Vive le chienlit! (Look who is sleeping with the dog!) Why are we surprised? The U.S. needs to stop buying oil from some of the most corrupt, evil, wicked, religious scum who head the Islamic oil countries. Perhaps every time the price of a barrel of oil goes up one dollar, U.S. taxes on oil should go up two dollars. This will force U.S. citizens to use alternative energy sources and will reduce the flow of money to Dar El Islam. It would reduce the flow of money to the enemy who uses it to subvert the world.

I am sick hearing the Prophet's puppies claim that the U.S. seeks the taking of Middle East oil by imperialism. In an imperialist system money would flow from the imperalist to the colony. The oil in the foreign country would belong to an imperialist investment group of the imperial country. The oil would flow and the money and its profits would stay in the imperialist country. Imperialism is taking the oil without paying for it and backing up such taking by force.

The U.S. pays for the oil. The U.S. pays an extortionist and monopolist price. If the U.S. just took the oil, it would cost a lot less. If the U.S. just took the oil it would not be putting its money into enemy hands.

The evil is that the U.S. fills the coffers of the criminal conspiritorial scum who run these Middle East countries and their religious adherents. The evil is this money is used to buy guns and bombs and worse with further "charitable" transfers made of this money. Some winds up as "zakat," for further subversion of the infidel.

As the the French President and General de Gaule once said who himself slept in a lot of different beds in his lifetime:

"Non au chienlit!" No to sleeping with the dogs!

Posted by: David England at April 27, 2005 7:39 AM

Bio-diesel + Ethanol = No money.

Moose

Posted by: Moose at April 27, 2005 7:53 AM

Those tapes should have been played for the Prince while he was here in the US meeting with President Bush, who should have told the Prince that if something wasnt done about about these clerics in Saudi Arabia preaching hate, the US would look for another source of oil....im sure the Prince would have jumped right to it....yea, they hate us, but they NEED our money or they will ALL be back to living in mudhuts and wiping their asses with their hands.....time to put the thunb screws to them, i say.....nuff said

Posted by: THANOS35 at April 27, 2005 8:55 AM

Dear Thomas Haidon:

Would it be fair to say that you are spiritually troubled?

As a youth, I went through tremendous moral and spiritual agony; although I was raised as a Christian and have added some Christian values to my own personal belief system (It is so liberating being your own God!), I do not believe in anything supernatural and so could not be confirmed in the Christian faith. My family was initially quite troubled but being Christians who have actually read the New Testament, they accepted me for who I was even if they didn't agree with my beliefs. You know - hate the sin; love the sinner?

In any case, the only reason I mention my experience is that, having gone through this intellectual firestorm, I might be able to show you some doors that you can open that, even if they do not resolve your uncertainty, they might allow you to live with it and accept it. Like Sisyphus, you may grow to love your rock.

So, without further ado:

Do you know what existentialism is? A good introduction is Irrational Man: A Study in Existential Philosophy, by William Barrett (Doubleday Anchor, 1962).

Have you read the ancients? You must read Marcus Aurelius' Meditations. Marcus was a stoic and his views are very interesting.

Have you read Kierkegaard and Nietzsche? I found them helpful.

I presume that you have studied all (and I do mean ALL) the major religions already. If you haven't, you should.

Then to round you out, you should visit some modern skeptics.

I heartily recommend the following site devoted to skepticism (very bracing intellectually!):
http://www.skeptic.com/

As well, you should read Sigmund Freud's, The Future of an Illusion.

Then, the literature: E.L. Doctorow's City of God, Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov (Notes from Underground)and the Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus. I found the Myth of Sisyphus particularly helpful.

A little intellectual history might also be of use. I recommend European Intellectual History since 1789 by Roland N. Stromberg (Prentice Hall). Try and get the most recent addition as he has a great little section on what post-modernism and moral relativism have done to the study of history and the like. (i.e. there is no objective truth, so you can just make up whatever you like to suit the particular axe that you have to grind or the particular ideological objectives that you have in mind - looking for the "truth" is not the aim of history anymore)

And finally, you must read John Stuart Mill's On Liberty. That I think is key to understanding the Western sensibility towards religion. Here is a free copy:

http://www.bartleby.com/130/

To quickly learn about a lot of other faiths, go to belief.net. Also, take the quiz at belief.net called belief-o-matic, you will find it interesting. It is a quiz designed to determine what belief system you hold. You can find it here:

http://belief.net/story/76/story_7665_1.html

Or you can just ignore my pedantry all together; that's what my children do and it works for them. LOL. Cheers. Bye. Good luck with it.

