... sweet freaking Jesus... enough to make someone opposed to the death penlty want to administer it... scum, he and his wife... but putting their children into a caring (hopefully non-JW) home is far kinder for the kids, and locking the parents up for the rest of their natural lives is actually far crueler to the parents than turning them into crispy critters, so I'm all for it...
Abaddon
JoinedPosts by Abaddon
-
70
JW's TORTURES DAUGHTER TO DEATH
by DannyHaszard ingirl's brother testifies father fatally beat her
chicago tribune, united states - 20 minutes ago .
... avenue, chicago.
-
-
-
14
Apple Imac VS Dell
by pratt1 in.
i am currently shopping for a new computer and i am very interested in investing in an apple imac - intel.. since i have only used and owned dell computers that is compatitable with windows i am worried that i will not have access to all of the programs and systems that i normally use.. has anyone else made this transition, or are there any apple users out there?
what has been you experience with apple?
-
-
Abaddon
Unless you have to buy now, wait until you can buy an Intel based Mac that comes with Apple's Dual-Boot facility.
This means you start and run Max OS-X, or start and run Windows XP (and Visa whenever that arrives). Best of both worlds.
If you do anything creative on your computer, you might find you LOVE Apples to bits. On the other hand, Windows is useful for it's office suite.
If you can play with a friend's Mac for an afternoon, you should be able to decide; if you don't like it, a Windows box will be cheaper, no point in getting a dual-boot Apple if you'll never use it as an Apple.
-
50
Is J K Rowling a Witch?
by Gill inis j. k. rowling a witch?
the reason i ask is this, a 'nice' couple across the road are born again christian fundamentalists.
their little boy was playing with a sword and his mum told me he had been watching 'narnia' (based on the lion the witch and the wardrobe).
-
-
Abaddon
jgnat
I've enjoyed sharing this with people too; it is so hysterical there's sound evidence some numb-nut took the Onion seriously and started a fundy panic over a kiddie book. But of course, I would say that as I've read the books HAIL SATAN!! Who said that?
-
72
The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc. The Secret $1,000,000 Prize
by Deputy Dog infrom http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v9i11f.htm
the secret $1,000,000 prize
one of the best kept secrets of science is the origin of life prize sponsored by the origin of life foundation, inc. when we first ran across their web site (www.lifeorigin.org), we thought that the offer of one million dollars to anyone who could propose a plausible theory for the origin of life was just a slick creationist trick for showing that the emperor had no clothes.
-
-
Abaddon
Spectrum
Yeah, I'm right.Lungfish are dipnomorpha, not tetrapomorpha. They have distinct lungs, not highly adapted gills or 'labyrinth organs' like the Osphronemidae. They were once thought to be ancestors of amphibians, but now it is felt they have a common ancestor they share with amphibians.
Either way they are not a 'missing link' to modern mammals as they are not tetrapomorpha.
So evolutionists don't make a fuss about them as a/ they are not a missing link, b/ 'missing links' are tedious and inaccurate ideas nowadays largely coming from simplistic journalism or Creationist criticisms. In an ideal world people would learn about 'ring species' before claiming anything about 'missing links', as an understanding of one is essential to appreciate the tenuous status of the other, c/ unlike your misconception, there is no big debate going on and they can't be bothered making hysterical inaccurate claims to attract media attention as evolution doesn't need hysterical inaccurate claims to make people think it is credible; unlike Creationism.
Did your parents (assuming they were JW) severely restrict your access to books or TV programmes, or participation in science lessons? I ask as I know Evolution wasn't taught decently in American schools until the 1980's after some Court victories. It's not surprising therefore that the USA is a preserve for those who still believe in a literal creative account or a partially literal creative account; they were denied accurate knowledge in their formative years. The UK was a lot better, but your background may have denied you access to the very information that would make you realise how uncredible Creationism is.
