Welcome! Sign in to access your account. New user?

User: Dr.Smart


Click through to message forum for reply and admin options.
Posted in The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy on 2008-05-07 00:10:34

The original land agreement, turned down by the Palestinians, would have given the Jews Israel and the Palestinians modern day Jordan. This was after WWI. The Jews got turned down despite having a legal agreement with Britain that this would happen. Then The Jews were to get 1/3 of modern Israel, the third that would be more than 50% Jewish. This got turned down because of Arabs. And then the war of independence comes along not because of the Palestinians in Israel, but the arab governments call for war. And the Jews are attacked.

You want ethnic cleansing? There were more Jewish refugees in the middle east than Palestinian when both peoples were displaced. In fact it is illegal for Jews to be in Arab countries, were as only Palestinians (who were begged to stay) who willingly left Israel were kept out.

Ethnical cleansing? The British took the Jews' guns and left them to be slaughtered! The war of independence was not some planned extermination, its hard to plan to exterminate people who have more weapons and people than you!

The Jews know they need their own country. They would be banned or live as second class citizens, before the mass exodus of close to a million native Jews from Arab lands the Jews weren't allowed to ride horses, have bigger houses, or look richer than Arabs. And then prior to the war of independence there were hangings of Jews for no good reason, murders...

The perpetrators here are Arab government.

The palestinians could have had a state by now if they tried!

The gaza and west bank were theirs for the taking! No one wanted them when they were occupied, Israel tried to give them up for peace, but no one wanted the land....or peace for that matter!

Israel has promised to take down the settlements by force if need be. Never taken up on it. Why is the occupation of the land illegal? Ponder this for a moment. Who does it belong too? Before Israel occupied it, Gaza was egyptian and West bank was Jordan. Both countries declined taking them back and they were left unowned, unwanted. The Palestinians could have had a state, goddammit. They didn't take the land and now Israeli settlements are popping up on unowned land.

Why should Israel not crush the Palestinians? When they gave up gaza all they got was rocket fire! I do not believe in extermination, I would love to see a peaceful settlement, but until you realize Israel wants peace and would have gladly taken the 1/3 of the land in the begining...And as I said the original deal would have made the third of the land the Jews got had a greater than 50% Jewish concentration

Israel constantly asks for peace and gets war. You cannot expect any modern country to give ground to hostile forces. Don't be a hypocrite and look at the past. If you look to 1948 then you ignore the years of anti-Jewish sentiment going back into the 1800's. The hate, but at the same time the elgal purchasing of land, the legal right to it.

If you look back to when the Jews would get 1/3 of Israel then you ignore the WWI agreement, where the Jews would have gotten it all.

And if you look at that then you ignore the populations needed to be displaced.

We need a modern perspective. The past doesn't matter anymore. The people whose faults it is are long dead, leaders of Britain who confused the matter, leaders of Arab nations who provoked the Palestinians, Hitler who spread his ideas to the middle east.

All dead. If it weren't for Israel then after the holocaust there would have been another million dead Jews in the middle east. I am being honest here, over 900,000 Jews fled Arab countries because of threat of death.

Israel at the time was the only answer to ethnic cleansing, and asked for none on its own turf. The fleeing of Palestinians was initiated by Arab states.

Now for modern day problems....All Palestinians could easily be absorbed into Arab states. They could still fight for a state from there peacefully, but they would have jobs, etc....this doesnt happen.

Israel is not perfect. They are fighting an enemy who hides among refugees and fires rockets from building filled with women and children. How can you call that fair?

How can you call the ruthless faking of humanitarian problems fair? Pretending Israel arbitrarily stops palestinian ambulances, when palestinians use ambulances to smuggle bombs? Or faking bombings and saying Israel did it?

How can you call it fair when Israel asks for peace and Palestinians demand destruction?

How can you call Israel the villian when the got turned down by the palestinian governement to spend 11 million USD in medical supplies for Palestinian?hospitals?

Posted in Creationism and Evolution - True or False on 2008-04-08 00:14:41

Ok...enough of carbon. Back yourself up. Other radiometric dating puts the Earth much older. Why?

