Miles

Then we must make that absolutely clear because creationism carries the stigma of anti-evolution. These scientists are NOT saying anything anti-evolution, or pro creationism (those who believe in the literal translation of genesis). Just so others reading these posts will know that. As does theism. There are reasonable hypothesis about the origin of the universe given what we know of astro-physics and cosmology. Enough so, that the notion of the necessity of a supreme being is unfounded. Humans have always seen complexity that they did not understand and applied the explanation of god. There is a problem with applying the "goddidit" method to a mystery. It ends the search for truth. We may climb that mountain and find theism, but what we learn from the trip is what is important. The evidence for the origin of the universe, balance of natural laws and so on are, at best, neutral. They could have come from naturalistic processes, or from intelligence. Nobody knows. That is why I position myself as an agnostic atheist.

Sardaukar Kirov-- The people of Iraq are not reaping the benefits of their oil. Because of Saddam Hussein, they cannot profit as they should from exporting because of UN sanctions. He has stolen the money from his people to pay for his own ambitions. The oil for food program has invariably gone to Saddam Hussein and the military. After the war, we will take a percentage, mostly to pay for the war, that is only fair, but we will hand control of the oil over to the Iraqis because, after that, it IS their oil. To others; It is always funny to see those of you that support us when we are helping your cause, then spit on us when we fight for our own cause. You accept our charity, then curse us when you disagree. Don't get me wrong, I think it is fine to disagree with us, but yours passes to hatred. You are intimidated by a country that because of our ideals and values has become the most powerful and will fight for what is moral, even in the face of those who would see other tortured and murdered. Fortunately, we will have the opportunity to see if the Iraqis live better after or before the war since it will be over within a month. Then you who say we will oppress and murder to control the oil will look idiotic. Just as the naysayers of the Afghan, and Bosnian wars did.

I hope your not trying to make Hawking or any of these scientists into creationists. Creationism is a far cry from what these scientists are proposing. Go ask them if the universe was created in 6,000 years or if woman came from a rib of Adam. These are not Creationists. A few problematic questions always come into this debate for Creationists though. First, is our universe the only one, or are their billions upon billions of universes each differing from each other in the way that their laws come about. If this is the case, then maybe the probability of a universe like ours is likely. Second, are these the only set of universal laws that can lead to matter, time, and life? Realize that we would have the appearance of "fine tuning" if our universe had evolved as a result of these "laws" How do you know that other possibilities don't exists? There is not enough knowledge to make a determination on the origin of the universe. We simply don't know, so it is irrational to make any absolute claim. In other words, to say that the universe may have been created is a rational claim, but to say that the absolute truth is that God made the universe, is irrational. Note: there is a very big difference in saying that the universe may have been created by a supreme being, and saying that the literal interperetation of Genesis is true. Creation may be a rational possibility, but creationism is not.

Even if I did believe in the existance of God, then what is to tell me what is good and evil? Surely you don't think that christianity has the only definitions. What seperates christianity to make it the absolute truth about good and evil? This is still the flaw that I see in this logical argument. The difficult part is the fact that the logic might be sound, but it is much more difficult to spot the flaws in the data inputed. perfection is a relative term, as is defficiency. This person puts too much faith in human input and perception.

Don't get too excited Caid. This is a lot to digest all at once, so it will take me a little while to respond. At first glance though, I have a couple problems. 1. to prove soemthing's existance by a definition of that being seems circular somehow. I know that this is responded to in the post, I'll have to read further and see. The statement that says we conceive of a perfect being, and a perfect being doesn't have the possibility of not existing because that implies imperfection seems awfully circular. 2. Another problem is that he uses a perfect being as his definition. That being with no deficiencies. What exactly contstitutes a deficiency? And what is perfect? 3. Maybe the logic behind this is valid. I won't argue that, like emprworm, I find that this philosophical jargon is a little over my head, but I think this is a prime example where logic fails because of faulty human input. That input being the definition of the perfect being.

I was speaking directly to 1st colnel there Egeides. Nor did I in any way say that anyone "worships" Iraq. The US government has every right to act for our national security. We also have every right to enforce our demands from 1991. We have attempted to give the UN some legitimacy by exhausting diplomacy, but the UN proved gutless. So now we take matters in our own hands to rid the Iraqi people of Saddam's oppression and ourselves from his threat. Like Afghanistan, the fanatical anti-americans like Edric will see our intentions as time passes, and will be humiliated by the vase improvements in the Iraqi citizen's lives.

If the citizens of Slovakia were being horrifically murdered and oppressed by their dictator, and the UN opposed our intervention, then yes, to hell with the UN. I suppose I'll let your idiotic nonsense stand for now, I'm tired of debating it. In about a month or so, we will get an idea of what the situation is in Iraq.

You know what you remind me of Edric? That sad individual who always goes for the white guy in a heavyweight championship boxing match. You convince yourself that he has a chance, and may even convince others, and end up feeling like a dumbass when the white guy gets knocked out in the first round.

I don't know, maybe there is, but there is no reason to believe in a God without some kind of evidence. No evidence. It is illogical to inject a supernatural being into the explanations when no evidence is present. I don't. Because an outrageous claim of a mysterious supernatural being needs positive evidence for any kind of logical belief. Well now you've met two. I also am an agnostic atheist.

