I must apologize, because I seem to have given you the impression that I disagree with your interpretation of these Biblical verses.
Understood. My appologies for jumping to conclusions after misunderstanding your intent.
Such ad hominem points do not prove or disprove any side of the question, "Does the Bible contain errors of a scientific nature?"... In short, every point should be judged on the basis of available evidence, and not prejudiced by ones own beliefs.
I actually agree with that statement completely, which is why I didn't just leave it at "you have an agenda", and brought forth context from the text in question to demonstrate how it's just as easy to come away from the passage seeing that they were counting 4 legs for walking + 2 legs for leaping.
The reason I brought up the agenda issue was because I've often seen the sorts of lists that that the original poster made reference to. Upon examination of these lists, seeing how things are often taken grossly and obviously out of context, it becomes pretty clear to me that they approach the Bible only with the intent of "disproving" it.
In fact, a quick Google search for the exact text that he posted brought up a plethora of lists that were absolutely identical, demonstrating that it is very very likely that the poster simply took these sources at their word and never examined the issue himself. The bias of the list's author(s) shines through clearly when you see ridiculous statements such as the following:
20. If the Bible is our moral guide, then how can it make pornographic statements such as: "...they may eat their own dung and drink their own piss with you" (2 Kings 18:27)
If the author was truly more interested in understanding the passage than tearing it down, he would have seen that the context clearly states that the city of Samaria was under siege by the armies of Assyria. If you can't bring in food and water, what do you eat? What do you drink? Gross, yeah. But pornographic? Obviously not.
The fact that the author has an agenda doesn't disprove his point, but I believe it does go toward explaining the tremendous amount of neglect in his arguments.
I would wager that your beliefs led you to make illogical arguments regarding the original poster (and scientists)
... So I take issue with the idea that my arguments in that area were illogical;), though as you correctly pointed out, they had no bearing on proving my case regarding Leviticus.
But I don't *know* what they knew. Neither do you. We can make reasoned assumptions that they:
1) Were discussing locusts;
(Lev 11:22) Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
Yes, I think that's a pretty reasonable assumption.
2) Could count.
If it's reasonable to leave room for the possibility that Moses couldn't count, is it then reasonable to think that it might be possible that neither of you guys can count? That's pretty weak considering tremendous numerical references elsewhere in the book of Leviticus. Not to mention the fact that the writer of Leviticus; Moses, also wrote the book of Exodus, where the infamous Ten Commandments are found, showing that, whaddya know, one of the most powerful men in Egypt's government could indeed count.
3) Translators interpreted "4" correctly.
That's a no-brainer, and you'd be very hard-pressed to find anyone with an education in Hebrew who would question the translation (not interpretation) of that number.
Now really... You can't possibly believe that the guys who wrote it didn't know how many total legs a locust has, can you? Especially considering the fact they were *eating* them?
The Bible is a huge, HUGE book, written by many people over a period of several thousand years. While I'm not going to claim perfection (it's been copied and translated many times, and that *always* introduces some margin of error), you might want to double-check your sources before you repeat them. For example:
We are told the Bible has no scientific errors, yet it says the batis a bird (Lev. 11:13,19)
Who's to say that it's *not* a bird? I mean, really. There was no Audubon society at the time, and no so-called "scientists" who think they're more qualified to classify these creatures than the God who created them.
and insects (Lev. 11:22-23) have four legs
(Lev 11:21) Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
That's 4 to walk on, 2 to leap with. Last time I checked, 4 + 2 = 6. But of course, your source conveniently left verse 21 out of his critique.
People with an agenda tend to make very poor critics.
... Humans were *not* allowed to eat animals until after the flood...
Reference, please? I haven't found that.
While there is no direct commandment forbidding man from eating animals prior to the flood, we do have the initial instruction God gave to Adam concerning his diet:
(Gen 1:29) And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
It's not until Genesis 9 that what would *appear* to be new instructions are handed down:
(Gen 9:3) Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
I personally don't think an increase in sin had anything to do with the gradual decay of man's average lifespan. I find it more likely that the massive geophysical changes that the flood brought on is the culprit.
All of the worm writers, spyware developers, etc take security seriously. I mean, how else would they be able to exploit their targets?