As I said it suggests other methods for the same exact effect as wha tthe RATE team tries to explain, except without bending any accepted rules of science.

THe articles I had along with older ones showed new traits AND new information showing up. I ahd in the past shown an example of yeast which over 400 generations had twice as much information and many new traits/alleles, along with speciation which is evolution.

And I never tried to make metaphorical assumptions, I am asking on backing up the LOGIC of the bible, of which there is little.

And you know what. Just for the sake of it: Show me examples of carbon being dated at over 50,000 years old. You know, just for clarification of what your looking at.

Posted in Creationism and Evolution - True or False on 2008-04-03 02:12:43

First point. what the bloody hell. Contamination is contamination. The article provided provided evidence and mechanism for carbon contamination of objects. If carbon readily binds to steel what is stopping it from bidning to itself, which is what it is famous for?

Second point. http://paleo.cc/ce/halos.htm Nail in the coffin, among all those arguements was my article's arguement being previously published by another scientist in 1990. Two points won with no arguement against besides "It doesn't apply". Which is wrong. I understand if logic is hard, not all of us understand it.

Fourth I have provided evidence in ample amounts in previous threads. You readily ignored it as irrelivent then. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/muller.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html These prove that mutations aren't degenerative http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html And THAT proves genetic mutations can increase info.

Last point. No literature isn't my big thing. I never read the bible as literature. "literary analysis" means reading it for metaphors. I don't really see how you can show it as anything BUT a metaphor. If you expect your poor stance on carbon and Po halos to be proof, then show something else. I mean god being one and all powerful is a paradox. Now don't get me into "oh...he's god" its stupid. If you wanna prove YOUR creation, then prove YOUR god. Free will and an all knowing god are contradictory. Hell, free will is a contradiction. Don't even get me started on it. The torah was written as a study guide and to be read and studied and interperted and analyzed from a literary stand point and a philosophical stand point.

Posted in Creationism and Evolution - True or False on 2008-04-02 02:28:09

First point, carbon.

I have won this point because of your inability to put 2 and 2 together. I have provided proof of contamination with my contamination of steel article. You then ignored it and claimed I provided none.

Second point, Po Haloes.

I personally am no scientist, nor even a doctor. This is a name I use cause I was bored. Read his article, trust me, it addresses the issue by at least offering other possibilities. It is logical, and thought out.

Third point, data. At the very least I can find a cited site with evolutionist data, it might not be origininal, but I can find some. The RATE team says they have performed an experiment to prove their side of the arguement. PLUS if I could prove that "big science" was keeping down the fact the world was flat, I'd post it on the internet, for FREE....because then I would be FAMOUS and RICH from interveiws, books deals, etc.

Fourth point, back to EVOLUTION not the bible. YOU have to prove genetic degeneration. The point is, you can't. I have provided ample evidence on other threads for increases of genetic materiel and mutations over generations. This proves genetic degeration is FALSE. You have it all wrong, you can't fight evolution, so you try to disprove evolution can't be true on other grounds. But this should be accepted as a two way street, if evolution IS true, then the Earth must be old...just as the same as if the world is young then evolution is false.

So fight evolution, and stop looking like an idiot, you have been countered and ignored arguements. I suggest you drop it and go back to what the debate is supposed to be, over evolution.

The Torah is almost exclusively taken seriously by Christians, not Jews. Its a metaphor to the Jews, they know that. Learn from the religion that WROTE it. They have almost always seen it that way.

Posted in Creationism and Evolution - True or False on 2008-03-31 03:51:39

I would also like to point out how FOOLISH this all is. I mean christians are about the only people who really take genesis seriously. Jews, generally, take it as metaphor. They have for a long time, they understood that it didn't literally happen that way back in the dark ages. Although there are a few very strict jews who take it literally, they are the exception, not the rule, and have been for a long, long time. So your own heritage, the very religion which you have added to and used as truth, has taken the canon on which you base this whole arguement on as philosophy.