Then I suppose the US should just carpet bomb iraq with unguided weapons. It would be a hell of a lot cheaper. ::)

[quote author=ExAtreides

Emprworm has every right to be pro-USA, as do I. You throw vague accusations at us, without backing your claims. You are churning out nonsensical gibberish.

Yet this is precisely what France, Germany, and Russia would have us continue. This is what they call containment. They are in favor of continuing to starve the people of Iraq.

Strawman Energy applied to the correct chemical mixture will result in chemical compounds, thus order from seeming disorder. However the 2nd law will state that the energy put into the system must result in an increase in entropy from the energy source. Evolutionists use this law EXACTLY as it is meant to be.

Sheesh and you think Bush is bad? That's what we need, Maud'dib leading us all in a interstellar jihad, oppressing all opposers. And Alia, would you have the Baron Harkonnen in control of the US? Although I know many of you find Bush just as bad.

Did I say that they were a nice, lovely, peaceful nation? I simply said that their government does not officially support terrorism in response to the first post. Human Rights in Saudi Arabia are deplorable, and I do wonder why we don't condemn their actions more vehemently.

Saudi Arabia is a tough question. I think the Saudi government is against terrorism and has taken measures to stop it. But much of the Saudi population supports Al Quieda, Hama, and other terrorist groups. They could probably do a lot more to stop terrorism, but thier government is officially against it. This makes the situation tough.

Of course it's speculation, I never claimed otherwise. But given the current events-- Kim Jong acting like a mad man, India and Pakistan in a tense stand-off, the Russians wanting to take out the Chechnyans, terrorists wanting to inflict maximum damage on the civilians of westernized countries, and even signs that Iran has a nuclear program, not to mentions all the would be terrorist and nuclear nations that are held at bay by the US,-- it is not baseless. Although to be fair I suppose I should give the other side; the US is defeated, Saddam Hussein begins complying fully with UN demands, India and Pakistan kiss and make up, Kim jong gives up his nuclear program and reforms his regime to helping the poor. All terrorism ceases as Isreal and Palestine reconcile their differences, And monkeys fly out of my ass.

Ok, so let's take a look at what you hope for shall we? You hope that the US is defeated and Saddam Hussein remains in power. After our "defeat" Saddam kicks out weapons inspectors because they no longer have any force to back them up. Saddam makes demands on ending sanctions and removing the no-fly zones. He then initiates a war against the Kurds and Shiites, killing thousands with chemical weapons that SUPRISE! he does have. During this time, North Korea, either holds the reagion hostage with nuclear weapons then invading South Korea and making demands for economic aid. After gaining nuclear weapons, they sell some to terrories groups who then attack Europe and the US. Also, because the US has been defeated and the UN has shown their impotence, India and Pakistan escalate into a nuclear standoff, both testing bombs on their own soil. Eventually leading to a nuclear strike, counterstrike and the deaths of millions. Also in Russia major battles begin to break out with the Chechnyans. Massive casuatlies ensue. All of this because you hate Bush. You simply don't understand the scale at which US intervention prevents war. If the international community shows those rogue nations that they will not enforce their resolutions, then Kim Jong's will pop up throughout the world.

a book is hardly evidence Why does it need a creator? Can you specifically and conclusively debunk ANY stage in this naturalistic process? How does this prove God? We witness increasing complexity through completely naturalistic causes all the time. There is no proof against God, because the existance of God is unfalsifiable. However, there is ample evidence against the Bible.

So, after Bush's speech tonight, the ONLY question left to answer for all of you is this: Is Iraq complying fully with resolution 1441?

I don't think that captialism and globilization are the only things that matter. I think morality is playing a big part in the world. [hide]Dammit, I already typed my post a while ago, and when I check something, it goes back to default...now I lost most of what I wanted to say...argh!!![/hide] Nor should we be satisfied. The day the human race is satisfied is the day we stop innovating and exploring. The day we accept mediocrity will be the beginning to our end.

Well, sometimes that is the danger of polls. They tend to get more of the radical opinions rather than the average, especially by manipulating or generalizing their wording. How do the polls compare to the anti-war sentiment that you see on the street?

Man, you are really hung up on this political correctness thing aren't you? Just like with Emprworm with the "miguel" thing, you want to cling to the wording of a statement rather than the meaning. Get a clue man, people don't always put down exactly what they intended. Of course, I didn't mean ALL Europeans, I was referring to the huge crowds announcing their hate to us by burning our flags and such, and the governments that are elected by the majority on anti-american platforms. Obviously it is more than "some" Europeans that hate us, and if my wording is not exactly to your satisfaction, then tough. Why don't you address the points I made rather than focusing on the wording of it.

What kind of a remark is that anyway? You have a crystal ball that can predict who will die during a war or who will die afterwards because the war was started in the first place? Do you deny that the vast majority of soldiers fighting in Iraq will be American? Do you also deny that if Saddam uses nuclear, chmeical or biological weapons, then they are the most likely targets along with Isreal? I think it is fair to say that many more American lives are at risk than any other coutnry.