That's what I don't get. I don't believe there's anything that a "1337 h4x0r" terrorist would try that some "1337 h4x0r" 12-year-old hasn't tried already. If it was so easy to take down the infrastructure of our country through a computer, some numbnut with no agenda other than to piss a lot of people off would've done so already.
... Beings that a flower is so much like a cel phone. It usually works better outside, and only within certain regions of the country.
Are we going to be billed every time the thing blooms? Is there a service charge if we want to transplant it to another pot? These are things we need to know.
Well, unlike "mansions", BMWs don't vary much by region. And yes, I realize that about all 2mil will buy you in downtown Manhattan is a roach-infested studio apartment. Why anyone would want to live there is beyond me, but to each his own, I suppose.
ummm, actually i believe the 2nd restriction does in fact forbid militarization...
... OF THE MOON or other celestrial bodies. That second paragraph says nothing about man-made objects within Earth's orbit. The first paragraph deals with objects placed in Earth's orbit, and does not exclude weapons of every kind; only WMDs. What the USAF proposes are weapons designed to destroy other satellites, not Baghdad (or whatever).
"Guys, we have a major problem. Sales are at an all-time low, and if you all want to be able to pay for your BMWs and 2-million dollar mansions, we need a new strategy!"
"Now, our attorneys and marketing boys have been hard at work, attempting to pass th blame for this dilemma for months on such things as piracy of all kinds. However, these conclusions just haven't explained the numbers, and we have just recently uncovered a shocking statistic that cannot be ignored. Please consult the chart on the wall to see how the numbers break down."
Internet piracy: 9%
Media piracy: 7%
Any other kind of piracy that we couldn't pull out of our asses: 2%
We sign crummy bands and try to pass their music off on people who actually have taste, despite all of our really expensive research: 80%
(You may wish to activate your sarcasm detector for this one)
But if we pollute enough, we'll destroy the human race, and good old "mother earth" will start over again, but this time, maybe she'll get it right and not allow evolution to create humans!
I mean, really, let's review the beliefs of your typcial atheist/evolutionist/tree-hugger.
ATHEIST: There is no God, so any structure in the universe is merely the result of a freak accident, so we cannot declare the human race as superior to the animals.
Evolutionist: "Survival of the fittest" is the theme here, so if we pollute ourselves to death, we obviously weren't fit for survival, so such action would in fact be the natural way of things!
TREE-HUGGER: Yes, it may hurt now, but the trees and bunnies would be a whole lot better off without us in the long run!
Vel Satis has been awarded the maximum 5-star rating from Euro NCAP, an independant consortium. It is now the safest saloon in the executive-car segment.
I can see some value in their goals. Keep in mind what the Jews have done to the Palestinians, and the fact that the PLO is a Palestinian organisation, and you begin to realise the forces at work here. I'm not saying I'd line them up and exterminate them, but I wouldn't judge the Palestinians too harshly for wanting to. The Jews have brought that one down on themselves.
But you see, their goals are to "line them up and exterminate them" as you mentioned. Read the charter, and note the comments regarding the translation on the page that I posted. And FYI, it is the United Nations that declared Israel to be a sovereign nation, not the Jews.
Says who? The Pentagon and the World Trade Centre buildings were very good targets, and were hit with precision accuracy.
9/11 could be considered somewhat of an exception, from their point of view, though they are not even remotely consistent in this way. It is believed that the Pentagon was actually a secondary target (the first being the White House), but I'm sure you're aware of that. You should be proud.
Compare these attacks to the 'shock and awe' campaign in Iraq that killed tens of thousands.
That is a ludicrous figure, even amongst your left-winged comrades, who generally don't push a figure much greater than 10,000, which is still a very inaccurate figure. In fact, the U.S. Military went to almost ridiculous lengths to ensure that no one died who didn't want to. They even dropped pamphlets near prospective targets, warning the people around them that they were going to be attacked. By comparison, in WWII, we (and the rest of the allies) absolutely desimated entire cities with no warning. Though I don't have the figures before me, I would wager that the civilian body count in Iraq and Afghanistan put together pales in comparison to what worldwide terrorism has racked up in the last 50 years.
The Islamic terrorists choose their targets well and minimise casualties.
