So did Isreal do the right thing?

[noddin0ff]

I ask again: Did Israel make the right decision? Browse the web for some photos of dead Lebanese children before you answer. How can you say "Let God sort them out."?? Have you not considered that God will sort you out, too???

Which God? And, why not look at photo's of Israeli dead too?

BTW "Peak Oil" is a scam to kick up oil prices. The Russians proved years ago that oil is being produced all the time, way down there. Americans can not drill as deep, and say oil is not down there. Lies...

conspiracies

BTW A military invasion takes TIME to plan and organize. Therefore, the recent invasion of Lebanon was decided on BEFORE the two IDF soldiers were captured. Duh. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were also planned prior to 9/11. If military action was really prompted by 9/11, Saudi would have gotten the hit. Lies...

They would've been idiots not to plan this ahead. And, It's no super duper secret that the neocons had plans for invading Iraq before 9/11, but then I think one has to be daft to connect Iraq to 9/11. They weren't connected. Although the Bush Admin tried very hard to imply a connection. As for Afghanistan, um, Bin Laden who has accepted responsibility for 9/11 was being supported by the Taliban in Afghanistan. So your point is...it was a conspiracy to invade Afghanistan? What for? To get a US monopoly on opium??

BTW The US/UK/Zionist invasion of Iran will take place on schedule. The fallout will be dire. There will be more Lies...

I think it more likely that the nuclear attack by radical islamic fundamentalists funded by Iran is far far more likely.

From time to time, an animal turns up that was thought to have gone extinct a LONG time ago. Most recently, the Laotian Rock Cat turned up - looks vaguely like an otter. The taxonomical family to which it belongs was thought to have been extinct for 11,000,000 years. This sort of thing happens more often than you may realize. Not too long ago, a species of tree was found in some remote part of Australia which was believed extinct for some tens of millions of years. The antediluvian world was not so long ago. Moist tissue has been found inside petrified T Rex bones, still red, still elastic, still with intact cells. Just don't hold your breath waiting for some big-name science publication to trumpet this news - they have theories to protect...

Thinking something is extinct is not a theory. Thinking there was a big multi-tier boat that sustained all life on earth for 40 days is an act of faith. Presenting this as a logical argument for creationism is silly.

[trollgirl]

Which God? And, why not look at photo's of Israeli dead too?
Um...one man's perp is another man's victim.

conspiracies Yeah, no kidding.

As for Afghanistan, um, Bin Laden who has accepted responsibility for 9/11 was being supported by the Taliban in Afghanistan. So your point is...it was a conspiracy to invade Afghanistan? What for? To get a US monopoly on opium?? The Bin Laden family has had business dealings with the Bush family for years. The Khobar Towers were rebuilt by Bin Laden Brothers Construction. Yeah, no kidding. Remember when the men who became the Taliban were heroes in the West? However, they refused to give permission for a vital oil pipeline, and they were quickly demonized. You know the rest.


I think it more likely that the nuclear attack by radical islamic fundamentalists funded by Iran is far far more likely. We shall see...


Thinking something is extinct is not a theory. Thinking there was a big multi-tier boat that sustained all life on earth for 40 days is an act of faith. Presenting this as a logical argument for creationism is silly.

The reappearance of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker demonstrates that "thinking something is extinct" IS a theory. A theory, by definition, can be (and here has) been falsified. What were you trying to say? "Thinking there was a big multi-tier boat that sustained all life [no, only air breathing animals] on earth for 40 days [no, actually a couple of years] is an act of faith." An act of faith now, yes, soon a fact of proven history. The ark has been, and is now, coming to light. Arguments for Creationism have put forward by men and women much more brilliant than your truly.

Laz

[ForeverAutumn]

The reappearance of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker demonstrates that "thinking something is extinct" IS a theory. A theory, by definition, can be (and here has) been falsified. What were you trying to say? "Thinking there was a big multi-tier boat that sustained all life [no, only air breathing animals] on earth for 40 days [no, actually a couple of years] is an act of faith." An act of faith now, yes, soon a fact of proven history. The ark has been, and is now, coming to light. Arguments for Creationism have put forward by men and women much more brilliant than your truly.

Laz

Finding evidence that a boat existed over 2000 years ago, doesn't prove that Noah saved the animals on the word of god. It only proves that a boat existed over 2000 years ago.

