Jihad needs scientists

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:11:09 -0500, unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com>
wrote:

Lloyd Parker wrote:

In article <184nj2pmmiu4gtl0vga9s0c4lvonj89lhi@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 18:55:27 GMT, <lucasea@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?

I wonder if any really new life forms are evolving now, right under
our eyes.

John

 

[Eeyore]

unsettled wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

I reckon in any competition, my knowledge of history would knock yours
into the proverbial cocked hat.

Possibly. I forgot the utliple choice answer-type history.
ARe you not alarmed that Nazis are getting elected to seats of
power in Germany?

The are no Nazi members in the Bundestag

You just finished with a denial that you and Wake have
selective blindness, yet here you are once again
giving us a clear demonstration. The Nazi party, and
similar spinoffs, are outlawed in Germany, so clearly
there are today no Nazi "members" anywhere in Germany.

So why did BAH say .......

" ARe you not alarmed that Nazis are getting elected to seats of power in
Germany? " ???

I'm just the messenger here !

BAH needs to get her facts straight. That would seem to be quite a hurdle for
her starting from where she is right now.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

unsettled wrote:

If Islam provided a Ghandi equivalent, and agreed to
follow his/her lead, this entire war on terror thing
would dissipate in a matter of days because the west
would immediately embrace it.

This solution is obvious, and simple. The fact that it
hasn't been adapted by Islam speaks loudly as to the
motives of Islamic leaders. So much for being a
"religion of peace."

I'm sure there are plenty of well-meaning Muslims for sure, however the
structure of their faith does not allow for any one leader.

Quite simply they have no equivalent of the Pope or the Archbishop of
Canterbury.

I do think this does make them vulnerable to extemism.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

unsettled wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

It's all going badly wrong in Iraq right now.

Of course it is. The goal is to Democrats in power in the US
elections.

Whose goal ?


The Islamic extremists. Based on past history, they believe
that Democrats will not retaliate with swift and deadly force
when their next mess is made against the US.

As has been demonstrated in the past.

Really ? The actions of the Republicans has made things far worse IMO.


Graham

 

[Robert Latest]

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.design.]
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:15:05 -0700,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote
in Msg. <vb4qj29r3tpr4ctnhbffuumsdgpj704mf8@4ax.com>

There's all sorts of interesting stuff. Some people are born with six
fully functional fingers on each hand. So "finger" must be some sort
of parameterized macro, and "mirror image" must be an operation, and
there must be some sort of installation crew that hooks everything up
so that it all works.

You should read the essays by Steven Jay Gould. You'll enjoy them.

robert

 

In article <453DA5CD.1A70BB2@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

unsettled wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

I reckon in any competition, my knowledge of history would knock yours
into the proverbial cocked hat.

Possibly. I forgot the utliple choice answer-type history.
ARe you not alarmed that Nazis are getting elected to seats of
power in Germany?

The are no Nazi members in the Bundestag

You just finished with a denial that you and Wake have
selective blindness, yet here you are once again
giving us a clear demonstration. The Nazi party, and
similar spinoffs, are outlawed in Germany, so clearly
there are today no Nazi "members" anywhere in Germany.

So why did BAH say .......

" ARe you not alarmed that Nazis are getting elected to seats of power in
Germany? " ???

I'm just the messenger here !

BAH needs to get her facts straight. That would seem to be quite a hurdle for
her starting from where she is right now.

That was a news item the BBC reported. You were the one who
told me to listen to something other than US news reports. So
I did.

/BAH

 

In article <yaL_g.16505$vJ2.3095@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehfmrv$8qk_009@s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <IKudnYawzLIroafYRVnyjQ@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd5rn$8qk_009@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
Common sense would deemd that interval wider than the data.

Eh? Why would common sense demand this?

I tried to explain why. Apparently it was written in Martian.


No, it was written with a *complete* lack of understanding of statistics,
especially population sampling statistics.


snip

Getting awful snippy lately, aren't you?

I'm getting tired; I'm behind in my other work and you are
starting to repeat yourself. We haven't even begun to dicuss
the topic. Most of these posts have been about how
twisty little facts, all alike, are used to divert the
discussion.

/BAH

 

In article <c387f$453a4078$49ecfae$4299@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote:
<snip>

Now I understand. You're a Muslim or a MUslim shill.

I don't think so. I think these types of people are
trying to survive and assume that, if they were nice
about this terrosism, the Islamic extremists will
have mercy and not kill them. It's similar to a pack
mentality, I think.

/BAH

 

In article <M9Wdndw-ELm9dqHYRVnyjw@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehi9t2$8qk_001@s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <PtWdnWzlorfyqafYnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd3gi$8qk_007@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. This may be another ingredient
to the odd attitude in Europe.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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? 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.

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.

Allowing bad behaviour is not tolerance; it is an implicit approval
that the behaviour will be allowed to continue.

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.

No.

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.

It is not the United States of America's job nor duty to police
the rest of the world. There is no universal code book of law.

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.

Am I now supposed to assume that the US shouldn't use any
of this power outside of our country? Are you implying
that the US should stop sending goods, money and men to all
other areas of the world that is not US territory?