Yeah, they slam airliners full of people in to buildings in downtown Manhattan, killing thousands in a SINGLE ATTACK, while we're so clumsy as to warn people that we are going to blow up the SAM next door with LGBs. Just who's side are you on?
As I hinted in my previous post, if I were them, I'd target the PNAC offices when their next meeting in on, and leave the so-called 'innocents' alone.
But you're not them (despite the fact that you sound more and more like you'd like to be), and they aren't going to take your advice.
The US employs terrorism far more than any other country or organisation
Go spend some time in the Philippines, or Rowanda, and let me know if you still feel the same way. I think you need a change of perspective.
The difference between Islamic fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists is the Islamic ones are content to control their own people. The Christians however feel it their 'duty' to take over the whole world.
If you read the PLO charter, you'd actually see that many Islamic fundamentalists want to control not only their own people, but the entire middle east, and would like nothing more than to wipe out any trace of the Jews from the earth, and anyone associated with them.
Making an "Islam" and "Christian" distinction is hardly enough, beings that what many people consider "Christianity" today is simply another form of legalism, much like Islam; where man decides that it's his job to conquer the world for their own cause, when at least the Bible is pretty clear that God is going to do that himself. When mankind assumes God's role, radical actions typically follow, whether it be blowing up busses on the West Bank, or abortion clinics here at home.
John Ashcroft summed up the biggest difference between Islam and true Christianity nicely when he said "In Islam, people send their sons to die for God, while in Christianity, God sends his son to die for us" (or something to that effect).
Anyway, if the US continues down this path, we will see a lot more terrorism in the years to come. I hope for the innocent among us that the terrorists targets their attacks a little better. No points for guessing the best target.
You miss the entire point of terrorism. They aren't targetting citizens because they're lousy shots. They are targetting them deliberately because they know they'll get the very reaction that they just got out of you. "MY GOD WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE IF WE FIGHT FORCE WITH FORCE!!!". Terrorism is designed to create fear, and out of fear frequently comes weakness.
The whole idea behind space combat seems a little far-fetched (in terms of time), but then again, if we don't do it, someone else will. Remember the huge advantage that Germany had when they took ocean combat to a new plane (U-Boats)? While our dominance in recent years has been a result of our superior air power. Being able to attack from a position that others cannot reach is a tremendous advantage, and we should be at least considering this, as there is little doubt that other nations are as well.
... As far as the quantity of hurricanes go. Have a look for yourself at NOAA and count them. I did, and here's what I found.
From the year 1901-1940, approximately 1.9 hurricanes made landfall per year during that time.
Have the industrial boom and SUVs doomed us to an ever-increasing number of hurricanes? From the year 1950-2003, there have been, on average, a total of only 1.7 hurricanes that have made landfall per year. That's right, that's less! Go ahead and count them yourself. The theories may be spelling doom, but reality tells a different tale, as it often does.
So we get slammed with 3 in a row and all of a sudden it's the end of the world, and we can blame it all on Chevrolet (or George Bush, if you're so inclined)? Whatever. Three, although slightly above average, is hardly out of the ordinary. What is out of the ordinary is that they all happened to hit roughly the same area. Bad luck? You bet. Global warming? No way.
Not true. Bush I wasn't criticized by the Kurds for not going after Saddam. He was criticized for not supporting the Kurdish uprising when we said we would
Supporting the Kurds in their uprising (against Saddam) vs. Going after Saddam. I guess I just don't see a sizeable difference here. I don't see any reason why the Kurds (given the proper support) wouldn't have gone after him as well, seeing that he had previously gassed countless numbers of them.
But they *also* blame Bush Sr. for not supporting their uprising when they had been given tacit acknowledgement that we would provide such support.
Yes, except Bush Sr. isn't in office now. And the irony of all of this is that George Jr. is now being criticized for doing exactly what George Sr. was criticized for NOT doing. George Sr. pulled out, probably because he feared damaging his political career as the result of the (relatively) "high" body count of a ground war. Sr. got blasted for this. George Jr. is currently in the long, costly process of finishing the job, and is being criticized more and more as the body count increases. We can't have it both ways.
Are you one of those people who asserts, despite constant refutation, that certain established scientific theories violate the second law of thermodynamics?
