Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 23 Oct 2006 13:25 On Mon, 23 Oct 06 10:55:36 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >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 don't reject it. I have a long history in s.e.d. of arguing that evolution and the operations of DNA will turn out to be far more complex than Darwin or the neo-Darwinists ever imagined. The dispute is that I believe in evolution more than most other people do. As such, evolution is still very poorly understood, hence not very well developed science. John
From: unsettled on 23 Oct 2006 13:36 T Wake distorts as only a Muslim can: > <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. You mean more than a nuke? >>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. Stupidly incorrect. Modern Turkey started with Attaturk after the end of WW1. UK and US and former colonials of the UK have a continuous history dating back to the original version of Magna Carta in 1215. There are other countries having a similar baseline interrupted by 20th century events. Actually the threat to Turkey and the rest of the modern free first world arises from a single source. The difference is that we've been dealing with freedom for centuries while Turkey has only less than a century. >>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. Your opinion is distorted. >>>>>> 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? That would have to be Lutherans. LOL > >>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. ......distorts as only a Muslim can. LOL >>>>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. History shows she's right. All through the period beginning ~1970 Islam insisted that every European country have at least one mosque, especially countries that had an absolute zero Muslim population. Europeans allowd this, and the things that arose out of it. >>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. Not at all. >>>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
From: unsettled on 23 Oct 2006 13:41 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:cf679$453cf606$49ecff9$26900(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>Lloyd Parker wrote: >> >> >>>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 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? >> >>In our system, anything not prohibited is permitted. > > > Uh, sorry, no...the Constitution *specifically* limits the powers of the > Federal government to those listed in the Constitution. Did you not read what I just wrote? Is your brain incapable of understanding that "specifically limits" is a prohibition? Have you been diagnosed autistic yet? Please go get checked out.
From: unsettled on 23 Oct 2006 13:42 John Larkin wrote: > On Mon, 23 Oct 06 10:55:36 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) > wrote: > > >>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 don't reject it. I have a long history in s.e.d. of arguing that > evolution and the operations of DNA will turn out to be far more > complex than Darwin or the neo-Darwinists ever imagined. The dispute > is that I believe in evolution more than most other people do. As > such, evolution is still very poorly understood, hence not very well > developed science. The same statement can be made with great validity about any of the sciences.
From: Jamie on 23 Oct 2006 13:56
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <ZJw_g.41$U73.14(a)newsfe03.lga>, > Jamie <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_(a)charter.net> wrote: > >>Eeyore wrote: >> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>> >>> >>>You're clueless. >>> >>>Graham >>> >> >> Did we catch you talking to your self in the mirror again? > > > That guy does not need you to edit his posts to make him > look foolish; he does that just fine all by himself. > > So why did you do this? > > /BAH I didn't, that is exactly what he posted as his reply. there is no less or no more added to the reply. -- "I am never wrong, once i thought i was, but i was mistaken" Real Programmers Do things like this. http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5 |