Even Better Reading for Non-Weenies
mpm
Apparently, researchers, scientists and entrepreneurs have recently
extracted ancient yeast spores (captured in amber) and are making a
new type of beer out of it.
http://www.fossilfuelsbrewingco.com/
First, you got to like the Company name. Very cool.
I've not tried it yet (and will probably make sure other drinkers
don't turn into "Bruneldfly" first).
For those of your who believe the world is only 6,000 years old (Sarah
Palin?), this Bud's probably NOT for you!
-mpm
Gordon S. Hlavenka
> For those of your who believe the world is only 6,000 years old (Sarah
> Palin?), this Bud's probably NOT for you!
Well now, if God really did create everything, and he chose to make it
APPEAR to be billions of years old, how would we go about detecting the
subterfuge?
Picture God, in the void, 6700 years ago, playing with something like
this: http://tinyurl.com/3vfq4a . He's got a vial labeled "Carbon 14",
one labeled "Carbon 13", and one labeled "Carbon 12". He can mix them
up in any ratio he wants to. Then he can use that carbon to make an
interesting fossil (with or without transitional forms, depending on his
whim at the moment) and stuff it into a geological stratum that matches
what the radiocarbon dating would say.
Ice cores, K-T boundary iridium levels, entrapped atmospheric gas
ratios, all the details pointing to the same number. But MADE that way.
The creator God, as posited, is infinitely powerful. So any test we
invent, he's already figured out and planned for the results to come out
a certain way. I'm not saying that's how it is, but how would we KNOW?
--
Gordon S. Hlavenka
Join the Revolution at http://www.ronpaul.com
Robert Baer
Check.
Prove this was done or was not done ten SECONDS ago...
bill....@ieee.org
> mpm wrote:
> > For those of your who believe the world is only 6,000 years old (Sarah
> > Palin?), this Bud's probably NOT for you!
>
> Well now, if God really did create everything, and he chose to make it
> APPEAR to be billions of years old, how would we go about detecting the
> subterfuge?
>
> Picture God, in the void, 6700 years ago, playing with something like
> one labeled "Carbon 13", and one labeled "Carbon 12". He can mix them
> up in any ratio he wants to. Then he can use that carbon to make an
> interesting fossil (with or without transitional forms, depending on his
> whim at the moment) and stuff it into a geological stratum that matches
> what the radiocarbon dating would say.
>
> Ice cores, K-T boundary iridium levels, entrapped atmospheric gas
> ratios, all the details pointing to the same number. But MADE that way.
>
> The creator God, as posited, is infinitely powerful. So any test we
> invent, he's already figured out and planned for the results to come out
> a certain way. I'm not saying that's how it is, but how would we KNOW?
And if she was being that careful, why would we bother knowing?
If she is prepared to go to all that trouble to let us believe in a
4.5 billion year old earth, only the most disrespectful god-botherer
would go to the trouble of believing anything different.
After all, the book that Sarah Palin and her ilk use to justify their
eccentric chronology may have been written by God, but God wasn't too
careful in her choice of printers and publishers, because it is
crawling with self-contradictions, whereas the book God wrote in the
fossil record seems to be remarkable self-consistent, if a little
harder to read.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
The Omphalos Hypothesis.
In other words, a totally useless conjecture.
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff
bule...@columbus.rr.com
Global warming
Communism (my Gosh, how come the deaths of 100 million people don't
seem to deter liberals from socialism ----> which leads to ------>
communism?
The religious belief that we can NOT get oil and somehow magical
energy beams will show up at our doorstep to power our cars.
Vegetarianism
Mother Earth planet worship
and evolution comes packed with dogmas and philisophical conclusions
too)
Christians lay out their issues of dogma and faith and label them for
what they are. Liberals take their religion and call it "Science".
Never yet met a Christian that denies the principles and laws of
electricity, physics, chemistry, mechanics.
Its only the so called "sciences" that can't be proven and have all
kinds of political ramifications attached to their acceptance that the
Christians reject.
mpm
> Never yet met a Christian that denies the principles and laws of
> electricity, physics, chemistry, mechanics.