-
72
The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc. The Secret $1,000,000 Prize
by Deputy Dog infrom http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v9i11f.htm
the secret $1,000,000 prize
one of the best kept secrets of science is the origin of life prize sponsored by the origin of life foundation, inc. when we first ran across their web site (www.lifeorigin.org), we thought that the offer of one million dollars to anyone who could propose a plausible theory for the origin of life was just a slick creationist trick for showing that the emperor had no clothes.
-
-
Abaddon
hooberus
Abaddon seems;
There isn't a "seems" as I have been quite specific earlier on in the thread. Rather than take my explicate statements you put words into my mouth. How honest. How credible.As you chose not to use my own words so as to better pursue your agenda, I'll quote them again for you. I said;
I'll listen to those worshipping their literal interpretation of accounts written by Bronze Age pastoralists (that modern science falsifies) chuntering on about abiogenesis with considerably more interest after they present a theory of abiogodesis that doesn't involve unprovable assertions (god is outside this Universe and the laws don't apply/god has always been here and had no beginning).
See? It's nothing to do with a right to criticise, it's to do with me having little interest in listening to criticisms when those making them have exactly the same fault in their theories.
Since I don't believe that "god arrose" I have no "theory" on it.
Yes, well, if you were actually responding to what I wrote rather than a straw man, you'd have noted I already covered this instance of special pleading by Creationists. Saying 'I don't believe that "god arose"' is no more a sound theory than a kid saying 'adults can't see fairies'; it's just special pleading to avoid a fatal flaw in a belief structure, with no proof that such special pleading is true.
Re: dialogue on these issues with Abaddon:
As he was previously told I intend to discontinue all further discussions with him regarding his accusations against myself and the sources I use as several more than sufficient responses have been given and I see no need to take any more time.
For previous dialogues interested readers are encouraged to read the following dialogues as well as the numerous referenced links:
Now here hooberus is replying upon people being too lazy to follow the link or do the research themselves; another typical characteristic of many Creationist supporters he plays too as well as suffers from.
If one takes the trouble to follow the link we see I answered hooberus even in the thread he quotes. Does hooberus mention it? No. Is this honest or credible? Does he omit inconvenient facts often? Yes, in this very thread as well as the one he quotes. For example, from the above link he quoted we find hooberus responding to me posting evidence of AiG's dodgy status;
Interested readers should read the arcticle carefully. Furthermore, it should be noted that AiG was given a 3 star rating (out of 4 possible) by Charity Navigator- thus hardly a "scheme."
I reply in the very same thread;
hooberus, the Wiki points out that the salary of executives is NOT included in the star rating system, thus Ken Ham paying himself TWICE the rate of a non-profit CEO CANNOT reduce the star rating AiG receives.
You knew this, it was in the article, yet you don't mention it in defending AiG. This is deceptive, but play in the mud (AiG) and you get dirty I suppose...
Note the pattern; straw-man arguments, claiming he's responded to accusations when his very responses omit mention of some of the most pertinent problems with AiG, even when these problems are clearly bought out in the text he is responding to.
Whenever I repeat the accusations regarding hooberus behaviour and choice of references he posts a link saying 'oh, this was dealt with here", or words to that effect... when that is just totally dishonest as there are still questions regarding his behaviour or choice of references he has failed to respond to properly - for all his claims he has.
But keep it up hooberus, the behaviour of Creationists in general is very nicely displayed by the way you act in these threads, it is instructive.
Spectrum
I'll get you a more detailed response re. lungfish, but slaker911 is on the right drift.
Because the debate still rages.
This is a misconception. A small minority whose science is so poor it can;t get published might think there is a raging debate, but there simply isn't. Please, by all means, provide a definition of WHAT 'a raging debate' is (what % have to doubt conventional wisdom before it is a raging debate), and then prove this % of scientists DO doubt conventional wisdom. Until then you're just repeating Creationist claims that are unfounded, no matter how they try to dress it up. Unless you can support your assertion there is some massive debate going on, you're basing your reaction on false information.
Evolution is still in big parts a theory.
