| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"Deuteros" |
| Date: |
01 Jan 2006 07:23:20 PM |
| Object: |
A not very intelligent design debate |
Islamicists have been getting a lot of bad press lately, but maybe it's time
to give them a bit of a break and go after the fundamentalist Christians.
And what better opportunity than the idiocy over whether Intelligent Design
should be taught in US schools?
For the uninitiated, intelligent design is the notion that the human body is
too complicated to be the product of mere chance mutations, and therefore
must have been designed by some greater being. The word 'God' of course is
never mentioned, but it doesn't take a degree in logic to make this step.
Creationism is for people who are too stupid to accept that they descended
from monkeys, and today those stupid people have received a slap on the fig
leaf by Judge John E. Jones III, who ruled that intelligent design is
religious and that its inclusion in public school violates the [USA]
constitutional separation of church and state.
The intellectual elites of course all support this decision, because they
recognize Intelligent Design for what it is - God bothering masquerading as
science. Any self respecting rational human would object to this being
taught in schools as an alternative to Darwinian evolution. Wouldn't they?
Well maybe not. Maybe this is just a stupid argument to have. If people want
to teach their children that a man called Adam spontaneously appeared some
6000 years ago hiding his excitement under a fig leaf then what's the
problem? And if people want to pay others to teach this to their children,
what's the problem? And if they want their children to be taught this at
school then .. well .. what's the problem?
A voucher system would leave it up to the parents to decide what kind of
school to send their children to. Some would choose schools with a strict 3
'R's curriculum, some would choose schools with a deep commitment to
political correctness, WIMMIN!'s Studies, creationism or stamp collecting.
Et viva la difference.
The problem, of course, is the collectivist notion that all children have to
be taught the same thing. We can't leave it up to mere parents to decide
what the schools should teach - only a powerful all-knowing government could
make that decision. And no matter how disgusted someone is with the
government's decision, they would prefer to fight to control government
policy than to simply promote a system which allows them to make their own
decisions.
It is ironic that the symbol for creationism is also the symbol for human
choice. Christians are adamant that God gave Adam free choice - he, like the
rest of us, was free to sin. But so many are so adamant that force should be
used to stop others making mistakes. The inspiration that lets them know how
to stop others making the wrong decisions about their lives - it must be
truly divine.
.
|
|
| User: "Stan de SD" |
|
| Title: Re: A not very intelligent design debate |
01 Jan 2006 07:48:16 PM |
|
|
"Deuteros" <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:18ypujh9s9u2y.dlg@sec12-orange.ultima.com...
Well maybe not. Maybe this is just a stupid argument to have. If people
want
to teach their children that a man called Adam spontaneously appeared some
6000 years ago hiding his excitement under a fig leaf then what's the
problem? And if people want to pay others to teach this to their children,
what's the problem? And if they want their children to be taught this at
school then .. well .. what's the problem?
A voucher system would leave it up to the parents to decide what kind of
school to send their children to. Some would choose schools with a strict
3
'R's curriculum, some would choose schools with a deep commitment to
political correctness, WIMMIN!'s Studies, creationism or stamp collecting.
Et viva la difference.
Seems like you answered your own question there. Schools based on
indoctrinating students with flimsy fringe theories (whether theological or
secular in nature) wouldn't have too much impact if parents had to make the
choice deciding whether little Johnny or Janie learn that type of stuff, or
something more useful.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John P" |
|
| Title: Re: A not very intelligent design debate |
01 Jan 2006 07:39:45 PM |
|
|
"Deuteros" wrote in a message
Islamicists have been getting a lot of bad press lately...
Deservedly so.
... but maybe it's time to give them a bit of a break and go
after the fundamentalist Christians.
It's always been time for that. To think that a supposedly educated society
would continue to buy into ridiculous mythological stories about magic gods
in 2006 is truly sad.
Well maybe not. Maybe this is just a stupid argument to have. If people
want
to teach their children that a man called Adam spontaneously appeared some
6000 years ago hiding his excitement under a fig leaf then what's the
problem? And if people want to pay others to teach this to their children,
what's the problem? And if they want their children to be taught this at
school then .. well .. what's the problem?
No problem. If people want their kids taught mythology as reality, send them
to a catholic (or other religion of the parents choosing) school.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: A not very intelligent design debate |
01 Jan 2006 08:23:49 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Islamicists have been getting a lot of bad press lately, but maybe it's time
to give them a bit of a break and go after the fundamentalist Christians.
And what better opportunity than the idiocy over whether Intelligent Design
should be taught in US schools?
For the uninitiated, intelligent design is the notion that the human body is
too complicated to be the product of mere chance mutations, and therefore
must have been designed by some greater being. The word 'God' of course is
never mentioned, but it doesn't take a degree in logic to make this step.
Creationism is for people who are too stupid to accept that they descended
from monkeys, and today those stupid people have received a slap on the fig
leaf by Judge John E. Jones III, who ruled that intelligent design is
religious and that its inclusion in public school violates the [USA]
constitutional separation of church and state.
The intellectual elites of course all support this decision, because they
recognize Intelligent Design for what it is - God bothering masquerading as
science. Any self respecting rational human would object to this being
taught in schools as an alternative to Darwinian evolution. Wouldn't they?
Yes.
Well maybe not. Maybe this is just a stupid argument to have. If people want
to teach their children that a man called Adam spontaneously appeared some
6000 years ago hiding his excitement under a fig leaf then what's the
problem?
Not much. Some might argue that it's child abuse.
And if people want to pay others to teach this to their children,
what's the problem?
Nothing at all. It's perfectly legal.
And if they want their children to be taught this at
school then .. well .. what's the problem?
Again, none at all.
A voucher system would leave it up to the parents to decide what kind of
school to send their children to.
Parents are already free to make that decision.
[...]
The problem, of course, is the collectivist notion that all children have to
be taught the same thing.
Strawman. There are many different kinds of public schools.
[...]
It is ironic that the symbol for creationism is also the symbol for human
choice. Christians are adamant that God gave Adam free choice - he, like the
rest of us, was free to sin.
A choice which creationists are deeply opposed to. They want all
children forced to learn the creationist religion.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: A not very intelligent design debate |
14 Jan 2006 12:58:18 PM |
|
|
Deuteros crossposted to an assinine array of news groups:
Creationism is for people who are too stupid to accept that they descended
from monkeys,
If you're going to try and make a case for or against something, you
really need to learn to characterize it correctly, otherwise, any point
you might conceivably have is dissipated.
and today those stupid people have received a slap on the fig
leaf by Judge John E. Jones III, who ruled that intelligent design is
religious and that its inclusion in public school violates the [USA]
constitutional separation of church and state.
The intellectual elites of course all support this decision, because they
recognize Intelligent Design for what it is - God bothering masquerading as
science. Any self respecting rational human would object to this being
taught in schools as an alternative to Darwinian evolution. Wouldn't they?
Well maybe not. Maybe this is just a stupid argument to have. If people want
to teach their children that a man called Adam spontaneously appeared some
6000 years ago hiding his excitement under a fig leaf then what's the
problem? And if people want to pay others to teach this to their children,
what's the problem? And if they want their children to be taught this at
school then .. well .. what's the problem?