Yes, and if I may break out my smart-aleck hat for a moment; by your own admission in an earlier post ("no theory in science is ever proven"), you cannot "refute" it:
refute
1. To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof: refute testimony.
One of them has to go. Either everyhing in a closed system becomes more disorderly, and the big bang is bunk, or the bing bang created a crapload of order out of disorder, and the law of entropy is bunk. You just can't have it both ways.
You're the one assuming an entity. The burden of proof is upon you to show that it exists, not upon him to show that it does not.
Of course I'm assuming entity. And I never asked him to prove to me otherwise. I'm simply expressing my convictions on this issue. Take it or leave it. I feel no "burden" to prove anything. You can't prove anything to someone who isn't willing to accept it, anyway. In fact, your own defense relieves me of any burden (if there ever was one) of having to prove anything:
No theory i[n] science is ever proven.
If science doesn't have to prove anything to me, then I don't have to prove anything to it.
The Big Bang is a conclusion borne out from observations of the universe, not a starting "guess" to which they have tried to retrofit all observations.
Like, "How did I get here? Well, the Bible says that God created all of this, but I don't believe that nonsense, so I'll have to come up with my own conclusion!"
That you continue to misuse terms indicates that you have absolutely no understanding of what you speak.
Since we're going to get particular about terminology, let's review the three main stages of scientific "study", listed from the least reliable to the most reliable:
Hypothesis:
A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
Example: Abiogenesis, as you had mentioned.
Theory:
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
How in the world the "Big Bang" is granted the status of "theory" in light of this definition is beyond me. It sounds more like definition #6 (according to dictionary.com):
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Then finally, the next and highest rung of the scientific ladder: Law:
A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met: the law of gravity.
Another example being the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which states, concerning the law of entropy: "in any isolated system, the degree of disorder can only increase.", which, ironically, refutes every hypothesis/theory of evolution out there. The question the evolutionist needs to ask himself is: "which am I going to disregard? The law of Thermodynamics, or the theories and hypothesis surrounding evolution/The "Big Bang"/etc.?"
Except that you're assuming the existence of a God
And he's assuming that there is no God, and that we all crawled out of a pond of primal soup. Either way, we all begin with a presumption, and everything we attempt to prove with science beyond that point (when it comes to this particular issue) is influenced by that.
His claim requires no assumed entites
Has anyone actually, without a shadow of a doubt, aside from any theories, proven that there was a "Big Bang"? Who was there to observe it? Who was there to collect scientific data while it occured? To this day, even amongst the most staunch evolutionists, it is still labeled a theory, and therefore, he in fact most certainly does begin with a presumption; one that, from his perspective, may or may not be accurate.
I've had evolutionists tell me, when confronted with all of the flip-flopping that has taken place on this subject, that science is "always in a state of flux". Why is that? Because what they call "science" is based largely upon theory, and not upon solid fact. Since they weren't there to actually witness the event, they begin with a presumption, and work backwards from the present day in an attempt to prove the theory. When they finally discover that their initial theory, their initial presumption couldn't possibly work, they fabricate another theory, and try again.
No one in recorded history has ever witnessed life spring out of a pool of dead goop, even under the most tightly controlled environments. The whole "primal soup" theory, therefore, is just that; a theory, a presumption.
today we have the Darwinian model and today we have credible computer model of precisely how an eye could evolve
"We have a computer model"... I've seen this put forth a number of times in this thread now. Well, I have a computer model that allows me to pull a million Gs in a spacefighter! Don't forget that in order to CREATE a computer model, it must be fed with information from an "intelligent" being, who always (whether he's creationist or evolutionist) has a particular bias, so the results of the computer model will invariably reflect the bias of it's designer to a certain degree.
If you need the security blanket of a God, well, enjoy it. But don't pretend your emotional needs are science.
I could just as easily say that man clings to evolution because he wants the "security" that may come from believing that he will never have to stand before a perfectly righteous God on the basis of his own merit. You can spare us that argument.
Using a system that is directly analagous to biological evolution, computers are directed to discover solutions to problems. Wanna know the SCARY thing? It works like crazy. Here's a quote:
Where did the computers come from? Oops. Get back to me when a computer constructs itself from a chunk of silicon.
Slashdot Mirror
Oops, let me correct myself real quick. It was Jerusalem that was under siege, not Samaria (which was besieged and then taken earlier in the passage)
I must apologize, because I seem to have given you the impression that I disagree with your interpretation of these Biblical verses.