[trollgirl]

Finding evidence that a boat existed over 2000 years ago, doesn't prove that Noah saved the animals on the word of god. It only proves that a boat existed over 2000 years ago.

[inserts tongue into cheek]

So I assume that if you found some flint arrowheads, you would deny that Indians hunted with them...

Laz

OK, OK, I'll take the slap...

[ForeverAutumn]

[inserts tongue into cheek]

So I assume that if you found some flint arrowheads, you would deny that Indians hunted with them...

Laz

OK, OK, I'll take the slap...

If finding arrowheads was the only evidence, then I would say that finding the arrowheads does not prove that Indians hunted with them.

You could certainly build a theory around what purpose the arrowheads might have served, but it would not be proof. The proof would come in other empirical evidence... As examples: Drawings or artwork by the Indians of them using arrows to hunt; animal DNA found on the arrows; or markings on animal bones or remains that are consistant with the arrows.

If someone were to actually find evidence of a boat on Mt. Ararat, you could design a theory about how it got there. And you might even convince me to believe your theory (not likely, however), but it's not empirical proof that it was Noah's boat.

[JoeE SP9]

The reappearance of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker demonstrates that "thinking something is extinct" IS a theory. A theory, by definition, can be (and here has) been falsified. What were you trying to say? "Thinking there was a big multi-tier boat that sustained all life [no, only air breathing animals] on earth for 40 days [no, actually a couple of years] is an act of faith." An act of faith now, yes, soon a fact of proven history. The ark has been, and is now, coming to light. Arguments for Creationism have put forward by men and women much more brilliant than your truly.

Laz

What credible scientist has argued in favor of creationism? Please state name, credentials and papers published for peer review in a reputable journal.
If creationism is fact then the evidence is totally misleading. That doesn't say much for a supreme being who would plant false or misleading information. I once tried to discuss carbon dating with a "creation" science believer. He didn't believe in carbon dating. I tried to explain, if radioactive decay did not occur as science says then atomic bombs and power wouldn't work.

[trollgirl]

If creationism is fact then the evidence is totally misleading. That doesn't say much for a supreme being who would plant false or misleading information. I once tried to discuss carbon dating with a "creation" science believer. He didn't believe in carbon dating. I tried to explain, if radioactive decay did not occur as science says then atomic bombs and power wouldn't work.

JoeE, the whole problem here is that you have one paradigm, and the creationist you were talking to has another. I gather that you are not well versed in creationist literature and ideas. I am familiar with both paradigms, and I know where this fellow is coming from. You put him down for his (to you) weird ideas, but keep in mind that to him YOUR ideas/concepts are weird. Two theories. Two worlds. Two universes. The two sides seem to, but do not entirely speak the same language.

Conventional Science is going down, and the struggle between Evolution and Creation is really old hat. The new battles forming up are between Classic Physics and Hyper Dimensional Physics - few even have heard of it. Also, the Electric Universe Hypothesis is rapidly gaining ground, and is so new, the alarms are probably not even ringing yet in ivy-clad academia. Stay tuned...

Laz

[JoeE SP9]

JoeE, the whole problem here is that you have one paradigm, and the creationist you were talking to has another. I gather that you are not well versed in creationist literature and ideas. I am familiar with both paradigms, and I know where this fellow is coming from. You put him down for his (to you) weird ideas, but keep in mind that to him YOUR ideas/concepts are weird. Two theories. Two worlds. Two universes. The two sides seem to, but do not entirely speak the same language.

Conventional Science is going down, and the struggle between Evolution and Creation is really old hat. The new battles forming up are between Classic Physics and Hyper Dimensional Physics - few even have heard of it. Also, the Electric Universe Hypothesis is rapidly gaining ground, and is so new, the alarms are probably not even ringing yet in ivy-clad academia. Stay tuned...

Laz

I didn't want to mention string theory or "branes".

[noddin0ff]

Which God? And, why not look at photo's of Israeli dead too?

Um...one man's perp is another man's victim.

Personally, I think they're all victims. Just curious why you don't seem to care about Israeli civilians who fall victim to suicide bombers and missles.

The Bin Laden family has had business dealings with the Bush family for years. The Khobar Towers were rebuilt by Bin Laden Brothers Construction. Yeah, no kidding. Remember when the men who became the Taliban were heroes in the West? However, they refused to give permission for a vital oil pipeline, and they were quickly demonized. You know the rest.