The problem is that it isn't science, it's religion and they already
get their "equal time" in church for that. Teaching lies masquerading
as fact in school is going to screw up both individual people and the
nation in the long term. *That's* why mythology isn't taught in
science classes.
A voucher system would leave it up to the parents to decide what kind of
school to send their children to. Some would choose schools with a strict 3
'R's curriculum, some would choose schools with a deep commitment to
political correctness, WIMMIN!'s Studies, creationism or stamp collecting.
Et viva la difference.
Yeah, because the one thing which brings people together is parceling
them up into little niches all of which steadfastly believe they know
better or deserve better than everyone else. That brings people
together all right - it brings them together violently. The proof of
this is cluttering the history of the world.
The problem, of course, is the collectivist notion that all children have to
be taught the same thing. We can't leave it up to mere parents to decide
what the schools should teach - only a powerful all-knowing government could
make that decision.
Now you're confusing two separate issues: who controls what is taught,
and the validity of what is taught. The prevailing scientific view is
what is taught in science classes, and that view is not changed by
mythological belief systems, by political complexion or by parental
beliefs.
This is not science versus religion, or government versus people, or
atheism versus belief. If it were, none of the church organizations
would support teaching evolution:
http://tinyurl.com/dpdq7
Both children and the nation are going to be damaged, seriously
damaged, if they grow up thinking fiction is fact.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "CPTFreedm" |
|
| Title: Re: A not very intelligent design debate |
04 Jan 2006 02:20:05 PM |
|
|
Deuteros wrote:
Islamicists have been getting a lot of bad press lately, but maybe it's time
to give them a bit of a break and go after the fundamentalist Christians.
Why? Christians aren't blowing up Churches and market places and women
and children. Nor enslaving (for practical purposes) them either.
And what better opportunity than the idiocy over whether Intelligent Design
should be taught in US schools?
The only "idiocy" is excluding all possibilities for examination. Based
on nothing other than a fixed dogmatic doctrine.
For the uninitiated, intelligent design is the notion that the human body is
too complicated to be the product of mere chance mutations, and therefore
must have been designed by some greater being.
ID proponents speculate as to a "designer" without any stance on that as
a "being".
The word 'God' of course is
never mentioned, but it doesn't take a degree in logic to make this step.
Only to those looking to take that step. The word "God" is never
mentioned because many (if not most) ID proponents don't adhere to that
as the answer. ID and creationism are distinct and separate.
Creationism is for people who are too stupid to accept that they
descended
from monkeys,
Maybe you did. There is *ZERO* scientific proof of this or any other
similar Macro-evolutionary development. Its a theory.
and today those stupid people have received a slap on the fig
leaf by Judge John E. Jones III, who ruled that intelligent design is
religious
Oh yes, a judge is an authority on this topic. I've read that whole
decision and he makes the same illogical leap that you do in equating ID
and creationism when they are distinct from one another.
and that its inclusion in public school violates the [USA]
constitutional separation of church and state.
Yes, his decision came out within a day or two of a circuit court ruling
that asserts that "there is no Constitutional *separation of Church and
State*. But you'd know that. Congress is prohibited from
*establishing* a State Religion. The circuit court chided the ACLU
lawyers pretty sternly about continuing to repeat that which isn't the
truth or the law.
A couple of quotes from the 6th Circuit (much wider scope than the
district judge you lawd).
"The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church
and state."
Judge Richard Suhrheinrich said the ACLU's "repeated reference 'to the
separation of church and state' ... has grown tiresome. The First
Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."
Suhrheinrich also wrote: "The ACLU, an organization whose mission is 'to
ensure that ... the government [is kept] out of the religion business,'
does not embody the reasonable person."
The intellectual elites of course all support this decision, because they
recognize Intelligent Design for what it is - God bothering masquerading as
science.
I can't believe you propogate such a gross falsehood. Your fervent wish
(or perception) doesn't change the fact of the matter. ID isn't a "God"
thing. I will grant that some certainly would love to manipulate the ID
movement as you claim they actually are. The ID people constantly
emphasize that this isn't a "God" thing.
Any self respecting rational human would object to this being
taught in schools as an alternative to Darwinian evolution. Wouldn't they?
It has never been presented or proposed as "an alternative" to Darwin's
macro-evolutionary theories. It is presented as a means (and not the
only one) of further and closer examination of questionable areas and/or
flaws in Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory.
Well maybe not. Maybe this is just a stupid argument to have. If people want
to teach their children that a man called Adam spontaneously appeared some
6000 years ago hiding his excitement under a fig leaf then what's the
problem? And if people want to pay others to teach this to their children,
what's the problem? And if they want their children to be taught this at
school then .. well .. what's the problem?
The only problem is knee jerk reactions excluding other types of
information from exposure to students. Its a sad state for academia
when they oppose introduction of intellectual diversity in to their
subject matter.
A voucher system would leave it up to the parents to decide what kind of
school to send their children to. Some would choose schools with a strict 3
'R's curriculum, some would choose schools with a deep commitment to
political correctness, WIMMIN!'s Studies, creationism or stamp collecting.
Et viva la difference.
The problem, of course, is the collectivist notion that all children have to
be taught the same thing. We can't leave it up to mere parents to decide
what the schools should teach - only a powerful all-knowing government could
make that decision. And no matter how disgusted someone is with the
government's decision, they would prefer to fight to control government
policy than to simply promote a system which allows them to make their own
decisions.
I agree completely with your 2 paragraphs above. Freedom would be a
beautiful thing.
It is ironic that the symbol for creationism is also the symbol for human
choice. Christians are adamant that God gave Adam free choice - he, like the
rest of us, was free to sin.
That's why I don't understand the loud Christo-phobes in this country.
Freedom is good.
But so many are so adamant that force should be
used to stop others making mistakes.
Only the sheople and their (often) corrupt shepherds.
The inspiration that lets them know how
to stop others making the wrong decisions about their lives - it must be
truly divine.
Well any faith/belief system can't be forced. Thinking people know
this. While the U.S. has strong Christian roots in its society and
peoples the government is/was and will be a secular one. There is no
threat to that by people expressing their faith in public venues or offices.
CPT
.
|
|
|
| User: "_AnonCoward" |
|
| Title: Re: A not very intelligent design debate |
05 Jan 2006 10:29:47 PM |
|
|
"CPTFreedm" <amfree@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:V5Wuf.892$WY5.480@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
:
: Deuteros wrote:
: >
: > Islamicists have been getting a lot of bad press lately, but maybe it's
: > time to give them a bit of a break and go after the fundamentalist
: >Christians.
:
: Why? Christians aren't blowing up Churches and market places and women
: and children. Nor enslaving (for practical purposes) them either.
Ralf:
Not any more, no. In truth, Islamic extremism has become a far greater
threat to modern civilization than Christian fundamentalism has ever been.
That said, folks like myself aren't prepared to give the movement a pass in
this matter either. The abuses of the Taliban, as an example, differ from
what many Christian fundamentalists ascribe to only in degree. Both
Christian fundamentalists and Islamic extremists see their religious
beliefs as divinely revealed and the only 'true' religion. Both groups see
outsiders as 'worldly' or 'infidels'. Both groups believe they have a divine
mandate to convert unbelievers. Both groups see other religions as satanic
in origin. Etc. While Christian fundamentalism isn't as abusive as Islamic
fundamentalism, this is only because the US is a secular government, not a
theocracy. Given the chance, Christian fundamentalism is capable of leading
to as much abuse as Islamic extremism currently does in so many parts of the
world today.
As for enslavement, Christians in the US (and elsewhere) defended slavery
for centuries with the bible. It took a bloody war to change people's minds
on the matter. Further, women are still typically portrayed as second class
citizens to men by many Christian fundamentalists. The idea that the husband
is the undisputable 'head' of the family and the wife is to always be
subservient to her husband is a form of low grade servitude. It isn't as bad
as the abuses some women have to endure in many Islamic nations, but it is
subservience nonetheless.
: > And what better opportunity than the idiocy over whether Intelligent
: > Design should be taught in US schools?
:
: The only "idiocy" is excluding all possibilities for examination. Based
: on nothing other than a fixed dogmatic doctrine.
Ralf:
ID is not a valid scientific option. In fact, it lacks any scientific
credentials at all. It is quite literally anything one wants it to be. For
example, ID is 100% compatible with current scientific ideas regarding the
origin of the universe, the earth, life and even human evolution. We can
simply assume that things worked out that way because they were 'designed'
to (obliterating any probability arguments in the process). At the same
time, ID is 100% compatible with young earth creationism including a young
earth and a literal 6 days of creation. It only looks older because it was
'designed' that way. ID offers absolutely no mechanism for choosing between
the two extremes (or anything in between, for that matter).
: > For the uninitiated, intelligent design is the notion that the human
: > body is too complicated to be the product of mere chance mutations, and
: > therefore must have been designed by some greater being.
:
: ID proponents speculate as to a "designer" without any stance on that as
: a "being".
Ralf:
And that is a major reason why it is useless as a theoretical framework.
Since the 'designer' isn't defined, it is potentially anything at all - from
YHWH, to Allah, to Buddha, to an invisible pink unicorn. The introduction of
a willful and omnipotent designer, regardless of who or what that may be,
makes ID totally untenable in a scientific venue. Any conceivable outcome is
possible and thus there is not mechanism for discrimination.
: > The word 'God' of course is
: > never mentioned, but it doesn't take a degree in logic to make this
: step.
:
: Only to those looking to take that step. The word "God" is never
: mentioned because many (if not most) ID proponents don't adhere to that
: as the answer. ID and creationism are distinct and separate.
Ralf:
Actually, no. Both ID and classical creationism assume a creator and
therefore they are very closely related. In fact, one of the points raised
in the Dover PA ruling was that the book _Of Pandas and People_ (which the
Dover school board promoted as an alternative reference to standard science
text books) used identical definitions for creationism and ID in separate
drafts of the book. ID is ancient earth creationism dressed up in a new
suit, nothing more.
: > Creationism is for people who are too stupid to accept that they
: > descended from monkeys,
:
: Maybe you did. There is *ZERO* scientific proof of this or any other
: similar Macro-evolutionary development. Its a theory.
Ralf:
There is quite a bit of evidence to support 'macro-' evolution. Whether you
agree with the conclusions is up to you of course, but the evidence is
there. In the case of human evolution as just one example, the evidence
consists of a significant number of hominid fossils as well as comparative
DNA studies.
<snip>
: > The intellectual elites of course all support this decision, because
: > they recognize Intelligent Design for what it is - God bothering
: > masquerading as science.
:
: I can't believe you propagate such a gross falsehood. Your fervent wish
: (or perception) doesn't change the fact of the matter. ID isn't a "God"
: thing. I will grant that some certainly would love to manipulate the ID
: movement as you claim they actually are. The ID people constantly
: emphasize that this isn't a "God" thing.
Ralf:
That is because they are being dishonest. They are attempting to give ID a
veneer of scientific legitimacy by not discussing "God" but they nonetheless
are totally dependent on the actions in nature by a supernatural entity.
Dropping the label of "God" doesn't change the fact they are making the same
appeal as classic creationism does. The only difference is they ostensibly
don't presuppose a *Christian* God but allow in principle for Jewish,
Islamic, Buddhist or any other God/Supernatural entity to act in that role.
That's just window dressing however - a superficial and duplicitous attempt
to appear theologically neutral when in fact no such neutrality exists.
: > Any self respecting rational human would object to this being
: > taught in schools as an alternative to Darwinian evolution. Wouldn't
: > they?
:
: It has never been presented or proposed as "an alternative" to Darwin's
: macro-evolutionary theories. It is presented as a means (and not the
: only one) of further and closer examination of questionable areas and/or
: flaws in Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory.
Ralf:
Um..., yes it is. The statement that the Dover school district wanted read
in the class room stated:
"Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life
that differs from Darwin's view."
That is, it's presented as an alternative explanation to "Darwin's
macro-evolutionary theories".
: > Well maybe not. Maybe this is just a stupid argument to have. If people
: > want to teach their children that a man called Adam spontaneously
: > appeared some 6000 years ago hiding his excitement under a fig leaf
: > then what's the problem? And if people want to pay others to teach
: > this to their children, what's the problem? And if they want their
: > children to be taught this at school then .. well .. what's the
: > problem?
:
: The only problem is knee jerk reactions excluding other types of
: information from exposure to students. Its a sad state for academia
: when they oppose introduction of intellectual diversity in to their
: subject matter.
Ralf:
What other intellectually diverse subjects should academia present in the
classroom? Astrology? Numerology? Where do you draw the line and why? What
makes ID worthy of inclusion when other subjects are not?
<snip>
Ralf
--
AA# 2250
-----------------------------------------------------------
* ^~^ ^~^ *
* _ {~ ~} {~ ~} _ *
* /_``>*< >*<''_\ *
* (\--_)++) (++(_--/) *
-----------------------------------------------------------
We must at all times stand in opposition to the entanglement
of religious authority with political power. The outcome is
invariably an abomination.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ouroboros rex" |
|
| Title: Re: A not very intelligent design debate |
04 Jan 2006 02:47:36 PM |
|
|
"CPTFreedm" <amfree@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:V5Wuf.892$WY5.480@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Deuteros wrote:
Islamicists have been getting a lot of bad press lately, but maybe it's
time to give them a bit of a break and go after the fundamentalist
Christians.
Why? Christians aren't blowing up Churches and market places and women
and children. Nor enslaving (for practical purposes) them either.
Not today, anyway.
And what better opportunity than the idiocy over whether Intelligent
Design should be taught in US schools?
The only "idiocy" is excluding all possibilities for examination. Based
on nothing other than a fixed dogmatic doctrine.
Sounds like the Creationist position on a platter.
For the uninitiated, intelligent design is the notion that the human body
is too complicated to be the product of mere chance mutations, and
therefore must have been designed by some greater being.
ID proponents speculate as to a "designer" without any stance on that as a
"being".
Until you turn the page on them, that is. I have yet to find an ID
proponent who has not self-identified as a fundamentalist Christian
elsewhere.
The word 'God' of course is
never mentioned, but it doesn't take a degree in logic to make this step.
Only to those looking to take that step. The word "God" is never
mentioned
lol Better reread your Behe.
because many (if not most) ID proponents don't adhere to that
as the answer. ID and creationism are distinct and separate.
Creationism is for people who are too stupid to accept that they
descended
from monkeys,
Maybe you did. There is *ZERO* scientific proof of this or any other
similar Macro-evolutionary development.
Simply a lie.
Its a theory.
Creatiionism and ID can't even get that going.
and today those stupid people have received a slap on the fig
leaf by Judge John E. Jones III, who ruled that intelligent design is
religious
Oh yes, a judge is an authority on this topic. I've read that whole
decision and he makes the same illogical leap that you do in equating ID
and creationism when they are distinct from one another.
Then you can probably find me an atheistic ID group, right?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John P" |
|
| Title: Re: A not very intelligent design debate |
05 Jan 2006 12:31:33 AM |
|
|
"CPTFreedm" wrote in a message
And what better opportunity than the idiocy over whether Intelligent
Design should be taught in US schools?
The only "idiocy" is excluding all possibilities for examination. Based
on nothing other than a fixed dogmatic doctrine.
Thus, in addition to evolution and intelligent design, we should also teach
that humans may have been created by a race of pink space dogs from another
galaxy who intended to use us as chew toys, as well as any and every other
"possibility" that anyone can come up with.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jericho" |
|
| Title: Re: A not very intelligent design debate |
05 Jan 2006 03:17:49 PM |
|
|
And what better opportunity than the idiocy over whether Intelligent
Design should be taught in US schools?
The only "idiocy" is excluding all possibilities for examination. Based
on nothing other than a fixed dogmatic doctrine.
Thus, in addition to evolution and intelligent design, we should also teach
that humans may have been created by a race of pink space dogs from another
galaxy who intended to use us as chew toys, as well as any and every other
"possibility" that anyone can come up with.
I believe that "God" split Himself up into a myriad of Pieces so that
He may have Friends. And I have absolutely no proof of this except
that it explains Everything. And I DEMAND that it be taught in the
publics schools so that we don't exclude any possibility for
examination.
Anyone else have a "hypothesis" they want to include into the school
system. Apparently they have plenty of time and resources to teach all
sorts of crap.
.
|
|
|
| User: "_AnonCoward" |
|
| Title: Re: A not very intelligent design debate |
05 Jan 2006 10:31:31 PM |
|
|
"Jericho" <wasteofcarbon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1136495869.346336.23510@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
: >>>
: >>> And what better opportunity than the idiocy over whether Intelligent
: >>> Design should be taught in US schools?
: >> The only "idiocy" is excluding all possibilities for examination.
: >> Based on nothing other than a fixed dogmatic doctrine.
: >>
: >Thus, in addition to evolution and intelligent design, we should also
: >teach that humans may have been created by a race of pink space dogs
: >from another galaxy who intended to use us as chew toys, as well as
: >any and every other "possibility" that anyone can come up with.
:
: I believe that "God" split Himself up into a myriad of Pieces so that
: He may have Friends. And I have absolutely no proof of this except
: that it explains Everything. And I DEMAND that it be taught in the
: publics schools so that we don't exclude any possibility for
: examination.
:
: Anyone else have a "hypothesis" they want to include into the school
: system. Apparently they have plenty of time and resources to teach all
: sorts of crap.
Sure. Here's mine:
I'm God and I've existed for an eternity of eternities. At one point I got
bored and conceived of a really wild scheme for my amusement - I created an
entire universe, reality itself, a little over 50 years ago (at the precise
moment of my birth, if you must know). I was born into a real universe, to
real parents, and I've lived a real life with other real people. Now it is
true that the universe appears to be something on the order of 13.7 billion
years old and the earth around 4.5 billion years old, but I simply made
appear that way just for grins and giggles - or in other words, I designed
it that way (I'm the Intelligent Designer the ID folks are talking about,
they just don't realize that fact yet).
For the sake of consistency, I gave everyone who were supposedly born before
me false memories (otherwise, the whole thing really wouldn't work right).
Oh yeah, and I wiped my own memory and knowledge of my omnipotence. I don't
'know' that I'm God but I Am nevertheless. At some point in the future I
will die - even I do know when, where or how - and when that happens, I will
revert to my true nature. Everyone else, along with the universe in its
entirety, will simply cease to exist at the exact instant. Kind of a bummer
for most folks, I realize, but, hey, it's my universe and I'll do what I
want with it. Just be glad I didn't bother with that whole hellfire and
damnation thing.
This is perfectly consistent with Intelligent Design so I have to believe
those folks will be willing to include this theory in the classroom in their
efforts to introduce an intellectually diverse curriculum. After all, they
don't concern themselves with the designer's identity so why can't this
explanation be used? It's as good as any other theory that relies on the
action of a willful and omnipotent designer.
Ralf
--
--
----------------------------------------------------------
* ^~^ ^~^ *
* _ {~ ~} {~ ~} _ *
* /_``>*< >*<''_\ *
* (\--_)++) (++(_--/) *
----------------------------------------------------------
There are no advanced students in Aikido - there are only
competent beginners. There are no advanced techniques -
only the correct application of basic principles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A not very intelligent design debate |
06 Jan 2006 03:44:17 PM |
|
|
Good one. I like this. Since you're the IDer, can you give me a
better job (I'd like something involving nekid women). You can't say
you don't know your're the IDer anymore, since you just told me. And I
won't tell anyone.
.
|
|
|
| User: "_AnonCoward" |
|
| Title: Re: A not very intelligent design debate |
10 Jan 2006 02:21:48 PM |
|
|
<wasteofcarbon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1136583857.031859.51800@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
: Good one. I like this. Since you're the IDer, can you give me a
: better job (I'd like something involving nekid women). You can't say
: you don't know your're the IDer anymore, since you just told me. And I
: won't tell anyone.
Ah, but that's the rub. Evidently, I didn't bother to give myself any
particular abilities. If I could do the better job thing (especially
involving nekid women), I'd be at the top of the list. Why I'm not Bill
Gates or someone like that is beyond me. I guess I have my reasons.
Ralf
--
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
* ^~^ ^~^ *
* _ {~ ~} {~ ~} _ *
* /_``>*< >*<''_\ *
* (\--_)++) (++(_--/) *
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people
who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm -- but
the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or
they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless
struggle to think well of themselves."
T.S. Eliot
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A not very intelligent design debate |
11 Jan 2006 01:57:01 PM |
|
|
"Ralf works in mysterious ways"
"Ralf helps those who help themselves"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Price" |
|
| Title: Re: A not very intelligent design debate |
05 Jan 2006 06:31:00 AM |
|
|
John P wrote:
"CPTFreedm" wrote in a message
And what better opportunity than the idiocy over whether Intelligent
Design should be taught in US schools?
The only "idiocy" is excluding all possibilities for examination. Based
on nothing other than a fixed dogmatic doctrine.
Thus, in addition to evolution and intelligent design, we should also teach
that humans may have been created by a race of pink space dogs from another
galaxy who intended to use us as chew toys, as well as any and every other
"possibility" that anyone can come up with.
That's just ridiculous given the overwhelming evidence availible on
this site.
http://www.venganza.org/
May his noodly appendage touch you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: A not very intelligent design debate |
04 Jan 2006 08:49:30 PM |
|
|
CPTFreedm <amfree@earthlink.net> wrote:
Deuteros wrote:
Islamicists have been getting a lot of bad press lately, but maybe it's time
to give them a bit of a break and go after the fundamentalist Christians.
Why? Christians aren't blowing up Churches and market places and women
and children.
What have we been doing in Iraq for the last few years. 30,000
civilians killed, I think the number is.
The word 'God' of course is
never mentioned, but it doesn't take a degree in logic to make this step.
Only to those looking to take that step. The word "God" is never
mentioned because many (if not most) ID proponents don't adhere to that
as the answer. ID and creationism are distinct and separate.
The judge found that claim to be a lie.
Creationism is for people who are too stupid to accept that they
descended
from monkeys,
Maybe you did. There is *ZERO* scientific proof of this or any other
similar Macro-evolutionary development.
Science doesn't do "proof". Science does "evidence", and there are
reams of "evidence".
Its a theory.
Which is the highest level of credibility which any scientific
explanation can aspire to. Gravitation is a theory also.
and today those stupid people have received a slap on the fig
leaf by Judge John E. Jones III, who ruled that intelligent design is
religious
Oh yes, a judge is an authority on this topic. I've read that whole
decision and he makes the same illogical leap that you do in equating ID
and creationism when they are distinct from one another.
It makes the leap based on such things as the identity of wording in
the definition of creationism and the definition of ID in different
editions of the textbook that was proposed for use.
A couple of quotes from the 6th Circuit (much wider scope than the
district judge you lawd).
The Supreme Court Everson decision (1947) which says the opposite
(much wider scope than the 6th circuit you lawd).
"The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church
and state."
Judge Richard Suhrheinrich said the ACLU's "repeated reference 'to the
separation of church and state' ... has grown tiresome. The First
Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."
And the other judges did not agree with him and wrote a separate
opinion.
Well maybe not. Maybe this is just a stupid argument to have. If people want
to teach their children that a man called Adam spontaneously appeared some
6000 years ago hiding his excitement under a fig leaf then what's the
problem? And if people want to pay others to teach this to their children,
what's the problem? And if they want their children to be taught this at
school then .. well .. what's the problem?
The only problem is knee jerk reactions excluding other types of
information from exposure to students. Its a sad state for academia
when they oppose introduction of intellectual diversity in to their
subject matter.
We don't allow astrology to be taught in the public school classroom
either. And astrology at least has a few thousand years of cultural
tradition - but it isn't science.
A voucher system would leave it up to the parents to decide what kind of
school to send their children to. Some would choose schools with a strict 3
'R's curriculum, some would choose schools with a deep commitment to
political correctness, WIMMIN!'s Studies, creationism or stamp collecting.
Et viva la difference.
The problem, of course, is the collectivist notion that all children have to
be taught the same thing. We can't leave it up to mere parents to decide
what the schools should teach - only a powerful all-knowing government could
make that decision. And no matter how disgusted someone is with the
government's decision, they would prefer to fight to control government
policy than to simply promote a system which allows them to make their own
decisions.
I agree completely with your 2 paragraphs above. Freedom would be a
beautiful thing.
You have freedom. You just have to pay for it yourself. Your tax
money however, goes for what "we the people" decide to spend it on.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Herb Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: A not very intelligent design debate |
05 Jan 2006 12:30:25 AM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:fn1pr115lpd469pe8q19gfbcgotic97ogl@4ax.com...
CPTFreedm <amfree@earthlink.net> wrote:
Deuteros wrote:
Islamicists have been getting a lot of bad press lately, but maybe it's
time
to give them a bit of a break and go after the fundamentalist
Christians.
Why? Christians aren't blowing up Churches and market places and women
and children.
What have we been doing in Iraq for the last few years. 30,000
civilians killed, I think the number is.
Bad propaganda again -- that is the death toll (and
poorly estimated even then) and it does not separate
those killed by the insurgents & terrorists, those used
as hostages, nor even non-combatants.
Technically a terrorist is likely listed as a "civilian"
so distrust anyone who does use the term NON-COMBATANTS
and further distrust anyone who doesn't separate those
caused by the coalition from those caused by the insurgents,
terrorists, and Saddam forces before the surrender.
It is still far less than what Saddam was in the habit of
murdering torturing, or raping each YEAR.
--
Herb Martin
The word 'God' of course is
never mentioned, but it doesn't take a degree in logic to make this
step.
Only to those looking to take that step. The word "God" is never
mentioned because many (if not most) ID proponents don't adhere to that
as the answer. ID and creationism are distinct and separate.
The judge found that claim to be a lie.
Creationism is for people who are too stupid to accept that they
descended
from monkeys,
Maybe you did. There is *ZERO* scientific proof of this or any other
similar Macro-evolutionary development.
Science doesn't do "proof". Science does "evidence", and there are
reams of "evidence".
Its a theory.
Which is the highest level of credibility which any scientific
explanation can aspire to. Gravitation is a theory also.
and today those stupid people have received a slap on the fig
leaf by Judge John E. Jones III, who ruled that intelligent design is
religious
Oh yes, a judge is an authority on this topic. I've read that whole
decision and he makes the same illogical leap that you do in equating ID
and creationism when they are distinct from one another.
It makes the leap based on such things as the identity of wording in
the definition of creationism and the definition of ID in different
editions of the textbook that was proposed for use.
A couple of quotes from the 6th Circuit (much wider scope than the
district judge you lawd).
The Supreme Court Everson decision (1947) which says the opposite
(much wider scope than the 6th circuit you lawd).
"The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church
and state."
Judge Richard Suhrheinrich said the ACLU's "repeated reference 'to the
separation of church and state' ... has grown tiresome. The First
Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."
And the other judges did not agree with him and wrote a separate
opinion.
Well maybe not. Maybe this is just a stupid argument to have. If people
want
to teach their children that a man called Adam spontaneously appeared
some
6000 years ago hiding his excitement under a fig leaf then what's the
problem? And if people want to pay others to teach this to their
children,
what's the problem? And if they want their children to be taught this at
school then .. well .. what's the problem?
The only problem is knee jerk reactions excluding other types of
information from exposure to students. Its a sad state for academia
when they oppose introduction of intellectual diversity in to their
subject matter.
We don't allow astrology to be taught in the public school classroom
either. And astrology at least has a few thousand years of cultural
tradition - but it isn't science.
A voucher system would leave it up to the parents to decide what kind of
school to send their children to. Some would choose schools with a
strict 3
'R's curriculum, some would choose schools with a deep commitment to
political correctness, WIMMIN!'s Studies, creationism or stamp
collecting.
Et viva la difference.
The problem, of course, is the collectivist notion that all children
have to
be taught the same thing. We can't leave it up to mere parents to decide
what the schools should teach - only a powerful all-knowing government
could
make that decision. And no matter how disgusted someone is with the
government's decision, they would prefer to fight to control government
policy than to simply promote a system which allows them to make their
own
decisions.
I agree completely with your 2 paragraphs above. Freedom would be a
beautiful thing.
You have freedom. You just have to pay for it yourself. Your tax
money however, goes for what "we the people" decide to spend it on.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: A not very intelligent design debate |
05 Jan 2006 04:35:53 AM |
|
|
"Herb Martin" <news@LearnQuick.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:fn1pr115lpd469pe8q19gfbcgotic97ogl@4ax.com...
CPTFreedm <amfree@earthlink.net> wrote:
Deuteros wrote:
Islamicists have been getting a lot of bad press lately, but maybe it's
time
to give them a bit of a break and go after the fundamentalist
Christians.
Why? Christians aren't blowing up Churches and market places and women
and children.