Posted by: Mentat at April 27, 2005 10:12 AM

The way to pull an enemy's teeth is to impoverish him. seize the Saudi oil fields; let the Saudi's spend the rest of history raising goats in the sand.

Posted by: Havoc at April 27, 2005 10:18 AM

I would have been a lot more reassured if Bush's hand had been around the Saudi "prince"'s neck instead of nestled coyly in his mitt.

Do guys in Texas usually hold hands when coming over for Bar-B-Q?

Bizarre dhimmitude of the first water.

Posted by: BigSleep at April 27, 2005 10:36 AM

Dear Thomas Haidon:

I forgot to mention that I think that the inclination to be religious, have religious experiences (feelings of transcendancy, oneness with the universe, talking to God, etc.)are part of our genetic programming. That is why religion is such a universal part of being human, now and throughout history. Religions come and go but they have been a constant feature of every human culture; stone age man, even neanderthal man, gives every evidence of having some religious belief system.

All will soon be revealed in any case as scientists are working slowly toward explaining human consciousness in terms of neurochemical activity. As vitalism was debunked as an explanation for the creation of life with the discovery of DNA, so will the discovery of the neurochemical bases for human consciousness explain religious feelings and inclinations.

It was not for nothing that Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA, spent the last part of his life trying to decipher the riddle of human consciousness as it is the last great problem left in biology.

Here is an interesting introductory article on the subject:

Is God in our Genes?

http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1101041025-725072,00.html

Hey, are we having fun yet?

Posted by: Mentat at April 27, 2005 11:26 AM

I saw Bush kissing a Saudi!
I believe I saw Bush kissing a Saudi.
I dreamt I saw Bush kissing a Saudi.
I don't believe Bush kissed up to a Saudi.

Posted by: Terminator at April 27, 2005 11:32 AM

we got plenty of oil up here in canada , the US and Canada need to play nice share our oil and screw the rest of the world.

Posted by: Pegcity at April 27, 2005 11:34 AM

True story. Bush kissed a Saudi.
Bush is a sucker for the Saudis.
I believe we've been suckered for the Saudis.
I shiver with horror:
Our kids are dying for the Saudis!

Posted by: Terminator at April 27, 2005 11:35 AM

Holding hands with the devil...are they really that chummy? What basis of friendship could they have? Just personal magnatism? What does that mean? This is just a little too coincidental.
I like luhaidan's excuse...He was just "mis-understood", what he really meant was...... Sound familiar? Where have you heard that before???

Posted by: duh_swami at April 27, 2005 11:48 AM

Mentat...after studying the mechanics of the internal combustion engine. Laboring night and day over mechanical concepts like transmissions and clutches, untill I became an expert on every nut and bolt in an auto...I still cant explain why the driver decided to turn right instead of left...but, thats why I take lots of Prozac with copious amounts of beer, keeps me from worrying about stuff like that...hahaha have a good day..

Posted by: duh_swami at April 27, 2005 11:58 AM

duh_swami:

Certainly to believe that life is absurd is a legitimate response. To those who feel, life is a tragedy; to those who think, life is a comedy and all that. Also, the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy approach can work if you are the right sort of person. What is the answer to the question of life, the universe and everything? The answer is: 42. Yes, the absurdist approach has much to offer.

However, I honestly think that the answers to at least why human beings think the way that they do will be uncovered within the next 50 years or so. If you check sciencedaily.com, every day we are uncovering another aspect of the puzzle, just like with cancer; every day another little piece.

Cheers.

Posted by: Mentat at April 27, 2005 12:26 PM

Thomas Haidon:

How dare you lecture US? Why don't you focus your energies on cleaning your own house? (Yes, I am aware of your efforts toward that end - how is that working out for you?) As Susanp pointed out, the very WORST that is posted here is nothing in comparison to the murderous vitriol spewed by millions of muslims daily, much of which can be witnessed directly worldwide by visiting websites or the local mosque to pick up the latest literature or listen to a sermon.

