The Possibility of a Prehistoric Nuclear War

[conley]

believing in god is a common misconception??

please educate me oh all knowing one

[Vermouth]

Intelligent Design isn't scientific because it was developed with a purpose , i.e., an agenda. Picking out specific findings in order to promote a certain point of view isn't science.

Conley is right in that at this time we have no explanation for the origin of matter ... If you want to use the concept of God to explain the unknown, that's entirely reasonable. But we, as creatures of God, continue to follow our curious nature and explore the world around us, and as we do, we learn.

[conley]

even in nature, there's a certain order...a honeycomb, the paths of electrons around a nucleus, the waves of the ocean

like moby said god moving over the face of the water

i see god in nature

i think i've had too much

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

that is why man acts in opposition to nature.  in nature we see the hand of god.  man in his absolute hubris believes that he is god and must destroy any evidence to the contrary.  as i say this i admit to being agnostic at best but after more than a little while in this world know one thing for certain and that is that man knows much less than everything.

[AC]

That's Deep, man...

Who would have ever thought?

[SDML]

believing in god is a common misconception??
please educate me oh all knowing one

That is not what I said, bro. I was referring to (paraphrasing) "evolution doesn't explain how the big bang happened", "someone/thing created the gasses that exploded", "science can't explain where elements came from", and the like.

The big bang has nothing to do with swirling gasses, and "evolution" in the sense that you use it (Darwinian), is inappropriate to cosmology (so of course it doesn't explain the big bang, but that does not mean science is silent on the issue). Et cetera, et cetera (insert Brenner's voice from "The King and I").

that is why man acts in opposition to nature.  in nature we see the hand of god.  man in his absolute hubris believes that he is god and must destroy any evidence to the contrary.

Do yourself a favor and put the Nietzsche DOWN.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

sdml just in case you are confused the big bang theory is not the successful conclusion of a saturday night!

[conley]

That is not what I said, bro. I was referring to (paraphrasing) "evolution doesn't explain how the big bang happened", "someone/thing created the gasses that exploded", "science can't explain where elements came from", and the like.

The big bang has nothing to do with swirling gasses, and "evolution" in the sense that you use it (Darwinian), is inappropriate to cosmology (so of course it doesn't explain the big bang, but that does not mean science is silent on the issue). Et cetera, et cetera (insert Brenner's voice from "The King and I").

OK...so how do you explain the big bang happening? Where did it originate from? Who created the elements and all matter? Science has answers for some of these things, I suppose. So what are they? If you say the big bang was an explosion that led to the creation of the planets and the university, well how did that explosion happen?

[Dustin]

Nuclear war IMO will not wipe out the earth, I think most of this threat was removed in the 1980's when the USSR dissolved. I think this may be one of the reasons the bush administration is so against certain nations aqurining nuclear arms though. I still do not feel even if it is for the worlds safety that one nation can control what other nations do. Does anyone agree?

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

Nuclear war IMO will not wipe out the earth, I think most of this threat was removed in the 1980's when the USSR dissolved. I think this may be one of the reasons the bush administration is so against certain nations aqurining nuclear arms though. I still do not feel even if it is for the worlds safety that one nation can control what other nations do. Does anyone agree?

disagree.  iran is a nation that cultivates and exports terrorism, supports genocide and embraces murder suicide as the fast track to allah.  allowing and yes i said allowing iran to possess nukes is totally irresponsible.  we should do whatever is needed to prevent that outcome including turning iran into a glass factory.

[Dustin]

Nuclear war IMO will not wipe out the earth, I think most of this threat was removed in the 1980's when the USSR dissolved. I think this may be one of the reasons the bush administration is so against certain nations aqurining nuclear arms though. I still do not feel even if it is for the worlds safety that one nation can control what other nations do. Does anyone agree?

disagree.  iran is a nation that cultivates and exports terrorism, supports genocide and embraces murder suicide as the fast track to allah.  allowing and yes i said allowing iran to possess nukes is totally irresponsible.  we should do whatever is needed to prevent that outcome including turning iran into a glass factory.

It doesn't matter, and I am speaking more of Iraq as well, not Iran. We invaded Iraq to stop the production of WMD's. Why did we not find any? What gives us the divine right to attack other nations that may be a threat to us. If Iran attacked us that's one thing but they have not. We cannot be seen as an aggressor.

[Vermouth]

It doesn't matter, and I am speaking more of Iraq as well, not Iran. We invaded Iraq to stop the production of WMD's. Why did we not find any? What gives us the divine right to attack other nations that may be a threat to us. If Iran attacked us that's one thing but they have not. We cannot be seen as an aggressor.

Nuclear war per se may not wipe out the world, but there's a lot of radioactive material out there possibly unaccounted for. As more countries develop their own technology, this becomes more of an issue. Are you not concerned about a terrorist bribing a disgrunted Pakistani scientist, putting together a "dirty bomb" and spraying it all over your hometown?

No nation has the "right" to tell other nations what to do. (Who would bestow that right?) Foreign policy is based on self-interest. It's usually not smart to be seen an aggressor, but if you must strike preemptively for the sake of self-preservation, so be it.

[AC]

Iran represents no threat to the West OR Israel, period.\

Nor is it in violation of any treaty.

Iran has threatened no country.

The U.S. has supplied more weapons to "terrorists" than any nation.

[conley]

really, you're not worried about ahmedinijhad attacking us? i dont agree with sabre rattling foreign policy but regardless of why the us has backed iran into a corner, the current situation seems to be that iran's administration would sooner pursue nuclear war than face exctintion

[AC]

Iran will not attack another country, and to do so would be suicide.

Iran is not making nuclear weapons either.

If the soveriegn nation of Iran wanted to aquire nuclear weapons however, they need only pay our pals in Pakistan.