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 are assuming that everybody is tacitly agreeing to live and behave
by those rules. The current dicussion is dealing with a large
number of people who do not recognize those rules and laws and
refuse to live within that societal agreement.

You indulge people
who make messes based on ideologies.

No more or less than any other western country, your own included.

No. The US tends to stop it when a big mess is made; this prevents
more messes.

/BAH

 

In article <n7onj2ljh70n37ov8q6jg5ts9v7qi45oi3@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 06 12:09:48 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <Qmu_g.14851$GR.13390@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd5rn$8qk_009@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

Common sense would deemd that interval wider than the data.


....and because you have absolutely no background in or understanding of
statistics, your "common sense" would be wrong. Please do learn whereof
you
speak, before you speak. The gaps in your knowledge in areas that are key
to a lot of the points you insist are right, is phenomenal and appalling.


I don't know it's wrong. I do know enough that bad data will
never show any statistical significance.

Don't you think *they* are in a better position to judge the quality of
their data than *you* are,

Nope. Not when it's for the BBC comsumption.

since your understanding of statistics is
essentially non-existent? And don't you think that the peers who reviewed
the article and allowed it to be published might also be just a tiny tad
more knowledgeable of statistics than you are?

This is not a question of ability of applying statistics. It is
a question of the agility of applying statistics. I am sceptic
of the agility.


Yes, you do not know enough. Have you studied statistics, sampling, data
analysis?

Yes. A long time ago.


Then you've clearly forgotten everything you learned.

I can certainly open my stat books and yak a good game of
presenting the same data point as a dozen. In the olden
days, I'd just dup 12 cards.



We were just talking about doing a polynomial curve fit to a dataset,
where one of my guys decided that points on one end of the scale
should be weighted more than points on the other end. He came up with
a page of equations, full of matrices and things, to apply a weighting
function on top of a polynomial regression. It hurt my head,

<GRIN> That would happen in our shop, too. Only it was code.

so I
suggested he just copy various multiples of different points back into
the table, like 5x from the low end tapering up to 25x on the high
end, the run the curve fit. You could do that with punch cards, too.

But the problem turned out to be a lot simpler, almost linear, when we
looked at it from another direction. And when we changed the specs on
the product, it got even simpler.

Kewl. I once did a project where we spent most of our time
bullshitting designing the formats of the data. One of my
bit gods got an inspiration, and we finished the design within
two days. The formats were so good, the code practically wrote
itself.

A month of two bit gods yakking and arguing and getting headaches.
Then, poof, one gets a new idea, we throw out everything, and
do the real design in a couple of hours. Then you get that
feeling of satisfaction that tell you this is the Right one.

/BAH

John

 

In article <86u_g.14849$GR.14640@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd5e9$8qk_007@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <UJLZg.16284$e66.2136@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh7ksa$8ss_018@s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <bFtZg.15970$e66.4970@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh53ce$8qk_005@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <OF7Zg.17270$6S3.4818@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh2k1e$8qk_002@s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <e97b6$4534dd17$4fe728b$30183@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@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

 

In article <1161448269.254202.18890@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"MooseFET" <kensmith@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

 

In article <wJ6dneNN343tnKPYRVnyug@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehkoev$8ss_003@s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <453DA5CD.1A70BB2@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


unsettled wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

I reckon in any competition, my knowledge of history would knock
yours
into the proverbial cocked hat.

Possibly. I forgot the utliple choice answer-type history.
ARe you not alarmed that Nazis are getting elected to seats of
power in Germany?

The are no Nazi members in the Bundestag

You just finished with a denial that you and Wake have
selective blindness, yet here you are once again
giving us a clear demonstration. The Nazi party, and
similar spinoffs, are outlawed in Germany, so clearly
there are today no Nazi "members" anywhere in Germany.

So why did BAH say .......

" ARe you not alarmed that Nazis are getting elected to seats of power in
Germany? " ???

I'm just the messenger here !

BAH needs to get her facts straight. That would seem to be quite a hurdle
for
her starting from where she is right now.

That was a news item the BBC reported. You were the one who
told me to listen to something other than US news reports. So
I did.

Strangely the BBC seem to have neglected putting this on their news website
and I cant find anything which could be construed as having said that. Can
you let me know when you heard the BBC report it please?

I can't remember which night it was. Guesstimate was Friday or
Saturday night between 2 and 3 AM my time EDT. And it was
on the feed that is sold to FM PBS radio stations.

I don't know if that's enough data for you to pinpoint.

There is an upswell in right wing organisations getting public support
across Europe, but this is not quite the same.

Isn't that how Hitler got started?

/BAH

 

In article <AaSdncIuNrMUnaPYRVnyrQ@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:453DA5CD.1A70BB2@hotmail.com...

unsettled wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

I reckon in any competition, my knowledge of history would knock yours
into the proverbial cocked hat.

Possibly. I forgot the utliple choice answer-type history.
ARe you not alarmed that Nazis are getting elected to seats of
power in Germany?

The are no Nazi members in the Bundestag

You just finished with a denial that you and Wake have
selective blindness, yet here you are once again
giving us a clear demonstration.

