aramike

quote: Originally posted by TRD: Muslims do believe that they worship the same God as Christians and Jews, and from everyting ive heard and read their religion says to be tolerant of other beliefs.[ 10-26-2001: Message edited by: TRD ] Yes, they do believe that in the textual sense. However, that's an issue all its own. Is it the same God simply by calling him the same or do the attributes differ so much as such is mere semantic reasoning? The Christian God lays down the first law, the covenant. The the new covenant is given through Christ (as was prophesied in the OT). This new covenant closed out the old one. Now, Islam would effectively be a THIRD covenant. The problem with that theistically is the fact that the new covenant and derivitive prophesy has yet to be fulfilled. So, in theological practice, the Allah and God are two quite different entities.

quote: You continue to ignore the fact that there are some pretty good FACTS to back up evolution. If Evolution had been debunked it would not be a theory. If Scientists had to take evolution on faith, it would NOT BE a scientific theory. So until Evolution is kicked out of ALL science circles as a total and complete failure, then you CANNOT say that it MUST be taken on FAITH. As long as scientists hold on to the theory, it has FACTS they feel back it up!!1: You're assuming that scientists are infallible and therefore are the authorities on facts. 2: The facts that evolution is based on could mean any NUMBER of things not relating to evolution itself. 3: There are NO, ZERO, NADDA, facts that supports evolution exclusively. Just because scientists feel a theory is a good thing to follow, doesn't make it so. Such is the reason the Earth was supposedly flat for thousands of years. quote: When Evolution is tossed out on it's can, then I will believe that ALL the facts that back it up were false, but until then, SORRY!!You default your own statement. If those facts are indeed facts, then they, by nature, cannot be false. The facts that support evolution are not exclusive to evolution. They are FACTS, but they do not necessarily lead to evolution, or more to the point, speciation. For the record, the only facts that support evolution are the FACTS that we reproduce, we live, we die, and we survive. All of those facts are indeed facts. But facts do not necessarily mean EVIDENCE. What it looks like you're doing is taking those facts and making them mean that macro-evolution itself is a fact. "Facts" and "evidence" are two distinctly separate things.

quote: I've looked at 'Creation Science' literature and web sites and all they do is attempt to debunk classical research and evidence, without providing a single shred of evidence towards a meaningful alternative. The term 'Creation Science' itself is a contradiction in terms; Creation is a religious doctrine, which requires the faith to believe in it; science is the objective measurement and observation of data, leading to the proof or disproof of a theory.I agree with you in part that most creation-based sites seem to spend all their time debunking evolution. However, you must keep in mind that creation, by nature, is metaphysical. It's NOT something that can be scientifically determined at this time. Metaphysical versus physical and all that noise. So, while we may not have physical evidence of the EVENT of creation, we DO have physical evidence of creation itself -- that would be everything that exists. The problem then comes in as tying creation to everything that exists. Combining metaphysical and physical. No dice. We can, however, use some logic in determining such things. First instance: how would something come from nothing? Secondly, if the biological foundations that made life possible via evolution existed, where did THEY come from? Third, you've got to look at mathematical probability. Life is very environmentally-dependant. Fourth, you've got to look at the principle of "Natural Guiding". Evolution is firmly BASED upon the assertion that all life has a will to survive. The question I pose is, where does that will come from? Why would life, especially in its initial stages (devoid of any semblance of sentience or {gasp}, intelligence) have a will to survive? And finally, assuming that there is a will to survive, why is that adaptive survival species-oriented and NOT individualistic? All of those questions have not been answered by science yet they are PIVOTAL to the theory itself. Scientific theories should not have so many holes in them, I don't think. And, even moreso, scientific theories should not make so many assumptions.

quote: This is where is gets sticky. Of course it does. Congress may make no law regarding the establishment of religion. My belief is that it should not also tacitly approve one religion over another. Congress condones it, it must be law. ????It's not at all that separation of church and state does not exist in a sense, it's that it doesn't exist in the way that many people today take it to exist (see my first post in this thread). Congress cannot make a law ordering the establishment of religion, banning the establishment of religion, or as appeasement to AN establishment of religion (eg, a church). In fact, that seems to PROHIBIT congress from making a law that BANS prayer, ANYWHERE. Such would be interfering with religion (which is expressly against the 1st ammendment). At any rate, church and state sep does NOT mean that the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed; it does NOT mean that religion and discussion of such is not allowed in public forum, etc. CHURCH and RELIGION do not mean INDIVIDUAL, and individuals can practice in any way they please, regardless of government activities.

Now, now -- you shouldn't keep what isn't yours. You should return it. After some research, it looks like the return address is: Mike Walters 1234 W. Road Ave. Milwaukee WI 53210 (PS: that isn't my real address)

LOL!

Jaguar: Don't worry about the emotion comment. It did fire me up, but how can I stay mad? At any rate, there are NO transitionals, when there should be an abundancy of them. Gallion: I think it's safe to say that this thread "evolved".

quote: Originally posted by thanatos: Thanks Mike!I see I got demoted from Commander to Ensign while away. keep up the good fight. Doc You were a victim of the purge. Check in more often! quote: In my view organized religion has no place in the 21st century. It was needed back then when we were still primitives and needed to be controled like sheep. Hence the leaders and warlords used religion as a device of control. Nowadays almost all of us can think for ourselves. The rest, well, they're all bundled up with Al-Qeeda, the IRA and them Branch Davidian freaks.Not quite. You're talking about government controlled religion. The people can and DO think for themselves, and many of us choose a faith to follow.

quote: Originally posted by MrkGrismer: Sorry, I have WAY too many female friends, those type of conclusions make sense to them... (and apparently they may have been a bad influence on me) I'm not trying to judge the motivations of another individual, all I am doing is offering a possible motivation. The article said he took the poster down because he was offended, so there must have been a reason he was offended. I've had women tell me that they were offended by being told they were attractive by a male friend, because they resented their friend thinking of them as a sex object. So, no, people don't always make a lot of sense. Heh, a lot of bizarre things make sense to women. But like Silk said, being offended doesn't give anyone the right to do ANYTHING. For instance, if I was wearing a Packers shirt and some guy with a Bears shirt took offense, he wouldn't have the right to tear my shirt off (and, if he did that, I would exercise my non-right to kick the crap out of him).

quote: Why would you make the statement? There is certainly no rational reason to make the statement "*I* don't run" unless there was a reason for you to think the person(s) you are making that statement to would have reason to believe that you do, infact, run.BINGO! The terrorists believe that their acts will make us "run" from our activities that they dislike. We're simply saying that we do not. Still, that in NO WAY implies that anyone else runs. quote: If there was no chance that you could be perceived as a person who runs, then there is no rational reason to state the obvious.Yep. Still doesn't infer that someone else does. quote: So me saying, "I don't judge opinions that differ from my own as ridiculous." has no impact on you then.Touche' But I don't consider that an "opinion". You're trying to judge the motivations of another individual. There are NO indications of what you said. Furthermore, what your conclusions are don't actually make any sense. Would be just like me saying that my car was the actual reason the attack occurred.

Hey Doc, welcome back!

Quite a few people try to call the Koran (or Qu'ran, take your pick) a peaceable book of a peaceable religion. No less than *20* times in that book are Muslims called on to KILL people who do not share the faith. The extremists aren't really extremists, they're just people who take the book verbatim. All others are simply realists.