Understood. My appologies for jumping to conclusions after misunderstanding your intent.
Such ad hominem points do not prove or disprove any side of the question, "Does the Bible contain errors of a scientific nature?" ... In short, every point should be judged on the basis of available evidence, and not prejudiced by ones own beliefs.
I actually agree with that statement completely, which is why I didn't just leave it at "you have an agenda", and brought forth context from the text in question to demonstrate how it's just as easy to come away from the passage seeing that they were counting 4 legs for walking + 2 legs for leaping.
The reason I brought up the agenda issue was because I've often seen the sorts of lists that that the original poster made reference to. Upon examination of these lists, seeing how things are often taken grossly and obviously out of context, it becomes pretty clear to me that they approach the Bible only with the intent of "disproving" it.
In fact, a quick Google search for the exact text that he posted brought up a plethora of lists that were absolutely identical, demonstrating that it is very very likely that the poster simply took these sources at their word and never examined the issue himself. The bias of the list's author(s) shines through clearly when you see ridiculous statements such as the following:
20. If the Bible is our moral guide, then how can it make pornographic statements such as: "...they may eat their own dung and drink their own piss with you" (2 Kings 18:27)
If the author was truly more interested in understanding the passage than tearing it down, he would have seen that the context clearly states that the city of Samaria was under siege by the armies of Assyria. If you can't bring in food and water, what do you eat? What do you drink? Gross, yeah. But pornographic? Obviously not.
The fact that the author has an agenda doesn't disprove his point, but I believe it does go toward explaining the tremendous amount of neglect in his arguments.
I would wager that your beliefs led you to make illogical arguments regarding the original poster (and scientists)
... So I take issue with the idea that my arguments in that area were illogical ;), though as you correctly pointed out, they had no bearing on proving my case regarding Leviticus.
But I don't *know* what they knew. Neither do you. We can make reasoned assumptions that they: 1) Were discussing locusts;
(Lev 11:22) Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
Yes, I think that's a pretty reasonable assumption.
2) Could count.
If it's reasonable to leave room for the possibility that Moses couldn't count, is it then reasonable to think that it might be possible that neither of you guys can count? That's pretty weak considering tremendous numerical references elsewhere in the book of Leviticus. Not to mention the fact that the writer of Leviticus; Moses, also wrote the book of Exodus, where the infamous Ten Commandments are found, showing that, whaddya know, one of the most powerful men in Egypt's government could indeed count.
3) Translators interpreted "4" correctly.
That's a no-brainer, and you'd be very hard-pressed to find anyone with an education in Hebrew who would question the translation (not interpretation) of that number.
Now really... You can't possibly believe that the guys who wrote it didn't know how many total legs a locust has, can you? Especially considering the fact they were *eating* them?
The Bible is a huge, HUGE book, written by many people over a period of several thousand years. While I'm not going to claim perfection (it's been copied and translated many times, and that *always* introduces some margin of error), you might want to double-check your sources before you repeat them. For example:
We are told the Bible has no scientific errors, yet it says the batis a bird (Lev. 11:13,19)
Who's to say that it's *not* a bird? I mean, really. There was no Audubon society at the time, and no so-called "scientists" who think they're more qualified to classify these creatures than the God who created them.
and insects (Lev. 11:22-23) have four legs
(Lev 11:21) Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
That's 4 to walk on, 2 to leap with. Last time I checked, 4 + 2 = 6. But of course, your source conveniently left verse 21 out of his critique.
People with an agenda tend to make very poor critics.
While there is no direct commandment forbidding man from eating animals prior to the flood, we do have the initial instruction God gave to Adam concerning his diet:
(Gen 1:29) And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
It's not until Genesis 9 that what would *appear* to be new instructions are handed down:
(Gen 9:3) Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
I personally don't think an increase in sin had anything to do with the gradual decay of man's average lifespan. I find it more likely that the massive geophysical changes that the flood brought on is the culprit.
All of the worm writers, spyware developers, etc take security seriously. I mean, how else would they be able to exploit their targets?