What have we been doing in Iraq for the last few years. 30,000
civilians killed, I think the number is.
Bad propaganda again -- that is the death toll (and
poorly estimated even then) and it does not separate
those killed by the insurgents & terrorists, those used
as hostages, nor even non-combatants.
Doesn't matter. We started the war, and all of them were killed as a
result of the war. We similarly blame Germany and/or Japan for all
those killed in WW II.
And there is NO question that "Christians" have blown up *some*
mosques and market places and women and children, which was my
original point.
Technically a terrorist is likely listed as a "civilian"
so distrust anyone who does use the term NON-COMBATANTS
and further distrust anyone who doesn't separate those
caused by the coalition from those caused by the insurgents,
terrorists, and Saddam forces before the surrender.
I believe that 30,000 was the number put out by our government, which
has every reason to try to qualify the death toll to make us look as
innocent as possible.
It is still far less than what Saddam was in the habit of
murdering torturing, or raping each YEAR.
Being less brutal than Saddam is not much of a compliment. And the
point remains that the claim was that "Christians" don't do that sort
of thing. Saying that we do it less than the "Islamicists" is still
an admission of moral failure.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Herb Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: A not very intelligent design debate |
06 Jan 2006 03:52:37 PM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:f6tpr1l4gfcmt0n9fuei3fe48n22uuath0@4ax.com...
"Herb Martin" <news@LearnQuick.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:fn1pr115lpd469pe8q19gfbcgotic97ogl@4ax.com...
CPTFreedm <amfree@earthlink.net> wrote:
Deuteros wrote:
Islamicists have been getting a lot of bad press lately, but maybe
it's
time
to give them a bit of a break and go after the fundamentalist
Christians.
Why? Christians aren't blowing up Churches and market places and women
and children.
What have we been doing in Iraq for the last few years. 30,000
civilians killed, I think the number is.
Bad propaganda again -- that is the death toll (and
poorly estimated even then) and it does not separate
those killed by the insurgents & terrorists, those used
as hostages, nor even non-combatants.
Doesn't matter. We started the war, and all of them were killed as a
result of the war. We similarly blame Germany and/or Japan for all
those killed in WW II.
No, "we" didn't start the war, Saddam Husein started the war
by his actions -- he invaded Kuwait and that was was never ended,
he fired on our planes which were enforcing his AGREED on
no fly zones, he supported specific assinations against US current
and former government officials (including a President), and he
violated his agreement to fully cooperate with the inspectors and
to account for his admitted (tons of) WMD materials.
These were ALL ACTS OF WAR on his part.
Had the French stopped Hitler when he committed similar acts
of war prior to his actual invasion of France then most of WWII
would never have occurred and tens of millions of lives would
have been saved (probably 50-100 million).
But then had they done that, they wouldn't be "the French."
All collateral damage is at Saddam's doorstep. And you are
a LIAR if you try to tag those killed by the terrorists and
insurgents on anyone else but the perpetrator or Saddam
himself.
That was the point -- anyone offering unqualified "civilian"
casualties is a best a fool, and more propbably one of the
liars as well.
--
Herb Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky " |
|
| Title: Re: A not very intelligent design debate |
10 Jan 2006 12:08:36 AM |
|
|
Herb Martin wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:f6tpr1l4gfcmt0n9fuei3fe48n22uuath0@4ax.com...
"Herb Martin" <news@LearnQuick.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:fn1pr115lpd469pe8q19gfbcgotic97ogl@4ax.com...
CPTFreedm <amfree@earthlink.net> wrote:
Deuteros wrote:
Islamicists have been getting a lot of bad press lately, but maybe
it's
time
to give them a bit of a break and go after the fundamentalist
Christians.
Why? Christians aren't blowing up Churches and market places and women
and children.
What have we been doing in Iraq for the last few years. 30,000
civilians killed, I think the number is.
Bad propaganda again -- that is the death toll (and
poorly estimated even then) and it does not separate
those killed by the insurgents & terrorists, those used
as hostages, nor even non-combatants.
Doesn't matter. We started the war, and all of them were killed as a
result of the war. We similarly blame Germany and/or Japan for all
those killed in WW II.
No, "we" didn't start the war, Saddam Husein started the war
by his actions -- he invaded Kuwait and that was was never ended,
he fired on our planes which were enforcing his AGREED on
no fly zones, he supported specific assinations against US current
and former government officials (including a President), and he
violated his agreement to fully cooperate with the inspectors and
to account for his admitted (tons of) WMD materials.
These were ALL ACTS OF WAR on his part.
Had the French stopped Hitler when he committed similar acts
Forgotten the large British forces? You know, Dunkirk?
of war prior to his actual invasion of France then most of WWII
would never have occurred and tens of millions of lives would
have been saved (probably 50-100 million).
But then had they done that, they wouldn't be "the French."
All collateral damage is at Saddam's doorstep. And you are
a LIAR if you try to tag those killed by the terrorists and
insurgents on anyone else but the perpetrator or Saddam
himself.
That was the point -- anyone offering unqualified "civilian"
casualties is a best a fool, and more propbably one of the
liars as well.
--
Herb Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Herb Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: A not very intelligent design debate |
10 Jan 2006 11:43:54 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:43C34F64.EA15664E@hotmMOVEail.com...
Herb Martin wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:f6tpr1l4gfcmt0n9fuei3fe48n22uuath0@4ax.com...
"Herb Martin" <news@LearnQuick.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:fn1pr115lpd469pe8q19gfbcgotic97ogl@4ax.com...
CPTFreedm <amfree@earthlink.net> wrote:
Deuteros wrote:
Islamicists have been getting a lot of bad press lately, but maybe
it's
time
to give them a bit of a break and go after the fundamentalist
Christians.
Why? Christians aren't blowing up Churches and market places and
women
and children.
What have we been doing in Iraq for the last few years. 30,000
civilians killed, I think the number is.
Bad propaganda again -- that is the death toll (and
poorly estimated even then) and it does not separate
those killed by the insurgents & terrorists, those used
as hostages, nor even non-combatants.
Doesn't matter. We started the war, and all of them were killed as a
result of the war. We similarly blame Germany and/or Japan for all
those killed in WW II.
No, "we" didn't start the war, Saddam Husein started the war
by his actions -- he invaded Kuwait and that was was never ended,
he fired on our planes which were enforcing his AGREED on
no fly zones, he supported specific assinations against US current
and former government officials (including a President), and he
violated his agreement to fully cooperate with the inspectors and
to account for his admitted (tons of) WMD materials.
These were ALL ACTS OF WAR on his part.
Had the French stopped Hitler when he committed similar acts
Forgotten the large British forces? You know, Dunkirk?
No, I didn't forget the British but you cut my sentence in half,
so keep reading and read carefully:
of war prior to his actual invasion of France then most of WWII
would never have occurred and tens of millions of lives would
have been saved (probably 50-100 million).
The reference to the French was BEFORE Hitler invaded
France, and includes acts of wars and violations of treaties
by Hitler which even proceed the taking of Austria and
Czechoslavakia.
Had the French stopped him at any of those earlier violations
when they still had the power then Hitler would have been
largely a foot note to history.
But then had they done that, they wouldn't be "the French."
Actually the British government at that time was also
"acting French" but they were replace by the British people
before Hitler could replace them as he did the French
government.