I am sure "unsettled" is more than aware that Eeyore and I have very
different view points on lots of topics, so I am somewhat confused what
lumping us together adds to the weight of "his" argument - other than
creating the illusion of collusion to fuel his paranoia.
snip

You two, actually three, are getting lumped together because
you keep repeating our Democrat sound bites as supporting
evidence that there isn't a danger from Islamic extremeists.

The smoke and mirrors is so thick in this discussion, it is
difficult to identify who is who.

/BAH

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehkpst$8qk_002@s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <c387f$453a4078$49ecfae$4299@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote:
snip

Now I understand. You're a Muslim or a MUslim shill.

I don't think so.

You are correct.

I think these types of people are
trying to survive and assume that, if they were nice
about this terrosism, the Islamic extremists will
have mercy and not kill them.

You are incorrect. There is no "trying" to survive about it. I can only
speak for myself and I am trying to maintain my freedom and the rights I
have been brought up to think were inalienable.

It's similar to a pack
mentality, I think.

This argument cuts both ways.

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:453DA5CD.1A70BB2@hotmail.com...

unsettled wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

I reckon in any competition, my knowledge of history would knock yours
into the proverbial cocked hat.

Possibly. I forgot the utliple choice answer-type history.
ARe you not alarmed that Nazis are getting elected to seats of
power in Germany?

The are no Nazi members in the Bundestag

You just finished with a denial that you and Wake have
selective blindness, yet here you are once again
giving us a clear demonstration.

I am sure "unsettled" is more than aware that Eeyore and I have very
different view points on lots of topics, so I am somewhat confused what
lumping us together adds to the weight of "his" argument - other than
creating the illusion of collusion to fuel his paranoia.

The Nazi party, and
similar spinoffs, are outlawed in Germany, so clearly
there are today no Nazi "members" anywhere in Germany.

So why did BAH say .......

" ARe you not alarmed that Nazis are getting elected to seats of power in
Germany? " ???

I'm just the messenger here !

BAH needs to get her facts straight. That would seem to be quite a hurdle
for
her starting from where she is right now.

People like unsettled (and JoeBloe) are more concerned with ranting and
insulting people than actually paying attention to what is said in the
posts. "He" has replied to the post in which you even say there are no
Nazis, with an exhortation that "there are no Nazis."

Pure brilliance.

 

[unsettled]

Eeyore wrote:

unsettled wrote:


If Islam provided a Ghandi equivalent, and agreed to
follow his/her lead, this entire war on terror thing
would dissipate in a matter of days because the west
would immediately embrace it.

This solution is obvious, and simple. The fact that it
hasn't been adapted by Islam speaks loudly as to the
motives of Islamic leaders. So much for being a
"religion of peace."


I'm sure there are plenty of well-meaning Muslims for sure, however the
structure of their faith does not allow for any one leader.

Quite simply they have no equivalent of the Pope or the Archbishop of
Canterbury.

I do think this does make them vulnerable to extemism.

Once again you fail to understand the lessons of history.

Ghandi was the acknowledged cross-religion leader in the
India of the period immediately after WW2. He was followed
by a majority of Hindus *and* Muslims.

His story encompasses much more, and it might be a good idea
for people in this discussion to read about him. There were
repeated attempts on the life of this man of peace through
the decades, and ultimately he was assassinated.

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehkoev$8ss_003@s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <453DA5CD.1A70BB2@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


unsettled wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

I reckon in any competition, my knowledge of history would knock
yours
into the proverbial cocked hat.

Possibly. I forgot the utliple choice answer-type history.
ARe you not alarmed that Nazis are getting elected to seats of
power in Germany?

The are no Nazi members in the Bundestag

You just finished with a denial that you and Wake have
selective blindness, yet here you are once again
giving us a clear demonstration. The Nazi party, and
similar spinoffs, are outlawed in Germany, so clearly
there are today no Nazi "members" anywhere in Germany.

So why did BAH say .......

" ARe you not alarmed that Nazis are getting elected to seats of power in
Germany? " ???

I'm just the messenger here !

BAH needs to get her facts straight. That would seem to be quite a hurdle
for
her starting from where she is right now.

That was a news item the BBC reported. You were the one who
told me to listen to something other than US news reports. So
I did.

Strangely the BBC seem to have neglected putting this on their news website
and I cant find anything which could be construed as having said that. Can
you let me know when you heard the BBC report it please?

There is an upswell in right wing organisations getting public support
across Europe, but this is not quite the same.

 

[unsettled]

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:11:09 -0500, unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com
wrote:


Lloyd Parker wrote:


In article <184nj2pmmiu4gtl0vga9s0c4lvonj89lhi@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:


On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 18:55:27 GMT, <lucasea@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.

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:tekqj2h5n1b16he0jnfocf1311tt0fv6g6@4ax.com...

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:10:46 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


unsettleds argument certainly relies on a large population in Iraq before
the war. If the death rates during Saddam's regime to have exceeded the
ones
reported now, I am amazed there are any Iraqis left to report it.

---
C2H6O talking?

Well, I am not quite all the way down to drinking ethanol yet.

It should have read: