your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.
k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.
in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.
caedes I'm not asserting any kind of creator or God or spiritual being although I can see why you may infer that from that post. What i am saying is that there is huge scope for creativity in evolution when we bring time and chance and imagination into the equation.
I didn't say you were asserting that?!
your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.
k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.
in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.
I studied physics as part of my engineering degree, despite this I wouldn't dream of suggesting that I know enough about physics to actually make the kind of statement you did. What I do know is that the question you claim to have concluded that the answer is the uncertainty principle is not one that has been answered yet and is in fact being studied by the folks at CERN using the large hadron collider. Finding evidence for the answer would be world news in the science community.
I can't see any subterfuge in my post, I thought I was just plainly calling you out for claiming something that you cant possibly know. I can't recall having crossed paths before, were you talking nonsense on another thread?
every time isis commit one of their atrocities, well-meaning folks mumble self-loathing apologies on behalf of "the west".
noam chomsky and his sort lead a chorus of masochistic confessions.
apparently everybody is to blame for islamic terrorism (according to bill nye global warming causes isis) - apart from islamic terrorists of course.
It is lone individuals with the vast majority law abiding citizens, hardly a force threatening the world or randomly butchering strangers or critics in the same way.
That is exactly what you have in the muslim community the vast majority are law abiding citizens. The people who commit these acts are lone individuals with tenuous links to ISIS. There are plenty of doctors at abortion clinics who might have a different opinion about the dangers of christian extremists.
There's a difference between tit-for-tat violence and applying justice and enforcing law and order. The rules change when there is an outright war scenario but there comes a point where people cannot be contained or rehabilitated and the only course left is to remove them from the world.
I haven't disagreed that force is needed, I just disagree that the 'kill them all' rhetoric is helpful or conducive to defusing the situation. The situation is not outright war it's terrorism and the terrorists can merge back into the general population at a moments notice and we have no way to counter that short of genocide.
every time isis commit one of their atrocities, well-meaning folks mumble self-loathing apologies on behalf of "the west".
noam chomsky and his sort lead a chorus of masochistic confessions.
apparently everybody is to blame for islamic terrorism (according to bill nye global warming causes isis) - apart from islamic terrorists of course.
You're obviously incapable of understanding basic english statements or are willfully misunderstanding and trying to suggest that "they" refers to all muslims and not all militant islamists which was clear from the context.
There has been clear conflation of ISIS and muslims throughout this entire thread which is why I asked the question of how far you think this mass killing should go.
History must be full of examples where the mass killing of insurgent enemies worked out really well as an approach to peace?
As I have said there is no reason to suppose that these terrorists are going to give up solely through negotiation but neither is the answer trying to kill all of them.
every time isis commit one of their atrocities, well-meaning folks mumble self-loathing apologies on behalf of "the west".
noam chomsky and his sort lead a chorus of masochistic confessions.
apparently everybody is to blame for islamic terrorism (according to bill nye global warming causes isis) - apart from islamic terrorists of course.
Actually it was Simon who I quoted.
However the point still stands since the main thrust of this thread has been the fact that ISIS are not a rational political force and the strawman that western liberals do not accept that fact.
ISIS also kills Sunni Muslims who transgress Sharia law, and kills Sunnis who reject ISIS. Just because ISIS kills other Muslims doesn't necessarily make it un-Islamic. Muslims have been slaughtering Muslims of different sects for over a millennia.
So have christians, I assume that you don't take the same extreme view about christian extremists? The point is that the actions of ISIS tell a very different story to the simplistic explanation given in the OP and understanding and accepting that people (especially criminals with no respect for human life) might have motivations other than the ones they admit to.
But what about Abu Sayyaf? It is a terrorist group based in the Phillippines. It recently killed two hostages - John Ridsdel and Robert Hall. What Western foreign policy prompted this?
What about them? Have I claimed that western foreign policy is to blame for all terrorism? No, I said it was a contributing factor in the example I gave. Please don't misquote me again.
The second takeaway point for this thread made by supporters of the OP is the conflation of mainstream muslims and ISIS.
You stated that the only good jihadi is a dead one, how far do want to perpetuate the violence? Because the western world is never going to be able to kill all of them. I can't see any difference between your rhetoric and theirs other than the fact that you are of course an armchair hawk.
every time isis commit one of their atrocities, well-meaning folks mumble self-loathing apologies on behalf of "the west".
noam chomsky and his sort lead a chorus of masochistic confessions.
apparently everybody is to blame for islamic terrorism (according to bill nye global warming causes isis) - apart from islamic terrorists of course.
If the problem is Islam itself and to quote 'they just need to die' does that mean the answer is the mass slaughter of muslims? If not why not?
My second question is why do ISIS kill muslims? Given that their reason to fight is listed rather simplistically as because they want everyone to be muslim and that they kill more muslims than anyone else it would seem to me that they are sending very mixed messages.
The other problem is that of course not everyone fights for the same reason or with the same level of understanding of the conflict. A western convert is not going to have the same view as an unemployed local from Afghanistan or someone in a leadership position within ISIS.
Whilst I have always accepted that ISIS hate western liberal societies I can also accept that western involvement in the middle east is a contributing factor as is the fact that huge disparities in wealth in the middle east help ISIS recruit. As ever life and politics are not black and white.
The answer to this issue is not going to be won by just more bombs and guns, but that statement doesn't mean that more bombs and gun aren't needed at all. You can attack a problem from more than one direction.
your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.
k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.
in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.
My own conclusions stem from how conditions during the the short period that the early universe was forming favoured one part of a pair over the other for an infinitely short period of time and this resulted in the differences we see over the longer term. It all boils down to the uncertainty principle formulated by Heisenberg in the 1920s.
Could you let the people at CERN know that you have solved one of the biggest questions in physics, I'm sure they would be delighted. Saves doing all that unnecessary experimentation if you have found out it all boils down to the uncertainty principle.
I would warn you, they are going to want to see your maths. But that shouldn't be a problem, I mean who would go around claiming to have concluded the answer to one of the big scientific questions if all they had was nothing more than the most superficial knowledge of science.
your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.
k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.
in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.
Wasn't it in the hand, the sleeping black baby?
No, I'm pretty sure it was in his head! ...
err, I'll get my coat
Never mind the fact that the construction above wouldn't even survive being floated, that keel wouldn't be capable of supporting that structure in the water if it isn't capable of supporting it on dry land
You can see the huge steel and concrete support structures going up through the entire structure.
Shows a lack of faith!
The irony of Kate posting this after the thread on guided evolution is monumental though.
your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.
k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.
in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.
It's funny because if I have hard empirical evidence I would really enjoy it if people 'were out to prove me wrong' If all I had was magical thinking and flim-flammery then I would have good reason to be scared of a debate.
