all >>help to skirt round the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" rule. >> >>Humans are good at finding loopholes to exploit. > > [emoticon rereads post] Yep. I am glad you agree. Now, tell me again what is "Christian" about killing to defend property or lifestyle?
From: T Wake on 21 Oct 2006 11:15 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:39a8b$45395c28$49ecfc2$30835(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > 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. > > Brother killing brother was not stopped by > conversion to Islam. It remains prevalent in > the culture. No more or less prevalent than in any other culture.
From: T Wake on 21 Oct 2006 11:18 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehd6dv$8qk_012(a)s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. This is a line you really do not want to take. You cherry pick segments of history which you hope will support your viewpoints. > All they have > to do is notice what goes on in countries that are > currently ruled, or recently ruled, by these extremists. Are you talking about yourself here? Are you saying that because the Turks killed the Christians in Anatolia they will all do it again? Which ignore both the recent treatments in Islamic countries _and_ the treatment of Christians by the likes of Salah Adin. _You_ are the person who is using Afghanistan under the Taliban as an example of what would happen. Wow.
From: lucasea on 21 Oct 2006 11:18
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehd31a$8qk_004(a)s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >>> A chemistry major would know >>> how to make those ingredients and then make the weapons. >> >>Of course, but then again there's a vast difference between knowing how, >>and >>actually being able to do. > > Whew. > >> Knowing how doesn't make it practical or easy > > Sigh! It doesn't have to be practical nor easy. Why do you > think every other country has OSHA rules in place? It certainly has to be practical. Learn the definition of the word: capable of being practiced. >>to >>do, or even possible to do without the US State Department and various >>other >>agencies knowing about it. > > What? No governemental department has the ability to know > what is happening at all times everywhere. For some strange > reason, you and other Democrats seem to believe this (or at least > try to sell this to their consumers). Look, you brainless git. In case it's not mortifyingly obvious, I work in the chemical industry (and yes, I do frequently work near the places of production, as you implied I didn't in another sorely misinformed post), and I'm telling you, one branch or another of the Federal government knows exactly what every single chemical plant that produces more than a few pounds per year in this country is making, and who they are shipping to. I'm starting to think you and your useless sycophant are nothing more than trolls to keep the discussion rolling, and rack up as many postings as possible. Eric Lucas |