That's what I don't get. I don't believe there's anything that a "1337 h4x0r" terrorist would try that some "1337 h4x0r" 12-year-old hasn't tried already. If it was so easy to take down the infrastructure of our country through a computer, some numbnut with no agenda other than to piss a lot of people off would've done so already.
... Beings that a flower is so much like a cel phone. It usually works better outside, and only within certain regions of the country.
Are we going to be billed every time the thing blooms? Is there a service charge if we want to transplant it to another pot? These are things we need to know.
Well, unlike "mansions", BMWs don't vary much by region. And yes, I realize that about all 2mil will buy you in downtown Manhattan is a roach-infested studio apartment. Why anyone would want to live there is beyond me, but to each his own, I suppose.
ummm, actually i believe the 2nd restriction does in fact forbid militarization...
... OF THE MOON or other celestrial bodies. That second paragraph says nothing about man-made objects within Earth's orbit. The first paragraph deals with objects placed in Earth's orbit, and does not exclude weapons of every kind; only WMDs. What the USAF proposes are weapons designed to destroy other satellites, not Baghdad (or whatever).
"That extra 2% represents the uh... uhm... the undecided. Yeah!"
(The boardroom of a major record label)
"Guys, we have a major problem. Sales are at an all-time low, and if you all want to be able to pay for your BMWs and 2-million dollar mansions, we need a new strategy!"
"Now, our attorneys and marketing boys have been hard at work, attempting to pass th blame for this dilemma for months on such things as piracy of all kinds. However, these conclusions just haven't explained the numbers, and we have just recently uncovered a shocking statistic that cannot be ignored. Please consult the chart on the wall to see how the numbers break down."
Internet piracy: 9%
Media piracy: 7%
Any other kind of piracy that we couldn't pull out of our asses: 2%
We sign crummy bands and try to pass their music off on people who actually have taste, despite all of our really expensive research: 80%
(You may wish to activate your sarcasm detector for this one)
But if we pollute enough, we'll destroy the human race, and good old "mother earth" will start over again, but this time, maybe she'll get it right and not allow evolution to create humans!
I mean, really, let's review the beliefs of your typcial atheist/evolutionist/tree-hugger.
ATHEIST: There is no God, so any structure in the universe is merely the result of a freak accident, so we cannot declare the human race as superior to the animals.
Evolutionist: "Survival of the fittest" is the theme here, so if we pollute ourselves to death, we obviously weren't fit for survival, so such action would in fact be the natural way of things!
TREE-HUGGER: Yes, it may hurt now, but the trees and bunnies would be a whole lot better off without us in the long run!
What's the problem? :p
$10,000 isn't much more than what it cost to fly the Concorde in it's last days (around $9,000).
Vel Satis has been awarded the maximum 5-star rating from Euro NCAP, an independant consortium. It is now the safest saloon in the executive-car segment.
Famous last words.
I can see some value in their goals. Keep in mind what the Jews have done to the Palestinians, and the fact that the PLO is a Palestinian organisation, and you begin to realise the forces at work here. I'm not saying I'd line them up and exterminate them, but I wouldn't judge the Palestinians too harshly for wanting to. The Jews have brought that one down on themselves.
But you see, their goals are to "line them up and exterminate them" as you mentioned. Read the charter, and note the comments regarding the translation on the page that I posted. And FYI, it is the United Nations that declared Israel to be a sovereign nation, not the Jews.
Says who? The Pentagon and the World Trade Centre buildings were very good targets, and were hit with precision accuracy.
9/11 could be considered somewhat of an exception, from their point of view, though they are not even remotely consistent in this way. It is believed that the Pentagon was actually a secondary target (the first being the White House), but I'm sure you're aware of that. You should be proud.
Compare these attacks to the 'shock and awe' campaign in Iraq that killed tens of thousands .
That is a ludicrous figure, even amongst your left-winged comrades, who generally don't push a figure much greater than 10,000, which is still a very inaccurate figure. In fact, the U.S. Military went to almost ridiculous lengths to ensure that no one died who didn't want to. They even dropped pamphlets near prospective targets, warning the people around them that they were going to be attacked. By comparison, in WWII, we (and the rest of the allies) absolutely desimated entire cities with no warning. Though I don't have the figures before me, I would wager that the civilian body count in Iraq and Afghanistan put together pales in comparison to what worldwide terrorism has racked up in the last 50 years.
