Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MooseFET on 21 Oct 2006 11:56 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <1161181426.078024.31230(a)b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, > "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: [....] > >Actually, I have been paying attention. The toughest job in heaven > >these days is virgin wrangler. > > Other than react gleefully, which is the normal male reaction, It is perfectly natural for humans of either gender to laugh at an obvious joke. As a result, the qualifier "male" was not needed. > take a couple of minutes and think about the logistics of > such a place. I did, that is why I made the joke. There was a serious thought behind it that I think you missed. The whole 70 virgins thing doesn't work unless virgins are created for the purpose in heaven. The numbers can't be made to work otherwise. > Assume that those virgins do not get replaced. Why would I assume that? The promice of "70 virgins" would be sort of meaningless if the same 70 had to serve all the martyrs. That would be less than one virgin each. This would be more lawyering of the situation than anyone would expect of God. > Now heaven is enternal look but don't touch. Each martyr getting 70 virgins does not mean that they remain virgins. The logic doesn't follow. > I would assume > that this would actully be hell for males. You seem to be suggesting that it wouldn't also be for females. > I wish people > would think a little bit more. So do I but I've learned to live with the fact that others simply can't keep up with my thinking, humor and artistic skills. This is the curse of being the smartest person in the world. > > /BAH
From: unsettled on 21 Oct 2006 11:57 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:ehd4o6$8qk_004(a)s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >>In article <tidcj2hc7r29unnup0qjddadothkt473q2(a)4ax.com>, >> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 18 Oct 06 11:51:42 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>>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. >>> >>>It's a pretty good theory but ignores relativistic effects. It's >>>quantitatively precise in most practical situations, but not all >>>situations, so it is indeed flawed, and not a "best guess." >>> >> >>I'm not going to deal with this one. > > > So why make any post? Why not just ignore it? Because she had a point to make, and made it.
From: T Wake on 21 Oct 2006 11:57 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:75461$453a3cc7$49ecfae$4118(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:4539D062.D4FDFC69(a)hotmail.com... >> >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>As for Europe, I'm not hearing much discussions about this >>>>>>either. What I do hear is capitulations so that they >>>>>>get their oil deliveries. >>>>> >>>>>Utter drivel. >>>> >>>>If your posts are an example of conclusions made from the news >>>>you get, I'm even more worried about Eurpoe ceding completely >>>>with one little oil tap turned off. >>> >>>Ceding to whom ? The Phantom Evil Empire ? >> >> >> Yes, that would seem to be about the level of analysis these people >> apply. "Ooooh, big scary Evil Empire!" > > > LOL Denial trumps appeasement? I assume you are talking about your own denial and appeasement of BAH here? In her case it is abject denial that anything but the exact current US policy can prevent terrorism and appeasement of any home sacrifices which need to be made. I am glad you summarised your own position so succinctly.
From: unsettled on 21 Oct 2006 12:01 T Wake distorted as only a Muslim can: snip >>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: unsettled on 21 Oct 2006 12:02
T Wake distorts as only a Muslim can: > 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. |