Please define theory in your own words. I am taking it on trust you are sincere, unlike some people. If this is the case part of your problem may be you're not clear on what a theory is, and the difference between the theory of evolution and the evidence for evolution.
You might be convinced and dismiss creation as a myth but it's not that simple for me I need more proof especially that evolution is self-progessing/sustaining like a star doesn't need stoking by a big hand.
Why the double standard Spectrum? You don't have any proof (in the sense I think you mean) for the alternative theory, yet you demand 'proof' of evolution. Don't get me wrong, there is LOTS of proof for much of evolution. For example, the cladistic (bone based) 'family trees' of genuses and species were created BEFORE genetics and have normally been confirmed by genetics, a good indication that evolution is fundamentally the right idea, as if the theory were really out then there would have been little or no match between the cladistic trees and the genetic trees.
I am curious how, despite the emptiness of 'arguments' bought to this thread by Creationists et. al., you keep on believing their claims, rather than deciding to do some study and making your own mind up. You do seem to have a genuine interest in knowledge, so this is curious.
-
72
The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc. The Secret $1,000,000 Prize
by Deputy Dog infrom http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v9i11f.htm
the secret $1,000,000 prize
one of the best kept secrets of science is the origin of life prize sponsored by the origin of life foundation, inc. when we first ran across their web site (www.lifeorigin.org), we thought that the offer of one million dollars to anyone who could propose a plausible theory for the origin of life was just a slick creationist trick for showing that the emperor had no clothes.
-
-
Abaddon
Spectrum
Fair enough; I can be wrong
Off the top of my head, because they know that modern terapods are not direct descendents of extant species of lungfish, and therefore they not a 'missing link' from fish to modern mammals? Because if they were, the species would die out as Evolutionists would hit those Creationists who still persisted in direct Creation over the head with them, and they'd still be more Creationists than lungfish?
If that's what you're getting at I'd be happy to actually check my suppositions and give you the serious answer you deserve.
-
65
British College: Non-Muslims are "filth", "pigs" and "dogs"
by Elsewhere inhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2142403,00.html.
the times april 20, 2006 .
muslim students 'being taught to despise unbelievers as filth'.
-
-
Abaddon
HellRider
Yes, you used 'if', but the 500 years period you mentioned is not supported by comparison with the West. Western secularism is not 500 years old (as a social phenomena). Turkey has gone from traditional Muslim to a secular democracy, still very Muslim but becoming more secular socially with a commitment at governmental levels to further bring laws and practise in line with Western Democratic norms so as to gain EU membership in 83 years. And where societies have gone before, others will follow and take less time to achieve the same things by benefit of emulation.
To slap in 500 years and then say 'I said if!' is to ignore how unreasonable that figure is. It isn't hyperbole to make a point, it's gross exaggeration liable to cause alarm.
And this assumption is based on what exactly? Turkey? Turkey is a whole different matter, it has a long history of strong ties to Europe and Russia (both as an enemy and as an allie, doesn`t matter, the influence is there either way), and cannot be compared to the middle east what so ever.
Yes, up to now, which is largely my point. If Western governments give the Middle East the same opportunities Turkey has had then the Middle East will have the environment that Turkey has had to achieve its changes.
Bringing up Turkey in this matter shows how little you understand about Islam and the middle east. Oh, and by the way, yes, it did get screwed around with like Iran. Actually, Turkey has been screwed around with a whole lot more than Iran, and for several centuries.
And when was a democratic government overthrown, and a puppet King put in its place in Turkey? Did the King then act like a petty tyrant, still receive Western support, and then be overthrown by a popular religious revolution that would have never had the dry tinder of discontent in a affluent, oil-rich democracy? the interference in Turkey this century has been far far less dramatic than that in Iran, or Iraq for that matter.
I really do get Turkey and the Middle East, even if you've a different opinion.