The Islamic terrorists choose their targets well and minimise casualties.
Yeah, they slam airliners full of people in to buildings in downtown Manhattan, killing thousands in a SINGLE ATTACK, while we're so clumsy as to warn people that we are going to blow up the SAM next door with LGBs. Just who's side are you on?
As I hinted in my previous post, if I were them, I'd target the PNAC offices when their next meeting in on, and leave the so-called 'innocents' alone.
But you're not them (despite the fact that you sound more and more like you'd like to be), and they aren't going to take your advice.
The US employs terrorism far more than any other country or organisation
Go spend some time in the Philippines, or Rowanda, and let me know if you still feel the same way. I think you need a change of perspective.
The difference between Islamic fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists is the Islamic ones are content to control their own people. The Christians however feel it their 'duty' to take over the whole world.
If you read the PLO charter, you'd actually see that many Islamic fundamentalists want to control not only their own people, but the entire middle east, and would like nothing more than to wipe out any trace of the Jews from the earth, and anyone associated with them.
Making an "Islam" and "Christian" distinction is hardly enough, beings that what many people consider "Christianity" today is simply another form of legalism, much like Islam; where man decides that it's his job to conquer the world for their own cause, when at least the Bible is pretty clear that God is going to do that himself. When mankind assumes God's role, radical actions typically follow, whether it be blowing up busses on the West Bank, or abortion clinics here at home.
John Ashcroft summed up the biggest difference between Islam and true Christianity nicely when he said "In Islam, people send their sons to die for God, while in Christianity, God sends his son to die for us" (or something to that effect).
Anyway, if the US continues down this path, we will see a lot more terrorism in the years to come. I hope for the innocent among us that the terrorists targets their attacks a little better. No points for guessing the best target.
You miss the entire point of terrorism. They aren't targetting citizens because they're lousy shots. They are targetting them deliberately because they know they'll get the very reaction that they just got out of you. "MY GOD WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE IF WE FIGHT FORCE WITH FORCE!!!". Terrorism is designed to create fear, and out of fear frequently comes weakness.
The whole idea behind space combat seems a little far-fetched (in terms of time), but then again, if we don't do it, someone else will. Remember the huge advantage that Germany had when they took ocean combat to a new plane (U-Boats)? While our dominance in recent years has been a result of our superior air power. Being able to attack from a position that others cannot reach is a tremendous advantage, and we should be at least considering this, as there is little doubt that other nations are as well.
... As far as the quantity of hurricanes go. Have a look for yourself at NOAA and count them. I did, and here's what I found.
From the year 1901-1940, approximately 1.9 hurricanes made landfall per year during that time.
Have the industrial boom and SUVs doomed us to an ever-increasing number of hurricanes? From the year 1950-2003, there have been, on average, a total of only 1.7 hurricanes that have made landfall per year. That's right, that's less! Go ahead and count them yourself. The theories may be spelling doom, but reality tells a different tale, as it often does.
So we get slammed with 3 in a row and all of a sudden it's the end of the world, and we can blame it all on Chevrolet (or George Bush, if you're so inclined)? Whatever. Three, although slightly above average, is hardly out of the ordinary. What is out of the ordinary is that they all happened to hit roughly the same area. Bad luck? You bet. Global warming? No way.
Not true. Bush I wasn't criticized by the Kurds for not going after Saddam. He was criticized for not supporting the Kurdish uprising when we said we would
Supporting the Kurds in their uprising (against Saddam) vs. Going after Saddam. I guess I just don't see a sizeable difference here. I don't see any reason why the Kurds (given the proper support) wouldn't have gone after him as well, seeing that he had previously gassed countless numbers of them.
But they *also* blame Bush Sr. for not supporting their uprising when they had been given tacit acknowledgement that we would provide such support.
Yes, except Bush Sr. isn't in office now. And the irony of all of this is that George Jr. is now being criticized for doing exactly what George Sr. was criticized for NOT doing. George Sr. pulled out, probably because he feared damaging his political career as the result of the (relatively) "high" body count of a ground war. Sr. got blasted for this. George Jr. is currently in the long, costly process of finishing the job, and is being criticized more and more as the body count increases. We can't have it both ways.
Are you one of those people who asserts, despite constant refutation, that certain established scientific theories violate the second law of thermodynamics?