quote: When in todays biological terms, evolution simply means change. Something that can't be disagreed with because we all know that things change. Evolution's original meaning is what is being debated alot of times.Not quite accurate. In today's terms, "evolution" means an adaptive change. quote: Is this what you were speaking of when you stated ALL those logical steps have failed?No, I think of the logical inconsistancies in the millions of mathematical models created. Further, I think about the odds of me winning the Power Ball then I think that evolution into intelligence would be akin to me winning the Power Ball 5 million times in a period of 2000 years. quote: I've read some very convincing stuff analyzing prophecy that leads me to believe that God in fact does exist, as there are small "miracles" and big ones that have happened throughout our history that cannot be explained scientifically.On a personal note, I've had small miracles happen to me personally. I know that God exists ... he talks to me. quote: Darwin used to the term evolution to describe the change brought about by natural selection. Darwin considered this change to be constant and gradual. It has later been shown (by Gould and Dawkins) that evolution in fact works in spurts.It was NOT "shown" by them, it was merely stipulated. There's no more evidence of that theory than the gradual theory. In fact, that theory was put forth not with especially high evidence or with demeriting evidence to the contrary, they made it in order to compensate for the lack of transitional fossils.

quote: The first problem with the Big Bang theory is that thing's just don't explode without some kind trigger/catalyst/etc.Heh, that's the only necessary problem with the theory to debunk it. Oh, and where did that "super-duper-compressed-matter" come from?

quote: Howso? The statement "These colors do not run" can mean a variety of things. But literally it can only really mean that the colors cannot, or will not, run for some reason. Since colors cannot logically run in the sense of fleeing, the statement must be referring to the color-fastness of the flag.Exactly. That is the obvious implication. Now, once THAT is implied, all implications coming from that meaning are derivitive of an implication. Semantics... Sometimes deciphering an implication is necessary. In this case, there is one that is obvious and necessary. Anything beyond that is merely stretching it. What you're suggesting would be the same thing as me saying that the poster implied, to ME, that my green shirt does indeed run. Pretty much anyone would write that off as ludicrous sensitivity. quote: However, I don't think anyone here thinks the poster is an advertisment for the bleach-resistance of the American flag the implied meaning of the statement is what is being pushed. Since the implied statement is that the US doesn't run (assumedly, from a just fight, and not just any fight) then the only reason such a statement would have a reason to be made is if there was the possibility of a perception in the other direction (that the US DOES run). Since the creator of the poster saw a need to advertise that the US does NOT run, that creator must believe that there is a perception that the victims of attacks would have a tendancy to run.Uhm, no. Why would the creator have to assume the exact opposite of the OTHER party? That, again, is absurd. When making a postive statement about oneself, it only applies to oneself. Like, if I say that *I* don't run, does that mean or imply that YOU DO? Hardly. That simply means that I could run but I do not. quote: So it is certainly NOT absurd that a Muslim, regardless of citizenship, who has the perception that the US is at war with Muslim society (incorrect perception or not) might infer that "These Colors Do Not Run" on the poster is calling the Muslim world cowards. Especially if that Muslim secretly holds the opinion that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are running from the fight, and hiding.STILL absurd. Stretching something that much would be the same as me calling you a terrorist sympathizer simply because of that statement. That would ALSO be absurd. When I say I don't run, that does not mean that my ADVERSARY runs. When a nation says it, that HARDLY means that ITS adversary runs. It only means that its adversary won't MAKE US RUN. If it isn't absurd that he assumes that, then it certainly isn't absurd for me to feel that this gentlemen is a terrorist himself. Still, saying that something doesn't run is NOT, in ANY WAY, saying that something else IS running. That whole premise is ridiculous. quote: In other words, he may have been offended because he was ashamed of being associated with them.Doubtful.

