Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 24 Oct 2006 08:05 John Larkin wrote: > On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:11:09 -0500, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> > wrote: > > >>Lloyd Parker wrote: >> >> >>>In article <184nj2pmmiu4gtl0vga9s0c4lvonj89lhi(a)4ax.com>, >>> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 18:55:27 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>If you're going to label evolution as "just a belief", then you had better >>>>>be prepared to apply that appellation to *all* of the observational >>>>>sciences, since evolution is one of the best supported ideas in the history >>>>>of science. >>>> >>>>It is not. >>> >>> >>>Yes it is. It the cornerstone for biology, in the way atoms are for >>>chemistry. >>> >>> >>> >>>>The observational evidence for big evolutionary jumps, and >>>>especially for the creation of life, is spotty or non-existant. >>> >>> >>>OK, lie #1 >>> >>> >>> >>>>There >>>>is no demonstrably accurate mathematical model for evolution. >>> >>> >>>Lie #2 >>> >>> >>> >>>>Nobody >>>>actually understands how DNA works. >>> >>> >>>We don't understand quantum theory either, but the sun shines and your >>>computer works. >>> >>> >>> >>>>Evolution, and especially its >>>>mechanisms, is nowhere near being good science; it may be some day, >>>>but not yet. >>> >>> >>>You are lying. >>> >>> >>> >>>>If you use "best supported" to mean "popular", then I guess you're >>>>right. >>>> >>>>John >>>> >>>> >>> >>>Idiot. >> >> >>Whether or not models are correct is not important to us. >>What is important that they provide accurately predictive >>tools for us to use. > > > Does the science of evolution provide any accurately predictive tools? > Simple cases, like bacterial drug or temperature resistance, are > somewhat predictable and can be verified by experiment. But how about > macro things, like the creation of new genera and orders? Are past > creations at this level "predictable" after the fact? The discussion had spun off into "what is science" and a discussion about models. That's the discussion I was answering. However, evolution isn't good about being predictive. > I wonder if any really new life forms are evolving now, right under > our eyes. We've seen it happen right here in usenet, with new stupidity spawning even more stupidity.
From: unsettled on 24 Oct 2006 08:14 John Fields wrote: > On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:42:02 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan > <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > > >>On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 18:57:34 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> >>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>news:9d61d$453cfc77$49ecff9$27195(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>> >>>>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? >>> >>> >>>Uh, no..."specifically limits" says what they can do. Anything else is >>>prohibited, not permitted. >> >>That about sums my grasp of it. >> >>The radical idea debated prior to approving our US Constitution (as >>documented in letters to the New York Journal, the Federalist Papers, >>personal letters, the Virgina legislature debates in 1787, and so on), >>was the idea of from where rights themselves emanate. I think I've >>read published letters in the New York Journal dating back as far as >>about 1755 on that topic. The conclusion of those writing the US >>Constitution and, where it really counts, of those signing it into >>effect is that they emanate from the individual, not from government >>or from society, and that government operates by the consent of >>individuals who grant those rights they deem necessary and which >>persist only for so long as they choose to continue granting them. >> >>You can see this kind of thinking in most of what survives today as >>the body of materials elaborating the underlying intent of the >>Constitution. >> >>Some don't recall today that Hamilton had argued fiercely at the time >>against the Bill of Rights, something that Jefferson felt was very >>important to include. Hamilton's argument, if put in a nutshell, >>claimed that if *any* specific guarantees about rights were written >>down, that instead of being a useful protection against the more >>frightening forms of state power and coersion, it would instead >>eventually be seen as the *ONLY* rights anyone had. That later >>generations would imagine (and therefore accept a yoke being placed >>around their necks) these rights were the only ones and thus the Bill >>of Rights would become the prison bars of our own jailing -- that >>government would then be able to claim for itself, without much >>resistance, everything else. >> >>His argument was so profoundly expressed and so thoroughly agreed to >>that they decided to actually write it in as one of the Bill of Rights >>-- namely, the 9th Amendment (known as "The Hamilton Amendment".) >> >>His argument went something like this: It's like coming to a new, >>vacant land and staking out your homestead. You build a nice little >>fence around it and put in a garden