Yes, and if I may break out my smart-aleck hat for a moment; by your own admission in an earlier post ("no theory in science is ever proven"), you cannot "refute" it:
refute
1. To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof: refute testimony.
One of them has to go. Either everyhing in a closed system becomes more disorderly, and the big bang is bunk, or the bing bang created a crapload of order out of disorder, and the law of entropy is bunk. You just can't have it both ways.
You're the one assuming an entity. The burden of proof is upon you to show that it exists, not upon him to show that it does not.
Of course I'm assuming entity. And I never asked him to prove to me otherwise. I'm simply expressing my convictions on this issue. Take it or leave it. I feel no "burden" to prove anything. You can't prove anything to someone who isn't willing to accept it, anyway. In fact, your own defense relieves me of any burden (if there ever was one) of having to prove anything:
No theory i[n] science is ever proven.
If science doesn't have to prove anything to me, then I don't have to prove anything to it.
The Big Bang is a conclusion borne out from observations of the universe, not a starting "guess" to which they have tried to retrofit all observations.
Like, "How did I get here? Well, the Bible says that God created all of this, but I don't believe that nonsense, so I'll have to come up with my own conclusion!"
That you continue to misuse terms indicates that you have absolutely no understanding of what you speak.
Since we're going to get particular about terminology, let's review the three main stages of scientific "study", listed from the least reliable to the most reliable:
Hypothesis:
A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
Example: Abiogenesis, as you had mentioned.
Theory:
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
How in the world the "Big Bang" is granted the status of "theory" in light of this definition is beyond me. It sounds more like definition #6 (according to dictionary.com):
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Then finally, the next and highest rung of the scientific ladder: Law:
A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met: the law of gravity.
Another example being the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which states, concerning the law of entropy: "in any isolated system, the degree of disorder can only increase.", which, ironically, refutes every hypothesis/theory of evolution out there. The question the evolutionist needs to ask himself is: "which am I going to disregard? The law of Thermodynamics, or the theories and hypothesis surrounding evolution/The "Big Bang"/etc.?"
Except that you're assuming the existence of a God
And he's assuming that there is no God, and that we all crawled out of a pond of primal soup. Either way, we all begin with a presumption, and everything we attempt to prove with science beyond that point (when it comes to this particular issue) is influenced by that.
His claim requires no assumed entites
Has anyone actually, without a shadow of a doubt, aside from any theories, proven that there was a "Big Bang"? Who was there to observe it? Who was there to collect scientific data while it occured? To this day, even amongst the most staunch evolutionists, it is still labeled a theory, and therefore, he in fact most certainly does begin with a presumption; one that, from his perspective, may or may not be accurate.
I've had evolutionists tell me, when confronted with all of the flip-flopping that has taken place on this subject, that science is "always in a state of flux". Why is that? Because what they call "science" is based largely upon theory, and not upon solid fact. Since they weren't there to actually witness the event, they begin with a presumption, and work backwards from the present day in an attempt to prove the theory. When they finally discover that their initial theory, their initial presumption couldn't possibly work, they fabricate another theory, and try again.
No one in recorded history has ever witnessed life spring out of a pool of dead goop, even under the most tightly controlled environments. The whole "primal soup" theory, therefore, is just that; a theory, a presumption.
today we have the Darwinian model and today we have credible computer model of precisely how an eye could evolve
"We have a computer model"... I've seen this put forth a number of times in this thread now. Well, I have a computer model that allows me to pull a million Gs in a spacefighter! Don't forget that in order to CREATE a computer model, it must be fed with information from an "intelligent" being, who always (whether he's creationist or evolutionist) has a particular bias, so the results of the computer model will invariably reflect the bias of it's designer to a certain degree.
If you need the security blanket of a God, well, enjoy it. But don't pretend your emotional needs are science.
I could just as easily say that man clings to evolution because he wants the "security" that may come from believing that he will never have to stand before a perfectly righteous God on the basis of his own merit. You can spare us that argument.
Using a system that is directly analagous to biological evolution, computers are directed to discover solutions to problems. Wanna know the SCARY thing? It works like crazy. Here's a quote:
Where did the computers come from? Oops. Get back to me when a computer constructs itself from a chunk of silicon.