--
Herb Martin, MCSE, MVP
Accelerated MCSE
http://www.LearnQuick.Com
[phone number on web site]
of war prior to his actual invasion of France then most of WWII
would never have occurred and tens of millions of lives would
have been saved (probably 50-100 million).
But then had they done that, they wouldn't be "the French."
All collateral damage is at Saddam's doorstep. And you are
a LIAR if you try to tag those killed by the terrorists and
insurgents on anyone else but the perpetrator or Saddam
himself.
That was the point -- anyone offering unqualified "civilian"
casualties is a best a fool, and more propbably one of the
liars as well.
--
Herb Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky " |
|
| Title: Re: A not very intelligent design debate |
10 Jan 2006 11:48:43 PM |
|
|
Herb Martin wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:43C34F64.EA15664E@hotmMOVEail.com...
Herb Martin wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:f6tpr1l4gfcmt0n9fuei3fe48n22uuath0@4ax.com...
"Herb Martin" <news@LearnQuick.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:fn1pr115lpd469pe8q19gfbcgotic97ogl@4ax.com...
CPTFreedm <amfree@earthlink.net> wrote:
Deuteros wrote:
Islamicists have been getting a lot of bad press lately, but maybe
it's
time
to give them a bit of a break and go after the fundamentalist
Christians.
Why? Christians aren't blowing up Churches and market places and
women
and children.
What have we been doing in Iraq for the last few years. 30,000
civilians killed, I think the number is.
Bad propaganda again -- that is the death toll (and
poorly estimated even then) and it does not separate
those killed by the insurgents & terrorists, those used
as hostages, nor even non-combatants.
Doesn't matter. We started the war, and all of them were killed as a
result of the war. We similarly blame Germany and/or Japan for all
those killed in WW II.
No, "we" didn't start the war, Saddam Husein started the war
by his actions -- he invaded Kuwait and that was was never ended,
he fired on our planes which were enforcing his AGREED on
no fly zones, he supported specific assinations against US current
and former government officials (including a President), and he
violated his agreement to fully cooperate with the inspectors and
to account for his admitted (tons of) WMD materials.
These were ALL ACTS OF WAR on his part.
Had the French stopped Hitler when he committed similar acts
Forgotten the large British forces? You know, Dunkirk?
No, I didn't forget the British but you cut my sentence in half,
so keep reading and read carefully:
of war prior to his actual invasion of France then most of WWII
would never have occurred and tens of millions of lives would
have been saved (probably 50-100 million).
The reference to the French was BEFORE Hitler invaded
France, and includes acts of wars and violations of treaties
by Hitler which even proceed the taking of Austria and
Czechoslavakia.
Had the French stopped him at any of those earlier violations
when they still had the power then Hitler would have been
largely a foot note to history.
And the British were allies of the French. The BEF was over
there alongside the French. So the British could have stopped
Hitler too - and didn't.
But then had they done that, they wouldn't be "the French."
Actually the British government at that time was also
"acting French" but they were replace by the British people
before Hitler could replace them as he did the French
government.
The BEF was thoroughly routed.
of war prior to his actual invasion of France then most of WWII
would never have occurred and tens of millions of lives would
have been saved (probably 50-100 million).
But then had they done that, they wouldn't be "the French."
All collateral damage is at Saddam's doorstep. And you are
a LIAR if you try to tag those killed by the terrorists and
insurgents on anyone else but the perpetrator or Saddam
himself.
That was the point -- anyone offering unqualified "civilian"
casualties is a best a fool, and more propbably one of the
liars as well.
--
Herb Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Herb Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: A not very intelligent design debate |
11 Jan 2006 12:45:48 AM |
|
|
But then had they done that, they wouldn't be "the French."
Actually the British government at that time was also
"acting French" but they were replace by the British people
before Hitler could replace them as he did the French
government.
The BEF was thoroughly routed.
Do you know the relative counts of tanks and combat aircraft
when the Nazi's invaded?
But as I said, the British government was acting French during
that time and has some of the responsibility.
The French however had the more pressing need to get it right;
they lost their country until the Americans took it back for them.
(And yes, the British helped do this -- the French resistance
also played an important but not critical part.)
There is nothing wrong with the French SOLDIER (I have worked
with some) except they are led by French Officers who carry
out the policies of the French Government.
There are similar but different in specifics problems with the
Arab officers of practically every Arab nation. It's a cultural
problem cause largely by the elitism of those officers in the
case of Arabs.
(Arab officers as a rule not only treat the common soldier
as a worthless slug, but also act this way toward NCOs.
American (and British) officers realize their lives, careers,
missions are all depend on the Non-Commissioned Officers.
--
Herb Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky " |
|
| Title: Re: A not very intelligent design debate |
12 Jan 2006 10:22:53 PM |
|
|
Herb Martin wrote:
But then had they done that, they wouldn't be "the French."
Actually the British government at that time was also
"acting French" but they were replace by the British people
before Hitler could replace them as he did the French
government.
The BEF was thoroughly routed.
Do you know the relative counts of tanks and combat aircraft
when the Nazi's invaded?
Feel free to compare.
But as I said, the British government was acting French during
that time and has some of the responsibility.
Or were the French acting British?
The French however had the more pressing need to get it right;
they lost their country until the Americans took it back for them.
(And yes, the British helped do this -- the French resistance
also played an important but not critical part.)
The British helped lose it for them - and if not for the channel
would have suffered the same fate right away. In fact, had Hitler
pushed it - even without proper assault craft - he could've carried
it off.
There is nothing wrong with the French SOLDIER (I have worked
with some) except they are led by French Officers who carry
out the policies of the French Government.
You worked with them in 1939?
There are similar but different in specifics problems with the
Arab officers of practically every Arab nation. It's a cultural
problem cause largely by the elitism of those officers in the
case of Arabs.
(Arab officers as a rule not only treat the common soldier
as a worthless slug, but also act this way toward NCOs.
American (and British) officers realize their lives, careers,
missions are all depend on the Non-Commissioned Officers.
How did Arab officers come into this????
RT
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: A not very intelligent design debate |
11 Jan 2006 01:17:40 AM |
|
|
Rich Travsky <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Had the French stopped him at any of those earlier violations
when they still had the power then Hitler would have been
largely a foot note to history.
And the British were allies of the French. The BEF was over
there alongside the French. So the British could have stopped
Hitler too - and didn't.
I think he is saying that France should not have acquiesced in the
annexation of the Saar, and the military reoccupation of the
Rhineland.
Germany violated the Treaty of Versailles in 1935 by reintroducing
military conscription, and all of the Versailles signatories should
have come down hard on them at that point. But this ignores the
realities of the Depression, and the fact that under the League of
Nations the Allies had demilitarized as thoroughly as Germany. All of
them were at fault, including the US.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: A not very intelligent design debate |
10 Jan 2006 05:34:36 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 23:08:36 -0700, in alt.atheism , Rich Travsky <"
traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> in <43C34F64.EA15664E@hotmMOVEail.com>
wrote:
Herb Martin wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:f6tpr1l4gfcmt0n9fuei3fe48n22uuath0@4ax.com...
"Herb Martin" <news@LearnQuick.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:fn1pr115lpd469pe8q19gfbcgotic97ogl@4ax.com...