When we are confronted DAILY by the atrocities of the barbaric totalitarian political ideology that is islam, don't expect nicey-nice intellectual musings; the natural response is visceral and emotional. It is the tamping-down of these natural responses that has us in our current predicament. It is not unexpected nor unreasonable for us to despise such a system and to desire its utter annihilation, especially since and when it seeks our destruction as a civilization as its primary goal. We were not wrong to hate Nazism, and islamofacism, and indeed islam at its very core, is no different - indeed, many of us consider it to be worse.

So the next time a Western head gets sawed off with a dull kitchen knife on videotape with the savages screaming that their satanic "god" is greater than any other, in effect offering up a human sacrifice to appease his bloodlust, don't expect us to casually condemn the behavior and dismiss it as aberrant - WE KNOW FROM WHENCE THE DIRECTIVES COME. Expect an emotional response commensurate with the level of barbarity of each issue and occurence, and if some hold back and post reasonably and not with the level of corresponding outrage, so much the better for the proof of the superiority of Enlightened Western Civilization.

What is the appropriate response to an ideology - islam - that demands utter submission or genocide? Spencer wants us to "be better" than our enemy, and hold back from retaliating in kind. Most of us do. But our utter contempt and hatred for islam is not misplaced, and if a few "nuke 'em" comments leak out around the edges, it's only to be expected. There's only so much provocation the non-muslim world will take, and I sense that point rapidly approaching.

Be advised.

CGW

Posted by: CGW at April 27, 2005 12:50 PM

Mentat
The bottom line goal of most people is long life and plenty ( muslims excluded as they claim to love death). Hopefully healthy, and hopefully the aquisition of "plenty" was done ethically and morally. In order to do this it is helpful to be mentally "well balanced". For instance the balance between mercy and severity needs to be maintained. Too much severity leads to abuse, to much mercy leads to being taken advantage of(also abuse). Humans instictivly try to be balanced, they use various tools to do this, religion is one, atheism is another. Both groups think the other is unbalanced.
Somewhere from this muck, a lotus grows. As far as I am concerned, "living" is my favorite hobby, "breathing" is also good...beyond that we may part company, but then again, maybe not...swami

Posted by: duh_swami at April 27, 2005 1:04 PM

Calling for the death of Americans should be a fatal disease. This man sshould have joined his ancesters among the sand fleas.

Posted by: Walter E. Wallis at April 27, 2005 1:10 PM

Seems to me the gloves have to come off since I'm sure the Saudis are chuckling about how Bush is powerless to slow the inflation of oil prices. But what can Bush do under the current rules of engagement?

We once vowed never to use food as a weapon, but I think it's high time all the taboos were stripped from our war game plans and we hit the AllahManics with a little indigestion.

Price of Americam produce is way too low everywhere in AllahLand.

Posted by: BillR at April 27, 2005 1:45 PM

Everybody's looking for the answers
To everything they just can't understand
Some praise God and some sing Hare Krishna
Some go door to door to say the world will end

Well, it's all quite a sight
Everybody thinks they're right
And everybody else is just insane
Otherwise, their lives are down the drain
All the years they just spent selling their songs
Just to find it out it's all wrong

Trying to find solutions to give life some meaning
Seems to be the way some people spend their time
All the time that's lost in fruitless thinking
Surrounded by so many gifts of every kind

Well, it's all such a shame
So many years gone down the drain
While life passes like a big parade
All the laughter, all the music's played
All the friends you know you could have made
Then the big parade is gone

Life's a big parade

Ian Thomas
"Big Parade"
from the album, Calabash, 1976 (GRT)

Posted by: Mentat at April 27, 2005 1:47 PM

If Muslims are directly attacked/ invaded/ occupied, it is obligatory on them to resist. If they are unable to deal with the threat, surrounding Muslims going out in a concentric circle are obligated to assist them. Hence those in this concentric circle would include Saudis, Syrians, Kuwaitis, Iranians, Turks and Jordanians. They are not "foreign fighters", rather they are a legitimate part of the resistance so long as they follow the Rules of Engagement as laid down by Islamic Sacred Law.

Hence, the reason for fighting is not to attack America, as Mr. Spencer's misleading headline states. Rather, it is to defend Muslims from the attacks of Russians, Americans and any others who get a kick out of invading and killing Muslims and stealing their wealth.

Posted by: Shukri at April 27, 2005 1:49 PM

Shurki,

Your talking the talk again.
Didn't I try to enlighten you about walking and talking?

Go back to AllahLand a join your buddies in a great AllahJerk.