>>>>>Judicial executions using methods that could well leave the victim in agony whilst they asphixiate is a practise of a Christian state
And what has that got to do with anything? Am I American? No, I am not. Have I in this thread, or ever, defended christian fundamentalism? No, never. Am I a christian? No. I have never glorified the U.S. in any way. But still, at least in the United States they dont whipe and stone women for having been raped. They don`t cut off the arms of a 14-yearold kid who stole a bread due to starvation. They don`t stone and hang people for homosexuality, or for having spoken about the "prophet" (piss be upon him) in less than flattering terms.
Just like you go for the dramatic and emotive 500 years, you go for what EVERYONE worth listening to agrees is wrong (Sharia law). If you stop looking at the problem so hard, maybe you will see the solution. We know what the problem is. We know why there is a problem. We know how other similar countries overcame that problem. Wringing our hands and saying '500 years' and listing the human right violations of Islamic countries doesn't actually achieve anything or bring any new information to the debate. It's emotive and dramatic, not a way to a solution.
In your own country, the moviemaker Theo van Gogh was attacked and beheaded with a butcher knife on a street in broad daylight, because he had had the audacity to insult precious Islam. You would make excuses for the assailant, I assume, and place the responsibility for that attack on van Gogh himself, for not having "understood Islam"? Yes, the americans should get rid of the death penalty. But they are not nearly as barbaric as moslem nations ruled by the Sharia-law.
Oh don't be bloody silly. You know I wouldn't support that. And again, the barbaric nature of the Sharia system is not at dispute with us. But concentrating on that simply turns the discussion into unprofitable hand-wringing. Those being harmed would far rather we supported reforms that would bring a speedier end to their suffering than we feel really sorry for them. I'm pretty sure you agree with this, so don;t know why you seem drawn to the emotive arguments that aren't arguments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hijacking planes in the name of Allah, "the most merciful"...
>>>>>>>>>..Is it any better if it's in the name of the 'Glorious People's Revolution' or 'A million dollars or everyone dies'? Check your history of hijacking, Muslims are a minority group.
Not only is that irrelevant, because we are now discussig current events, but I even think you are wrong. I would like to see some statistics on that. From what I remember, the wave of hijackings in the 80s were also done by moslems, although politically orientated and not fundamentalistic ones (the PLO).
Yeah, sure, there's billions of Muslims, but there are not billions of problem Muslims;No, there are not billions of muslims in the world. There is a little over one billion.
One billion of problem muslims.
By your maths, virtually all Muslims are problem Muslims. Could you please state that clearly just so I know what your agenda is?
>>>>>>>>>>>>Even if terrorists "took out" one or two major cities (which they have thus far failed to do), the end of extremism is inevitable; the West just has to be careful not to make many allies of the extremists by being heavy-handed or dishonest... we are facing a Generation where there will be tens of thousands of victims of terrorism, but not the escalation to Holy War so desired of the real nut-jobs. It will be a train here, a building there, but Western society (and those who want to share in its riches and freedoms) is simply too powerful force to derail.
Well, of course, if you think that is ok. Unless you happen to be on that particular train, of course. Of the 200 that died on the trains in the Madrid bombings, how many of them do you think wanted to have Muslims in their country in the first place? I bet a pretty low number. The same goes for the London-bombings, at least most surveys show that europeans in general are against immigration (you, sir, are the exception rather than the rule). So basically, all these people died because of the decisions of politicians doing exactly the opposite of the peoples will, doing exactly the opposite of what the people on the trains and in the buses wanted. That is unfair, it is not democratic, and the Europeans won`t put up with it in the long run!
Oh my... so you can do your 'rivers of blood' stuff (which may well never happen) and I am realistic and say this current situation won't end tomorrow and people will die because of it just like they have been doing (which is a statement of fact), and you have the gall to say "if you think that is ok". It is not a question of thinking it is okay, it's a question of being realistic. I don't have to get re-elected. I don't have to sell people little made-up stories to help them sleep at night about how the War on Terror will make the beardy-weirdies go way to stay in power. I'm just an interested observer and member of the society affected. I grew up in a country that had few years with no terrorist attack in the 70's-90's (UK). This is nothing new to me. I don't have to sugar coat my opinion and am suspicious of those emotionally manipulating the discussion.