Yeah, I know the rest. That last part especially about flying planes full of civilians into tall buildings full of more civilians. That all came some time after bombing some marines in Lebanon though. etc.

The reappearance of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker demonstrates that "thinking something is extinct" IS a theory. A theory, by definition, can be (and here has) been falsified. What were you trying to say? "Thinking there was a big multi-tier boat that sustained all life [no, only air breathing animals] on earth for 40 days [no, actually a couple of years] is an act of faith." An act of faith now, yes, soon a fact of proven history. The ark has been, and is now, coming to light. Arguments for Creationism have put forward by men and women much more brilliant than your truly.

I don’t doubt that ancient cultures built a box that they believed God resided in [edit: oops, wrong ark, my mistake]. But that has little to do with bombing civilians or with creationist ramblings.

You are confusing your use of the word 'theory' with the meaning it has when used in a scientific context. What you are calling a 'theory' would be more accurately referred to as a 'hypothesis', which is a stronger form of conjecture, which is stronger than speculation (which hovers around 'conspiracy theory'). A hypothesis is a notion based on observations, from which one infers statements of potential truth. (we can't find living birds but we do find evidence that they existed not long ago, they likely are extinct now). A hypothesis in a scientific context is a testable conjecture. Testing a hypothesis requires discipline, skepticism, and knowledge of the difference between bias, observation, and belief. In a scientific context the hypothesis, the methods applied to test it, and the conclusions drawn, are reviewed by other knowledgeable experts, most of whom would be happy to prove you wrong.

A scientific theory has more power. It is a notion that is derived from tested hypothesis, known facts, laws of nature. A scientific theory is well substantiated with repeated observations. It often creates an organized system of accepted knowledge that has power to explain phenomena in a variety of circumstances. Yes a scientific theory (like Gravity or Evolution) could be proved wrong, but because they are assembled from mountains off well tested and well reviewed knowledge it is highly unlikely. Theories are consistent will all known information and generally have predictive power as well. Creationism has none of that (but of course you’re free to believe that it does). Now if you want to argue that finding a missing bird invalidates the whole theory of evolution. I can't help you until you decide to start using your rational brain. Form a hypothesis about how finding animals once believed extinct disproves the theory of evolution and test it.

[Resident Loser]

...is quite popular and generates a great deal of traffic but, can we possibly get someone to correct the spelling of "ISREAL" to Israel...

Every time it pops up due to the addition of another post, it drives me nuckin' futs!!!

jimHJJ(...puh-leeeese...)

[ForeverAutumn]

...is quite popular and generates a great deal of traffic but, can we possibly get someone to correct the spelling of "ISREAL" to Israel...

Every time it pops up due to the addition of another post, it drives me nuckin' futs!!!

jimHJJ(...puh-leeeese...)

Ooops! My bad. I'd be happy to correct it if the software used for this forum would allow me to edit the thread title, but it doesn't. So, you'll have to see whether one of our esteemed Mods can do it. Otherwise, it'll be a short trip to the loony bin for you.

[trollgirl]

Personally, I think they're all victims. Just curious why you don't seem to care about Israeli civilians who fall victim to suicide bombers and missles.


Yeah, I know the rest. That last part especially about flying planes full of civilians into tall buildings full of more civilians. That all came some time after bombing some marines in Lebanon though. etc.



I don’t doubt that ancient cultures built a box that they believed God resided in [edit: oops, wrong ark, my mistake]. But that has little to do with bombing civilians or with creationist ramblings.

You are confusing your use of the word 'theory' with the meaning it has when used in a scientific context. What you are calling a 'theory' would be more accurately referred to as a 'hypothesis', which is a stronger form of conjecture, which is stronger than speculation (which hovers around 'conspiracy theory'). A hypothesis is a notion based on observations, from which one infers statements of potential truth. (we can't find living birds but we do find evidence that they existed not long ago, they likely are extinct now). A hypothesis in a scientific context is a testable conjecture. Testing a hypothesis requires discipline, skepticism, and knowledge of the difference between bias, observation, and belief. In a scientific context the hypothesis, the methods applied to test it, and the conclusions drawn, are reviewed by other knowledgeable experts, most of whom would be happy to prove you wrong.