CPTFreedm <amfree@earthlink.net> wrote:
Deuteros wrote:
Islamicists have been getting a lot of bad press lately, but maybe
it's
time
to give them a bit of a break and go after the fundamentalist
Christians.
Why? Christians aren't blowing up Churches and market places and women
and children.
What have we been doing in Iraq for the last few years. 30,000
civilians killed, I think the number is.
Bad propaganda again -- that is the death toll (and
poorly estimated even then) and it does not separate
those killed by the insurgents & terrorists, those used
as hostages, nor even non-combatants.
Doesn't matter. We started the war, and all of them were killed as a
result of the war. We similarly blame Germany and/or Japan for all
those killed in WW II.
No, "we" didn't start the war, Saddam Husein started the war
by his actions -- he invaded Kuwait and that was was never ended,
he fired on our planes which were enforcing his AGREED on
no fly zones, he supported specific assinations against US current
and former government officials (including a President), and he
violated his agreement to fully cooperate with the inspectors and
to account for his admitted (tons of) WMD materials.
These were ALL ACTS OF WAR on his part.
Had the French stopped Hitler when he committed similar acts
Forgotten the large British forces? You know, Dunkirk?
of war prior to his actual invasion of France then most of WWII
would never have occurred and tens of millions of lives would
have been saved (probably 50-100 million).
But then had they done that, they wouldn't be "the French."
Then what does that make the Americans? You know, those who sat aside
and did nothing as Hitler conquered most of Europe?
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Herb Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: A not very intelligent design debate |
10 Jan 2006 06:49:45 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message
of war prior to his actual invasion of France then most of WWII
would never have occurred and tens of millions of lives would
have been saved (probably 50-100 million).
But then had they done that, they wouldn't be "the French."
Then what does that make the Americans? You know, those who sat aside
and did nothing as Hitler conquered most of Europe?
VERY indirectly involved since if the French didn't wish
to enforce the treaties and protect their own borders this
was certainly not (at that time) within the power or
responsibility of the United States.
Had the French wanted to stop Hitler and we had acted
as they did vis a vis Saddam in the UN then we would be
partially to blame for his actions (as the French were for
their client Saddam.)
My favorite (clear) example of French connivance was
during the discussion of enforcing the inspection regime,
the French REFUSED one proposal to Saddam even before
he and his Iraqi government could do so.
Why were the French refusing compromise offers even
before Saddam could answer the offer?
It was pretty obvious but then unfortunately most people
don't follow the news closely enough to see many of the
things I notice. (Three TiVos and multiple cable/sat inputs
help quite a bit though <grin>, not to mention the Internet
and my reading of most of the major, e.g,, NYTimes etc,
news sites on important subjects.)
--
Herb Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: A not very intelligent design debate |
10 Jan 2006 09:26:41 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 00:49:45 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Herb Martin"
<news@LearnQuick.com> in <JCYwf.273$1J1.80@tornado.texas.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message
of war prior to his actual invasion of France then most of WWII
would never have occurred and tens of millions of lives would
have been saved (probably 50-100 million).
But then had they done that, they wouldn't be "the French."
Then what does that make the Americans? You know, those who sat aside
and did nothing as Hitler conquered most of Europe?
VERY indirectly involved since if the French didn't wish
to enforce the treaties and protect their own borders this
was certainly not (at that time) within the power or
responsibility of the United States.
I see, it all has to do with legal issues of treaties, not with
dealing with very bad people. At the time, of course, lots in the U.S.
thought it was unimportant what Hitler did or even thought he was
doing a great job. But go ahead, blame the French.
Had the French wanted to stop Hitler and we had acted
as they did vis a vis Saddam in the UN then we would be
partially to blame for his actions (as the French were for
their client Saddam.)
You mean like how we helped Saddam fight Iran and how we helped him
with poison gas and how we gave him arms and intelligence to use the
poison gas?
My favorite (clear) example of French connivance was
during the discussion of enforcing the inspection regime,
the French REFUSED one proposal to Saddam even before
he and his Iraqi government could do so.
So? As it turns out they were right and Saddam did not have the
weapons programs.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Herb Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: A not very intelligent design debate |
11 Jan 2006 12:57:32 AM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message
VERY indirectly involved since if the French didn't wish
to enforce the treaties and protect their own borders this
was certainly not (at that time) within the power or
responsibility of the United States.
I see, it all has to do with legal issues of treaties, not with
dealing with very bad people. At the time, of course, lots in the U.S.
thought it was unimportant what Hitler did or even thought he was
doing a great job. But go ahead, blame the French.
No, but it would have made the actions of the French and
maybe the British a little more justifiable.
The early problem with Hitler (and Saddam) was the
incrementalism; each took a little more, then a little more, etc.
Saddam had been violating sanctions and incrementally
taking small things like Kuwait. Difference is that someone
stopped Saddam, no one stopped Hitler until after he had
murdered some 50 MILLION people.
Had the French wanted to stop Hitler and we had acted
as they did vis a vis Saddam in the UN then we would be
partially to blame for his actions (as the French were for
their client Saddam.)
You mean like how we helped Saddam fight Iran and how we helped him
with poison gas and how we gave him arms and intelligence to use the
poison gas?
No, that is such a common piece of misinformation that I
will assume that you do not realize it is so inaccurate as
to constitute a lie (if you knew and) used it as stated.
No one gave Saddam "poison gas". The US couldn't even
stomach giving Saddam aid while he was fighting Iran,
a client state of our major Cold War enemy, the USSR.
Despite WANTING to help Saddam the US gave him
primarily satellite intelligence AND primarily only
when Iran was threatening to overrun his defenses.
If you doubt this (and those like you typically have bought
into all the pro-Saddam/anti-US propaganda lies) then
merely ask yourself who gave Saddam his weapons:
1) Soviet and French combat aircraft
2) Chinese, Korean, and French missiles
3) Soviet tanks and armored vehicles (BMPs etc.)
4) Soviet block small arms
5) French nuclear reactor
Gee, who now was helping Saddam?
My favorite (clear) example of French connivance was
during the discussion of enforcing the inspection regime,
the French REFUSED one proposal to Saddam even before
he and his Iraqi government could do so.
So? As it turns out they were right and Saddam did not have the
weapons programs.
Actually he did have the programs, all that is missing are the
large stockpiles of WMD. He not only had them he used them
and he failed to account for them.
Saddam was NOT required to "have WMD" to be in breach,
he merely had to fail to comply fully with inspectors in accounting
for the TONS of WMD that he had already admitted to possessing.
And the French also claimed he had them. UN Sec Council
(binding) Resolution 1441 was UNANIMOUS and found him
in breach on WMD.
Whether you like it or not, even the French AND SYRIANS,
voted for war as 1441 remained the controlling resolution.
No resolution ever rescinded or changed 1441 which was
Saddam's FINAL OPPORTUNITY.
--
Herb Martin
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:3ju8s1p1dcac5b85a3u0n041bj5i8ctpph@4ax.com...
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 00:49:45 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Herb Martin"
<news@LearnQuick.com> in <JCYwf.273$1J1.80@tornado.texas.rr.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message
of war prior to his actual invasion of France then most of WWII
would never have occurred and tens of millions of lives would
have been saved (probably 50-100 million).
But then had they done that, they wouldn't be "the French."
Then what does that make the Americans? You know, those who sat aside
and did nothing as Hitler conquered most of Europe?
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