Posted by: BillR at April 27, 2005 1:53 PM

BillR, I am not in any of the countries that I listed above. Hence, I am not obligated to travel to Iraq to fight. If I were in any of those countries, I would not have any trouble, in accordance with Islamic Sacred Law, in helping the resistance to remove the invaders and their allies.

However, my point was that the Saudi's and indeed, no qualified Muslim scholars are calling for the indiscriminate targetting of non-Muslims. They are only calling on Muslims to defend themselves.

Posted by: Shukri at April 27, 2005 2:44 PM

If Americans are directly attacked/ invaded/ occupied, it is obligatory on them to resist. If they are unable to deal with the threat, surrounding Americans allies going out in a concentric circle are obligated to assist them. Hence those in this concentric circle would include Pakistanis, Turks, Saudis, and Israelis. They are not occupiers or imperialists or colonists as long as they are responding to a legitimate threat.

Hence, the reason for fighting is not to invade and kill Muslims and steal their wealth. Rather, it is to defend Americans from the attacks of Muslims who get a kick out of killing Americans.

Posted by: Mentat at April 27, 2005 2:52 PM

Shurki is like Groucho Marx, had a quick answer for everything. Wonder if he has a thick black moustache and smokes cigars. Say the magic word and a duck falls from the sky with a fifty dollar bill in it's beak...Shurky wins the $10 second prize in the Groucho look alike contest...First prize (a date with Janet Reno) goes to Ibrihim Hooper of Cair...It was a hard decision...they are both so worthy...

Posted by: duh_swami at April 27, 2005 3:02 PM

The PEW polling organization consistently reports supreme hatred for the US, in the Bush regime's 2 closest allies in the counter-terror war: the Saudi and Pakistan terrorist entities. Diplomatic folly, coupled with State Department induced insanity concerning Muslims and democratic will, explains why the US is spinning its wheels in the Middle and Far East, at huge financial and human costs. A few post-911 nukes tossed at the Saud entity and Dog'sBreakfastIstan, would have caused the social upheaval necessary for the national eradication of Islamofascism. Instead, after a $300,000,000,000 plus tossing into the money fire, the Saudi terrorist entity's ability to use petrochemical blackmail is stronger than ever. Moves to capture the oil fields should have begun on Sept 12, 2001.

Posted by: smokem at April 27, 2005 3:04 PM

Ok boys and girls, all of the current Allahisms have been posted at:

http://muslum-menace.blogspot.com/

Stay tuned for more on our friends the IslamoFascists.

News at 11…

Posted by: BillR at April 27, 2005 3:14 PM

When the tyrant Hussein terrorized the muslims in Iraq for years why didn’t muslims hear the call and come to their defense? Is it only when Western troops get involved that muslims “come to the defense”. What are you advocating defending Shurki?

The Americans (and some others) liberated your "cousins, sisters & brothers" from a tyrant and you think that the Western allies need to be fought? Are you pro-muslim oppression? Are you pro Islamic insurgency?

Posted by: Cross at April 27, 2005 3:20 PM

Billr...went to your site...almost fell off the chair laughing. You obviously studied the deep psychological subject of allahisms and have emerged as the worlds leading expert. Congratulations are in order...so congratulations...Every serious student of Islam should go to your site for enlightenment...great work...swami

Posted by: duh_swami at April 27, 2005 3:38 PM

Cross:

Shukri is pro-jihad, pro-shariah law, pro-worldwide muslim dominance via a global caliphate.

In short, everything that we here at JW/DW vehemently oppose.

Posted by: CGW at April 27, 2005 3:44 PM

Cross:

Shukri is pro-jihad, pro-shariah law, pro-worldwide muslim dominance via a global caliphate.

In short, everything that we here at JW/DW vehemently oppose.

Posted by: CGW at April 27, 2005 3:45 PM

If Americans are directly attacked/ invaded/ occupied, it is obligatory on them to resist.

Mentat, clever but inherently fallacious. Iraq did not attack or intend to attack the US and every evidence that the US had, pre-war, indicated so. But they chose deliberately to ignore it.

When the tyrant Hussein terrorized the muslims in Iraq for years why didn’t muslims hear the call and come to their defense?

Because Saddam Hussein was an internal problem, Cross. He was Iraqi and the Iraqi's should deal with him.

Is it only when Western troops get involved that muslims “come to the defense”.