Of course, what those against Immigration don't talk about a lot is how, without immigration, Western European social systems will have to be drastically changed due to the lower percentage of the population are working at any one point and higher health-care costs (both due increased lifespans).
In England in the Sixties they imported Caribbeans to do the jobs no one wanted. They settled, had families, and then when there were less jobs 'everyone' thought they should go home as they'd out-stayed their usefulness and were taking jobs away from 'real' English people.
Some people think that is okay. I think it's disgusting.
Some politicians pander to the xenophobic attitudes in some communities and build Immigrants up to be big bad monsters, draining cash from the economy, so 'something must be done'. But their arguments are not credible, they're simply whoring to the voters. It does unfortunately work as recent successes of far right-wing (often 'sanitised' versions of previously openly-racist political parties) parties shows.
Democracy is a wonderful thing, but that doesn't mean the public is always right. It isn't in politicians interests to educate the voters; it would be FAR harder to win the votes of a more politically aware populace, and would typically result in a large number of political parties reducing the level of power available to any one. Some European countries are better in this respect than others - some like the UK are terrible and even have non-proportional voting systems that normally further concentrate power in one large party.
But politicians are in it to win votes; and if getting ill-informed votes for stupid policies is easier than educating the electorate to make hard choices, they'll go for the easy option.
People thinking Europe will stay rich and white if Immigration is strictly controlled are kidding themselves. It might stay white (although without mass repatriation some areas would become charmingly coffee coloured over a few generations - and I mean through inter-marriage, not the higher birth rates of 1st and 2nd generation immigrants who don't intermarry). Oh, and I'm not implying you're racist; but effectively Immigration is a white - non-white issue, even if that is not the difference that motivates you.
Oh, such a Europe wouldn't be very rich. Lower per-capita GDP.
And most populations would slowly start shrinking... imagine having 1 in 10 schools close every two generations...
But yeah, stopping immigration is a far better idea than learning how to be human being and share this planet. The years of being a three-year-old hiding all it's toys in the corner so no one else can play with them - and taking any other child's toys when it felt like it - have gone for the West. It's enlightened self-interest to work to raise the whole world's economic prosperity; things will be worse any other way.
MaudDib
True. That's why it's so dangerous to have Bush in power right now.
I wish I'd thought of that reply, LOL.
-
65
British College: Non-Muslims are "filth", "pigs" and "dogs"
by Elsewhere inhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2142403,00.html.
the times april 20, 2006 .
muslim students 'being taught to despise unbelievers as filth'.
-
-
Abaddon
double post
-
65
British College: Non-Muslims are "filth", "pigs" and "dogs"
by Elsewhere inhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2142403,00.html.
the times april 20, 2006 .
muslim students 'being taught to despise unbelievers as filth'.
-
-
Abaddon
Hellrider
....my point was to stress the urgency in this. If Islam is going to use as long as christianity did, then we`re going to have to live with this medieval version of Islam for 500 years more.
And your assumption it will take 500 years is based on what exactly? Western secularism was treading a new path. The Islamic world (to be precise the Arabic/Persian Islamic world, as most other major population groups of Muslims are NOT comparable to the Arabic/Persian Islamic world) will not take nearly as long; they way is clear. Look at Turkey; it started with secularism earlier, it didn't get screwed around with like Iran, and although not out of the wood yet is proof a Islamic state can live alongside Christian ones and move towards closer political and trading links.
That's why the conservative elements of the Arab Islamic world are so threatened, they can see the inevitable is not a matter of Centuries away, but a Generation away unless they achieve their aims and drive the world to a religious war.
Chopping of limbs on thieves, and stoning of criminals in the name of Allah.
Judicial executions using methods that could well leave the victim in agony whilst they asphixiate is a practise of a Christian state.