A scientific theory has more power. It is a notion that is derived from tested hypothesis, known facts, laws of nature. A scientific theory is well substantiated with repeated observations. It often creates an organized system of accepted knowledge that has power to explain phenomena in a variety of circumstances. Yes a scientific theory (like Gravity or Evolution) could be proved wrong, but because they are assembled from mountains off well tested and well reviewed knowledge it is highly unlikely. Theories are consistent will all known information and generally have predictive power as well. Creationism has none of that (but of course you’re free to believe that it does). Now if you want to argue that finding a missing bird invalidates the whole theory of evolution. I can't help you until you decide to start using your rational brain. Form a hypothesis about how finding animals once believed extinct disproves the theory of evolution and test it.

Let me take this point by point:

First I'm sorry for the one post above, where I replied to one of your posts, got it
hopelessly garbled, and then could not manage to delete it.

I do care about Israeli civilians, and I know they die too, but the MSM covers their plight all too well. I just try to balance the bias...

Yes, we all know that planes full of people flew into towers full of more people, but there is much to ponder about 9/11, much more than that most of the "terrorists" were Saudis, and several of them are alive and well today (kind of like the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker). Consider that the WTC Towers were built to withstand such impacts, that the steel was UL rated to withstand more heat than the jet fual could generate, and for longer than the fuel burned. Most of it burned in external fireballs anyway, especially the second hit, for which the building went down first - inexplicable. My bottom line, I have seen controlled demolitions live and on video. I know what to look for. In videos of the WTC Towers coming down, you can SEE the cutting charges going off. There is no mistake, so don't even argue with me, just go watch one of the videos. I predict someone will post and say, "I watched it several times, and didn't see it." We're not all blessed with the ability to SEE what we're looking at - sorry! Besides, the Leaseholder spilled the beans when he admitted that he told the NYFD to "Pull" Building 7. That's industry slang for taking it down with a controlled demolition. I could go on for pages and pages with FACTS, but how many of you will believe it? I propose that some of you are deceived. You won't believe that, either...

The next paragraph I don't care to dignify...

Now, the theory thing. I can see that our scientific philosophies are very different. You seem to put "theory" almost on a level with a Law of Nature. I do not. To me, a theory should always be testable and falsifiable. If new evidence comes along which flatly contradicts it, the theory, however cherished, should go, not the evidence. That was my whole point,and you did not have to go into a sci/phil rant. I just said that the reappearance of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker chucks the theory that they are extinct. OR, in your view, since their continuted existence has not been (as far as I know) formally announced, we should still consider them extinct? Me rational? Oh, yes...

BTW, to answer a question on another post, here is one: the late, great Henry M. Morris, PhD, Hydologist by trade and with plenty of papers to his name in a long career. He wrote or co-wrote many of the classics in the Creationist Movement. He was well respected. Another is Duane T. Gish, who I have seen hold his own in debates with evolutionists. The whole trouble is that the theory of Evolution sits itself up as a gate-keeper, much as the AMA does against Homeopathy. Homeopathy is backed by a huge amount of research, their theory is sound, their method is sophisticated. But to the AMA, or the AMA-minded, they're just a little weird, you know... My bottom line is that Evolution and Creation are both scientific/intellectual/philosophical GIANTS duking it out, but one side is respectful, and the other side insists on treating the opposition as nut-cases. There are issues here, and not of the scientific kind. As I said elsewhere, money, power, and good science are a bad mix.

Please DO NOT read things I have not said into the above. Understanding what I do say seems rare without that...

Laz

[JoeE SP9]

[quote=trollgirl
BTW, to answer a question on another post, here is one: the late, great Henry M. Morris, PhD, Hydologist by trade and with plenty of papers to his name in a long career.

What is a Hydologist? I can't find any reference to that title anywhere.

[trollgirl]

[QUOTE=JoeE SP9][quote=trollgirl
BTW, to answer a question on another post, here is one: the late, great Henry M. Morris, PhD, Hydologist by trade and with plenty of papers to his name in a long career.

What is a Hydologist? I can't find any reference to that title anywhere.[/QUOTE]

I should have said/spelled "Hydrologist". Only one letter off, but as I get older, I must pay more and more attention to something I was once excellent at. String theory? It's too far "out there" to interest me. What about them "branes"? Wuzzat??

Laz

[JoeE SP9]

Laz, I thought I responded to your last post. This site is telling me I didn't. It may be the Beta version of IE I'm currently testing. "Branes" relate to string theory which suggests that different realities exist on "membranes". String theory suggests that the big bang was two "branes" touching at only one spot. The result being the "brane" we exist on.