When Western Governments attack, invade and occupy, rather. I seem to recall tens of thousands of Mujahideen being massacred after their ally during the Gulf War deliberately ceased their offensive to allow Saddam to decimate the internal resistance. I wonder how long it will to take for the fools amongst the Muslims to realize that Western governments are not our friends and never have been.

What are you advocating defending Shurki?

Religion, Life, Property, Dignity.

The Americans (and some others) liberated your "cousins, sisters & brothers" from a tyrant and you think that the Western allies need to be fought?

Because they have only replaced the tyrant with another tyrant that steals their wealth and humiliates and oppresses the people by subjugating them to every whim and desire of the Occupation. Let us not forget that "liberation" was not the goal of the invasion. It is only post-war that "liberation" was put forward as an excuse to obscure the fabricated "self-defense" motif of the war.

I must accept that you are partially right though. The Occupiers have succeeded in liberating Iraq of a minimum 8.8 Billion dollars.

Are you pro-muslim oppression? Are you pro Islamic insurgency?

I support the true liberation of people from Occupation, subjugation and theft. Read that however you will.

Posted by: Shukri at April 27, 2005 3:50 PM

Please Shukri.

If nothing else (and I think there was a great deal "else" including the terrorist training camp at Salman Pak), Saddam was very publicly signing cheques made out to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, who were also blowing up visitors to Israel, many of whom were American.

And nobody has stolen more from the people of the various Muslim/Arab states than their own corrupt leaders. Saddam was building palaces and monuments to himself while crying crocodile tears over the infant corpses he stock-piled in aid of his campaign against sanctions.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at April 27, 2005 3:58 PM

I support the true liberation of people from Occupation, subjugation and theft. Read that however you will.

Well, it is clear enough, at least on two counts (but only offering one example of each).

Liberation of muslims from the Occupation of the Sudan by Christians and Animists.

Liberation of Spain from those thieving Christians who took it (back) in the 1400's.

subjugation, subjugation... who wants to cover that?

Posted by: Gary at April 27, 2005 4:15 PM

OK, raise your hand if you have NOT already reported Shukri to the FBI referencing his posts on JW.

Posted by: CGW at April 27, 2005 4:21 PM

BillR:

Something's wrong with your "allahisms" link.

Posted by: CGW at April 27, 2005 4:24 PM

Cross-When the tyrant Hussein terrorized the muslims in Iraq for years why didn’t muslims hear the call and come to their defense?

Shurki-Because Saddam Hussein was an internal problem, Cross. He was Iraqi and the Iraqi's should deal with him.

Cross-Hussein became a world problem and the world took care of it.

-------------------------------------------

Cross-Is it only when Western troops get involved that muslims “come to the defense”.

Shurki-When Western Governments attack, invade and occupy, rather. I seem to recall tens of thousands of Mujahideen being massacred after their ally during the Gulf War deliberately ceased their offensive to allow Saddam to decimate the internal resistance. I wonder how long it will to take for the fools amongst the Muslims to realize that Western governments are not our friends and never have been.

Cross- Attack, invade and occupy is usually what happens when you oust a tyrant dictator.

--------------------------------------------

Cross-What are you advocating defending Shurki?

Shurki-Religion, Life, Property, Dignity.

Cross- The Allied forces are protecting those 4 things you mentioned for the majority of average Joe Iraqis from the fanatical insurgents.

------------------------------------------------

Cross- The Americans (and some others) liberated your "cousins, sisters & brothers" from a tyrant and you think that the Western allies need to be fought?

Shurki- Because they have only replaced the tyrant with another tyrant that steals their wealth

Cross- Welcome to the real world, it’s called taxes.

Shurki-and humiliates and oppresses the people by subjugating them to every whim and desire of the Occupation. Let us not forget that "liberation" was not the goal of the invasion.

Cross- Sorry that’s untrue, no one is humiliating the people or oppressing the Iraqi people. If you mean the insurgent criminals are humiliated and oppressed I would agree with that.

Shurki-It is only post-war that "liberation" was put forward as an excuse to obscure the fabricated "self-defense" motif of the war.

Cross- Liberation was a byproduct and one that freedom loving people appreciate. Like I said before, Hussein had many opportunities to avoid an “invasion” if by “invasion” you mean sending in some guns and soldiers to get him. Your insurgent brothers are wasting their time and prolonging the occupation. They should accept defeat and go home.

----------------------------------

Shurki-I must accept that you are partially right though. The Occupiers have succeeded in liberating Iraq of a minimum 8.8 Billion dollars.

