Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 23 Oct 2006 06:55 In article <8t5nj29md56ugu8pm4epmitj8tgp66v2of(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:21:12 +0100, "T Wake" ><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > >>>>Saying "I believe in evolution" is a valid sentence. >>> >>> No, it is not valid within this context. You do know that >>> the Creed starts out with "I believe...". >> >>It is still valid. I honestly believe in Newtonian Gravity being the best >>description of gravity in the domain in which it applies. This is not >>something which can be "known" as tomorrow some one may come up with a >>better description. >> >>Does this open the floodgates for the Religious Right to send me to hell? > >Can you cite any modern case of the Religious Right denying the >accuracy of Newton's law of gravitation? Well, there was an Onion story... >Strawman indeed. Since the >time of Galileo's house arrest, the western churches have >progressively conceded to science the domain of physical reality. I've >read, and believe, the argument that Christianity is in fact >pro-science, and Islam is not, which is why the West is so far ahead >in technology. The Irish monks kept the wisdom of the Greeks safe >through the dark ages, and the Jesuits were and are great contributors >to math and science. > So your rejection of evolution makes you more Islam than Christian? >I think that most of modern Christianity respects and celebrates >science, and lots of modern scientists are unreasonably hostile to >religion; sometimes so hostile it affects their science. > >John > >
From: Lloyd Parker on 23 Oct 2006 06:54 In article <bt4nj2hg7452pfc15b7d76h3c4p6p4n6n5(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:03:45 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >>news:tidcj2hc7r29unnup0qjddadothkt473q2(a)4ax.com... >>> 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." >> >> >>Yes, all theories are flawed by definition, and the only measure of a theory >>is its usefulness--i.e., how well it predicts or explains a certain effect, >>combined with how easy it is to use (i.e., simple). >> >>The trouble is, the Creation Science/Intelligent Design people use that >>"flawed" to mean "useless", in order to aggrandize their belief system, >>which provides complete certainty and Truth, despite being nearly useless in >>explaining and predicting natural phenomena. >> >>Eric Lucas >> > >By the standards set for decent scientific theories, evolution has a >long way to go. It's still very fuzzy about explaining and predicting >phenomena. It seems to be the only "science" that, confronted with >true mysteries, seems to accept, and be relieved and satisfied by, >unproven conjecture. > You are lying. >John > > >
From: Lloyd Parker on 23 Oct 2006 06:59 In article <ehi3q8$8qk_004(a)s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <ehafo7$ot9$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>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. > >Not the labor. Labor is union. >> So? Takes both capital and labor to make anything. Besides, you said "government controlled." >>>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. > >When the nation is threatened, yes. It's in our Constitution. And is it unconstitutional to do so when we're not threatened? >That was written that way so that the states didn't war >among themselves. Disputes are settles in courts of law >rather than killing fields. The people who met at >the Constitutional Convention did not want to go through >the hundreds of years' war that Europe meandered in. > > >> >> >>> 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! > >Communism is the result of choosing equality for everybody >in favor of liberty for everybody. > >/BAH And what is Bush doing but taking away our basic liberties?
From: T Wake on 23 Oct 2006 12:17 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehi9t2$8qk_001(a)s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <PtWdnWzlorfyqafYnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ehd3gi$8qk_007(a)s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> The regular people were not allowed to watch a soccer match >>> (TV shows human images which is not allowed in Islam). Now >>> the regular people are starting to say no to these extremists. >> >>Which is why there is very little to fear from extremism. > > Sigh! I estimate that this attitude change will take about 10 years. I estimate that you are wrong and you reasoning is based on incorrect data. > I do not think the world will have those 10 years to evolve societies. It will if the west can be prevented from playing into the extremists hands with a massive over reaction. > I think there will be an event that will cause such a huge mess > that it will take a milenia to restore life styles back to current > levels. I dont think this. >> >>In Turky, with 98% of the population being Moslem, they watch TV. > > Sigh! Turkey has a government body that separates church from > state. It has its own spoken and written language. It has > not had this type of government very long and is in danger > of reverting back to the old ways. Yet it is still a Moslem country. Your arguments are equally applied to most western countries. > Pay attention to what is > going on in Turkey. Turkey is also the only Muslim country I > visited where people knew how to work and get things done. > They tend to have capitalism as their economic base. This is not related to the religion or "mess-potential" of the nation in any meaningful manner. >> >>>>> The residents in that area are now sorting >>>>> out which culture will exist. >>>> >>>>That is indeed for those who live there. >>>> >>>> >>>>> The US' religious right has similar fears. Note their >>>>> tactics. They chose a political tactic and targeted >>>>> schools. It's blowing up in their faces in most areas >>>>> (they're either getting fired or voted out). I don't >>>>> know what these types in Europe are doing. I only get >>>>> hints from Pope news. >>>> >>>>Religion doesn't have that much power in most of Europe. There is no >>>>parallel. >>> >>> Europe is more susceptible than any other place in the Western >>> world (that I can think of). >> >>Not true. Your nation is founded by religious zealots who left Europe to >>get >>religious freedom for their idiosyncrasies. > > No wonder you have your attitude. You are wrong about how > the Constitution was written. Really? Why did the founding fathers of the US leave Europe? I never mentioned the constitution, I seem to recall that came quite some time _after_ America was colonised. >> >>Yes, 500 years ago, Europe was the centre of Christian extremism. This is >>no >>longer the case. The papal state is not exactly a large nation, is it? > > However, the creators of Europe's last Christian extremism is > starting to get political power in Germany again. You mean the Roman Catholics? Or do you mean the Facist Germans? > So don't > get so damned smug. The veneer of civilization in Europe is very thin > and breeches have been allowed to occur with very little reaction... > again. The smugness you mention is not on this side of the atlantic. Yes the facists are gaining popularity in Europe - this is largely because there is a phantom menace from Islam which people seem to react to in the same manner as to the claims Judaism was a threat in the thirties. >> >>> You certainly have forgotten >>> all of your history. >> >>Again, not true. Culture has flourished in Europe since at least 3000BC. >>Europe has only been a Christianised region since around AD1000. Up until >>around AD1700, Europe was dominated (in a loose sense of the word) by >>Christianity but since then it has been on the wane. >> >>Are you implying that those 700 years of Christian ascendancy outweigh the >>other 4300 years? > > I am implying that Europe is very used to allowing religious > extremism to make messes. Your implications are wrong. > It is in that location's folklore > and basic hidden assumptions. Not the case. >> >>Your nation is led by a President who is overtly seek guidance from God. > > All of our Presidents have done this. It's part of the politics in the > US. And you dont think this is odd. > >>That would frighten me. The UK PM is a devout Catholic. That offends me, >>but >>at least we are not a super power > > There you go again placing the US in the position as supercop > yet bitching vehementing when we do take action. Sorry, you must have misread me. I said super power not super cop. Policing is not about "power" as such, it is about enforcing the laws which are written by governments which are elected by the people the police, police. Also, nothing I said contradicted in any way my previous postion on the subject (which I suspect you dont understand anyway) - your post implied I was "Happy" to have the US as super cop then complained when they did anything. I do not think of the US as "super cop" of anything. >>and there are (currently) significant >>checks and balances to prevent a religious upsurge. > > No, there is not, even in your country. Yes there are. You have no concept of what laws and legislation is in place in the UK. > You indulge people > who make messes based on ideologies. No more or less than any other western country, your own included.
From: T Wake on 23 Oct 2006 12:27
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehi3q8$8qk_004(a)s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <ehafo7$ot9$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>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. > > Not the labor. Labor is union. Not all labour. You seem to have not realised it is no longer 1983. |