Hijacking planes in the name of Allah, "the most merciful"...
Is it any better if it's in the name of the 'Glorious People's Revolution' or 'A million dollars or everyone dies'? Check your history of hijacking, Muslims are a minority group.
You are falling victim to the panic-mongering. Have you actually counted how many people live in the 'problem' Arabic Islamic countries?
Yeah, sure, there's billions of Muslims, but there are not billions of problem Muslims; even counting all former Soviet States ending in 'stan' there are only 360 million residences of such states and the number of extremists is FAR lower than the totl population. As the level of millitary advancement and GDP of these countires is on average biugger all - apart from a handful we armed, liked Saudi - there is not this massive risk some might like you to believe. They're too busy trying to stay fed to go to war.
Sensible Western policies will ensure the non-extremist majorities in those countries don't get sucked into supporting the extremists out of sympathy, and the BIG Muslims countries (486 million people in Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Nigeria) remain disposed as they currently are (with real minorities of extremists ).
Even if terrorists "took out" one or two major cities (which they have thus far failed to do), the end of extremism is inevitable; the West just has to be careful not to make many allies of the extremists by being heavy-handed or dishonest... we are facing a Generation where there will be tens of thousands of victims of terrorism, but not the escalation to Holy War so desired of the real nut-jobs. It will be a train here, a building there, but Western society (and those who want to share in its riches and freedoms) is simply too powerful force to derail.
If the West ensures it is fair, and continues to outsource jobs to more and more countires thus 'sharing the wealth', there will be FAR more attractive options to Yussef in Palestine then blowing himself up.
The danger lies in thinking of this as a religious war, as that will drive the extremeist's co-religionists towards the extremeists, rather than towards us.
The single biggest thing that can be done to show the West is willing to play fair is peace in Palestine.
I'm willing to bet my grandchildren's school history books will refer to that as a 'watershed'.
-
72
The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc. The Secret $1,000,000 Prize
by Deputy Dog infrom http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v9i11f.htm
the secret $1,000,000 prize
one of the best kept secrets of science is the origin of life prize sponsored by the origin of life foundation, inc. when we first ran across their web site (www.lifeorigin.org), we thought that the offer of one million dollars to anyone who could propose a plausible theory for the origin of life was just a slick creationist trick for showing that the emperor had no clothes.
-
-
Abaddon
ellderwho
Once again all you've done is danced around several problems with evolution, and why you continue on like evolution is problem free, is rife with ignorance.
I responded to them; the ones you posted were all arguments from ignorance, not a decent hypothesis or theory showing problems with evolutionary theory, and Behe's claim of irreducable complexity has been proven wrong. If you're too lazy to do the research you could ask and I'd be more than happy to point you in the direction of references.
Oh - you can look up the phrase 'argument from ignorance' if you like; another term applied to such arguments is 'argument from personal incredulity'. They're fallacious arguments, and that has nothing to do with disagreements about oral sex.
It is you claim this argument is put forward by 'my camp'. Exactly the dishonest tactics used by ID-ers in their 'wedge' startegy. How one website can represent 'my camp', I don't know, but it's typical of the quality of your claims.
I say I don't care who put bad arguments forward as it is the quality of the argument not the attributation that is important. Your lack of genuine interest in discussiing this topic is shown by you STILL having failed to respond to my analysis of the claims you posted, your honesty is shown by you claiming I didn't address them. If you didn't understand the responses, ask for help.
Just 'cause a bunch of self-described Evolutionists say x and y you act like there's a problem with evolution or that the current state of abiogenesis means something.
Don't you think it is outstanding intellectually lazy and complacent of yourself to just accept their claims at face value?
Didn't you learn ANYTHING from getting out of a cult? Like to investigate claims people make rather than choosing the claim you like and following it blindly, without regard to whether the claim is right or not?
Spectrum
Serious answers to serious questions; silly answers to silly questions (although I suspect you think you're making some clever point).
Thus in answer to your question; Ni!