Cross- 8.8 Billion? The US spends more than that every month in Iraq and that’s just Iraq. The US gives more away to charity every year than that. BTW how much money does Iraq give to charity. Do you actually think the world needs or wants anything from Iraq other than to stop being a menace and a threat to stability in the world. Hint: No one needs a lousy 8.8 Billion dollars from poor little old Iraq. We don’t even need the crappy grade oil they have. You understanding of the motives all wrong.

----------------------------------------
Cross- Are you pro-muslim oppression? Are you pro Islamic insurgency?

Shurki- I support the true liberation of people from Occupation, subjugation and theft. Read that however you will.

Cross-Then I guess you better join the Western Allies and fight the true occupiers, subjagators and thieves, they are the insurgents.

You should be quiet and quit speaking pro-jihad before you find yourself behind bars too.

Posted by: Cross at April 27, 2005 5:13 PM

Need your Allahism fix for the day?
Try this: http://muslimmenace.blogspot.com/

Posted by: BillR at April 27, 2005 7:49 PM

Mentat-

"I honestly think the answers for why humans think the way they do will be known in about 50 years..."

Since human intelligence is always expanding, it is as impossible a proposition for the thing that is changing, the thinker, to ever completely know itself. It is like trying to map a mutating genome.

This is the Achilles heel in all 'artificial intelligence' research and 'finalist' science.

Whether the visible external Universe is expanding or not, the internal cosmos, since the first act of apperception, or consciousness of consciousness, IS.

It is most sublime miracle of this world.

Far more interesting that its mere ideas, whether "God" or a "unified field theory".

And the bedrock hope against all attempts to chain it to one place, or time, or thought, or position, or interpretation, or dogma.

We grow out of all chains naturally.

Ain't Mother Nature a brilliant dame?!

In the words of Wordworth:

"Nature never did betray the heart that loved her."

(For those who don't, she lets revolve around rocks. Ka'aba daba-do.)

Posted by: BigSleep at April 27, 2005 9:56 PM

It's funny, but I find some things in common between Shurki and myself: I also believe people have rights to life (before religion), religion, property, dignity. And yet, to reach these things, I feel rather that islam and sharia are NOT the answers.

I also "support the true liberation of people from Occupation, subjugation and theft". In order to accomplish these things, sharia must be, of course, rejected. It is there we diverge.

I was also amused at how Saddam was an "internal problem" (ever the cry of the oppressor) "for the Iraqis to fix" (thus, not justifying the presence of foreign fighters), but that the new, freely elected Iraqi government is apparently NOT just an "internal problem", and that all muslims should go fight the latter. Well, brave ones anyway. Shurki's not going, although he thinks it's justified.

Read that however you will.

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at April 28, 2005 12:45 AM

Also, how do the liberating forces "oppress the people by subjugating them to every whim and desire of the Liberators"? What, if anything other than blather, are you saying?

I suspect rather that Shurki likes to buy into the whole "forced conversion" thing etc that we find on Palestinian Authority TV. Isn't satellite TV and hateful language great?

Geoff

"Is it live, or is it MEMRI?"

Posted by: Geoff at April 28, 2005 12:48 AM

Big Sleep:

"I honestly think the answers for why humans think the way they do will be known in about 50 years..."

Since human intelligence is always expanding, it is as impossible a proposition for the thing that is changing, the thinker, to ever completely know itself. It is like trying to map a mutating genome.

This is the Achilles heel in all 'artificial intelligence' research and 'finalist' science.

We will have to agree to disagree. The road to knowledge is littered with people who insisted that they KNEW the earth was flat; they KNEW the earth was just a few thousand years old; they KNEW that life was so complex that it could not be reduced to biochemical reactions.

As far as mapping a mutating genome, most genomes are remarkably stable. Mutations happen but not at a very rapid rate. We will have easily figured out the entire human genome within the next 100 years (barring some catastrophe)It is just a complex software program after all and we are great at problem solving.

Whether the visible external Universe is expanding or not, the internal cosmos, since the first act of apperception, or consciousness of consciousness, IS.

It is most sublime miracle of this world.

Far more interesting that its mere ideas, whether "God" or a "unified field theory".

And the bedrock hope against all attempts to chain it to one place, or time, or thought, or position, or interpretation, or dogma.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. May we both live long enough to see who is right.

Peace.

Posted by: Mentat at April 28, 2005 10:55 AM