>
You left out medicine, (a science), which by itself disproves what you
just claimed.
donald
>
> Its only the so called "sciences" that can't be proven and have all
> kinds of political ramifications attached to their acceptance that the
> Christians reject.
Sooo, how does Intelligent Design (tm) fit into this "science".
donald
PeterD
Why would he bother? He'd cover up the facts that prove the existance
of him, when that is what he (appears) to want? In that case, I'd
think he were some kind of idiot.
TheM
> Why would he bother? He'd cover up the facts that prove the existance
> of him, when that is what he (appears) to want? In that case, I'd
> think he were some kind of idiot.
On the other hand, that would explain a lot of things happening on this planet :)
M
m...@privacy.net
He can't. I would also note that:
[1] He is postulating a God who is a liar.
[2] If some almighty supernatural being wants to create a bunch of
fake evidence that the earth is millions of years old, only a
fool would risk pissing him off by not going along with him.
[3] Occam's Razor (look it up).
John Popelish
(snip)
> The creator God, as posited, is infinitely powerful. So any test we
> invent, he's already figured out and planned for the results to come out
> a certain way. I'm not saying that's how it is, but how would we KNOW?
Yes, logic and evidence is useless in the presence of an
infinitely powerful deceiver.
All arguments for any claim on reality would be pointless,
including those for the existence of such a being.
--
Regards,
John Popelish
Rich Grise
Hey, let's face it - given the laws of physics, etc., that came out
of the Big Bang, evolution is the only intelligent way to design a
Universe. ;-)
Cheers!
Rich
Gordon S. Hlavenka
> [1] He is postulating a God who is a liar.
>
> [2] If some almighty supernatural being wants to create a bunch of
> fake evidence that the earth is millions of years old, only a
> fool would risk pissing him off by not going along with him.
God doesn't have to be a liar; he just has to have some plan that's
beyond our comprehension. Science describes our universe based on
observations and a rigorous set of rules for interpreting those
observations.
Science doesn't actually say what's "real", because (insert lengthy
philosophical rant of your choice on the meaning of "real" here).
Science describes a view of reality and the universe that has the
highest achievable level of internal consistency.
If our observations lack detail, our conclusions may be out of step with
"reality" (see above). For instance, the universe used to rotate around
the earth. Later, more detailed observations showed plainly that it
rotated around the sun. We now "know" that if the universe rotates at
all, the center of rotation is... well, someplace really way farther
away than that.
Nowadays we see the earth as being billions of years old. That's
certainly what it looks like to Science. It could have been built 6000
years ago, or ten seconds ago, or (as some claim) last Thursday. But it
LOOKS billions of years old. Why? Maybe because it IS billions of
years old. Or maybe because it LOOKS billions of years old to our
current Science. Future Scientific discoveries may revise that figure.
My point is simply this: Science is a closed system. It's expandable,
but it remains closed. Science is closed in that it only deals with
concepts that can be expressed scientifically, are testable, and are
falsifiable. Not all concepts meet those criteria. That doesn't make
them worthless, it just makes them scientifically irrelevant.
> [3] Occam's Razor (look it up).
Occam's Razor proves nothing and disproves nothing. I looked it up.
bill....@ieee.org
> On Oct 1, 12:22 pm, mpm <mpmill...@aol.com> wrote:> I'm catching up on my podcasts, listening to NPR in the background...
> > Apparently, researchers, scientists and entrepreneurs have recently
> > extracted ancient yeast spores (captured in amber) and are making a
> > new type of beer out of it.
>
> >http://www.fossilfuelsbrewingco.com/
>
> > First, you got to like the Company name. Very cool.
> > I've not tried it yet (and will probably make sure other drinkers
> > don't turn into "Bruneldfly" first).
>
> > For those of your who believe the world is only 6,000 years old (Sarah
> > Palin?), this Bud's probably NOT for you!
>
> > -mpm
>
> Liberals have their religion too....
>
> Global warming
Ignornt idiots who can't follow the tolerably complicated science
involved do claim that that global warming is a religious dogma. It
isn't, but educating idiots is difficult and not all that rewarding.
>
> Communism (my Gosh, how come the deaths of 100 million people don't
> seem to deter liberals from socialism ----> which leads to ------>
> communism?