there. Someone new arrives and >>sees your fence and naturally assumes that what isn't fenced, must be >>available to newcomers or anyone else. Of course, having lived there >>yourself for decades beforehand, you might think otherwise. But the >>fence has become the only obvious line of demarcation. So the >>assumptions others make may materially operate to make you seriously >>regret having put up a fence at all. You might have been better off >>simply not having one. >> >>Hamilton's opposition argued that there were some individual rights >>that were so important and so vital that they simply had to have >>explicit expression. Kind of like, "Governments may transgress rights >>now and then, but if they even come close to transgressing these you >>know you are in very deep trouble already and should consider >>abolishing what's there and finding another way." >> >>Hamilton, though, felt very strongly that putting down just a few >>rights would then imply that others didn't also exist and that later >>generations would lose sight of the agreed upon understanding that all >>rights emanate from the individual and that society and governments >>have NO RIGHTS except those ceded by individuals, for such time as >>they continue to perceive that the common benefits outweigh the cost >>of ceding them to government. >> >>--- >> >>There is no legitimate power of a government or a king or anyone else >>to either grant rights or to take them away. Nothing inherently makes >>anyone man or women the possessor of individual rights, who can hand >>them out or withhold them as they please. We don't need a contract > >>from someone to have rights. And no one else owns that contract that > >>they can rescind at their will. These rights are "inalienable," as >>the wording goes -- inherently within each of us, as individuals. They >>flow out of us as actors in the world. >> >>This starting point was debated over a period of decades, well before >>the revolution started or the US Constitution was eventually created, >>debated, and then signed. By the time it was signed, there was almost >>no material argument here. >> > >>From this founding assumption, it followed that governments are > >>_granted_ rights "by the people" for the purposes of mutual safety and >>their pursuit of happiness. The idea is actually pretty simple and >>requires no belief in a god, no acceptance of the rights of a king, >>etc. Instead, we grant our government certain rights, for example the >>right to accumulate police powers needed to enforce a law
From: jmfbahciv on 24 Oct 2006 07:24 In article <86u_g.14849$GR.14640(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ehd5e9$8qk_007(a)s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <UJLZg.16284$e66.2136(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:eh7ksa$8ss_018(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> In article <bFtZg.15970$e66.4970(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, >>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:eh53ce$8qk_005(a)s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>> In article <OF7Zg.17270$6S3.4818(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, >>>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>news:eh2k1e$8qk_002(a)s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>>>> In article <e97b6$4534dd17$4fe728b$30183(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>>>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I can state my hidden agenda; preserve the world's accumulated >>>>>>>>>> knowledge. Religious extremists have the goal of destroying >>>>>>>>>> most of that knowledge. Islamic extremists have the goal of >>>>>>>>>> destroying it all because it's a product of Western civilization. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Religious extremism is always the result of one of the following: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>A) Insanity >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>B) Desire for power, control, and wealth >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> None of the above. Fear. Pure, simple terror. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>OK, if you must, then "fear of losing power, control and wealth". >>>>>>>Witness >>>>>>>the fear-mongering among the Religious Right in the current election >>>>>>>campaign. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am. More alarming is the message of the Democrats who keep implying >>>>>> that there isn't any problem. >>>>> >>>>>Citation, please. In your zeal to support the current administration, >>>>>you're not listening carefully. >>>> >>>> Listen to any of them. >>> >>>Again, cite one please. You're not listening carefully. >> >> I gave you one. Clinton's ramblings this past week in Mass. >> I no longer remember which night it was. > >And I'm still looking for a direct quote where he said that "there isn't any >problem". The current political line getting used by our (Mass.) senators is that there is no war on terror. It is said in such a way that people will conclude there is no danger and that Islamic extremeism is not a problem. > Unless you