quote: No, it ONLY says "These colors do not run." A statement which really only makes logical sense when you are talking about whether the flag is color-fast or not. If you infer that it means the US doesn't back down from a fight then it would seem hypocritical of you to deny that another person cannot infer that it accuses others of running.Absolutely absurd. Your adding an implication to an IMPLICATION! Whoa, it's deep in here. quote: Some might say that America should respect all life, blah, blah, blah. Personally I'm all for large numbers of Sniper's armed with Barret Light 50s.I'm with you on that. quote: Note that I didn't state 'enemies'. Note that I said, "whatever entity the US is currently at war with".Which most of us call "enemies"... quote: Personally I know that means the terrorists and their supporters, but it is increasingly apparent that the Muslim world is not so sure.Doesn't matter. The man is an American. Obviously we haven't declared war on ourselves. quote: I'm not trying to defend this guy or anything, I think what he did was wrong -- just as wrong as anyone else desecrating a piece of property. The only reason I posted my counter-point was because it hadn't been mentioned. Despite some people inquiring as to HOW somebody could be offended by the poster.Hehe, I still think your point is wrong. Especially that part where you have the guy implying something from something implied.

quote: Originally posted by Jaguar: And where did you hear this? News to me!! Not news at all. Or, at least, it's old news. Evolution is also dang near a mathematical impossibility on a macro level. Micro-evolution is factual, but speciation has never been shown as fact.

quote: Originally posted by Paddy Gregory: Hey, wait a minute now, this was sent to me by a friend in the US. The threads were getting kind of heavy around here, so it was an attempt to try and turn things around a little. Sorry if you can't see it that way. The fact I live in Switzerland is beside the point, I nearly lost a family member in NY, the fact she was late for work probably saved her live. So don't tell me I don't f*cking care, you don't know me from Adam. Just trying to put a different slant on things, that's all. You're not going to put a different "slant" on things by posting that ONLY 5000 died. That's devaluing life by putting it into a statistic. It's akin to saying that 1 million people died but 4 billion lived. Oh, and Soback, please refrain from jumping to conclusions. The fact that he's in Switzerland means nothing. [ 10-22-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

quote: Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: I take it that lining them up in front of a firing squad is out of the question then? *Sigh* Unfortunately so, unfortunately so...

quote: Originally posted by Melcar: Steve perhaps you could read through this thread again to tell me where anybody said that they shouldn't be able to? I seem to have missed that post somewhere. The only thing I Said was school SANCTIONED. In other words the Teacher/Principal/School worker - getting before a class and saying "Let us Pray". If a group of students have time during school hours(Recess, Whatever) and they get together and pray instead of play, who CARES? That is not the ISSUE! The issue is not government in this regard, it's performance. For instance, a private company would not want its personnel to approach prospective clients with prayer. That would hinder the performance. Same thing with educators -- it would hinder the fact that they are supposed to be teaching. Now, if the teaching of the day is complete (school day is over), the teacher has a RIGHT to pray and ask students to join. The students have a RIGHT to decline. Why is that? Because that prayer would NOT interfere with ANYONE's rights.

quote: Originally posted by MrkGrismer: Counterpoint: The phrase, "These colors do not run." implies that whatever entity the US is currently at war with has a penchance for running. In otherwords, it can be considered calling 'them' cowards.Most likely why the person was offended. Just a thought. Another counter-point: The phrase "these colors don't run" implies nothing of the short. It ONLY says that the US does not run. How on EARTH does that mean the other side runs? In any case, the point is moot. At what point does America have to actually respect its blood enemies? Talk about ridiculous... quote: An American of Muslim descent.You've just defaulted your own argument. If "These colors don't run" means our enemies do, indeed run, that would mean terrorists run. Terrorists are our enemies, not muslims. Therefore, by your argument, the only way this person should be offended is if he was a terrorist, or a sympathizer.

quote: Originally posted by Gomez: I believe that may be because of a few things. Perhaps he was referring to American (continent, not country) genocide...or perhaps his history wasn't detailed enough to know about the masses of genocide throughout history. The not-so recent past (500 years) is much clearer than the distant past (1000+ years). Also, this country has a tendency to focus it's education on things that happen(ed) in N & S America. My point is simple: he should learn his history. And he should make his parallels complete. If he's going to blame the US for things that happened even BEFORE its inception, his credibility is a tad low in my opinion.