can produce one, I am forced to assume that you >weren't listening carefully (as is your wont), and substituted your own >imagination of what you *think* he would have said, for what he actually >said. These are not stupid people; they are merely insane. They are quite clever using words to hide their meanings. Clinton is famous for his meaning of the word "is". Whenever Kennedy is running for reelection he tries to increase the federal minimum wage. A very common statement he makes is, "Raising the federal minimum wage will not result in mass layoffs." I'll rewrite the statement the way he really means it. Raising the federal minimum wage will not result in Mass. layoffs". And it won't because our minimum wage is always higher than the feds. This is how the Democrats, who are now running the part, work. I never thought I'd miss the old Southern Democrats. The best approach to figuring out the hidden agendas for these insane people is to notice what they refuse to talk about. The primary topic that they refuse to say anything other than an anti-Bush slogan is the threat of all Islamic extremists' attacks. /BAH /BAH
From: T Wake on 24 Oct 2006 08:28 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehkr9t$8qk_001(a)s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <M9Wdndw-ELm9dqHYRVnyjw(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><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. > > You do not know the difference when a government is not > based in a religion. You are talking nonsense to support a non-argument. Being patronising does not support your postion at all. Turkey has a secular government, yet is an Islamic country. *You're* stated objections to the growth of Islamic countries is they will all become like Taliban Afghanistan. The Turkish government is still closely aligned to Islam. It has to be. > This may be another ingredient > to the odd attitude in Europe. You wouldn't know. Your attitude is so odd I am at a loss to work out where it has come from. >>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. > > It has everything to do with it. No it isn't. It is a strawman you have concocted because you think that you can dismiss the spread of Islamic radicalisation by blaming their culture for not embracing capitalism. This is incorrect. >> >>>> >>>>>>> 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? > > Our founding fathers were born here. They did not emigrate > from Europe. There may be one or two who were born in > Europe but I don't recall any. All the people who wrote signed the declaration of independance were British Citizens. Why did their ancestors leave Europe? >>I never mentioned the constitution, I seem to recall that came quite some >>time _after_ America was colonised. > > I know you didn't. It is your ignorance of the impact of that > document which is causing you to make incorrect assumptions about > how US government, politics and business work. Nonsense. Your ignorance of global politics and regional conflict is causing you to make constant, inaccurate guessess about things. Your blindness is causing you to ignore what has been written. Your nation was (largely) founded by religous zealots who left Europe to find a land where they would not be persecuted for their beliefs. Your nation still identifies itself with the Pilgrims. The writing of the Constitution came quite some time after this. >> >>>> >>>>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? > > yes, among others. Yes to which? >>> 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. > > Then the menace is not a phantom, is it? Yes. The threat from Terrorism is no greater than many other sources. > When you start to take > this menace seriously, then you'll begin to be able to discuss > the problem rather than keep throwing our Democrat sound bites > to prevent the discussion from occurring. I take credible threats very seriously. Your sentence here is a non-argument. You refuse to discuss something until every one agrees with you. Madness. There is no "me
From: jmfbahciv on 24 Oct 2006 07:30
In article <1161448269.254202.18890(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: > >T Wake wrote: > >[... democrats ...] >> They don't talk about what measures they will take to prevent alien >> attacks > >If we imagine that they have some ideas, we can also see reasons why >they may not want the other side to hear of them. > >Also a great deal has been said about the risk of something nasty >coming in in a cargo container. Democrats have suggested better >inspection as part of the answer to this so it isn't true that they >haven't said anything. Unfortunately, the inspection needs to happen >at the shipping end not the recieving. The ports are places you >wouldn't want a nuke to go off. What I'm more concerned about is the Democrats' and others' complete silence about nuclear power plants which is the most important action that can be taken right now. Only the person known as President Bush is even uttering those nouns. It says that Connecticut has submitted a request for a permit to open a plant. We'll see what the will of these politicians is. /BAH |