Socialism predates communism, which split off from mainstream
socialism sometime in the 1870's - communists believed in the "leading
role of the party" which regular socialists prophetically rejected as
a form of tyrannical oligarchy. Democratic socialism is alive and well
in Western Europe, and doesn't show any sign of evolving into a new
communism.
> The religious belief that we can NOT get oil and somehow magical
> energy beams will show up at our doorstep to power our cars.
In fact there is a rational belief that oil is going to get more
expensive as we run through the easily extracted stuff and have to
rely on less accessible sources like oil shales, to the point where
electric cars are going to become popular. It would help if we managed
to develop a somewhat more magical battery technology than the ones
we've found so far, but the technology we've got would do an adequate
job.
> Vegetarianism
Isn't a religion, and is perfectly practical. Veganism - which rejects
dairy products - is a lot less practicable, but happily it is confined
to the lunatic fringe.
> Mother Earth planet worship
Strawman, Have you ever heard of a Mother Earth planet worshipper
anywhere but in a right-wig denunciation?
> and evolution comes packed with dogmas and philisophical conclusions
> too)
Such as?
> Christians lay out their issues of dogma and faith and label them for
> what they are. Liberals take their religion and call it "Science".
Christians aren't in the habit of publishing papers in peer-reviewed
journals pointing out that various aspects of their faith are wrong or
inadequate and proposing better alternative dogmas, Science isn't a
religion and religions would look very odd if they adopted the
scientific method of establshing their dogmas.
> Never yet met a Christian that denies the principles and laws of
> electricity, physics, chemistry, mechanics.
Well the Pope has finally got around to saying that Gallileo hadn't
got it wrong, but it took the Catholic Church some three hundred years
to get that far.
> Its only the so called "sciences" that can't be proven and have all
> kinds of political ramifications attached to their acceptance that the
> Christians reject.
According to Popper, scientific ideas can't be absolutely proven - the
best that science can claim is that their current theory hasn't been
falsified yet. Because Christians believe that God told them stuff,
they do think that they can declare some theories to be true - that
was the logic that the Catholic Church used to declare Gallileo's
ideas heretical - so you don't seem to know much about the subject.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
JSprocket
> God doesn't have to be a liar; he just has to have some plan that's
> beyond our comprehension.
Still makes it a liar. It also means that god has a morality different
from the one it wants to impose on us. It makes gods irrelevant to humans.
JS
Michael A. Terrell
We only have your word that you're human.
--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html
aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.
If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm
There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.
Rich the Philosophizer
> The creator God, as posited, is infinitely powerful. So any test we
> invent, he's already figured out and planned for the results to come out
> a certain way. I'm not saying that's how it is, but how would we KNOW?
Internally:
http://www.godchannel.com
Cheers!
Rich
donald
Rich the Philosophizer
> Rich the Philosophizer wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 23:14:10 -0500, Gordon S. Hlavenka wrote:
>>
>>> The creator God, as posited, is infinitely powerful. So any test we
>>> invent, he's already figured out and planned for the results to come out
>>> a certain way. I'm not saying that's how it is, but how would we KNOW?
>>
>> Internally:
Did you try any of the experiments, or did you just pooh-pooh the whole
site, having decided that you're wiser than God herself?
Thanks,
Rich
Martin Brown
Only by a few percent either way. Big Bang cosmology has the odd minor
defect but it is basically well supported by observational evidence.
We are never likely to accept Bishop Ushers date of 6000 years again.
And a suitably omnipotent deity could start the universe from any
arbitrary time - it just requires setting up much more complicated
initial boundary conditions.
>
> My point is simply this: Science is a closed system. It's expandable,
> but it remains closed. Science is closed in that it only deals with
> concepts that can be expressed scientifically, are testable, and are
> falsifiable. Not all concepts meet those criteria. That doesn't make
> them worthless, it just makes them scientifically irrelevant.
If you wish to believe in an omnipotent deity with a dodgy antique
dealer mentality that distresses his newly created universe to make it
look more interesting and expensive then that is your problem.
It is time for scientists to fight back hard against the irrational
religious zealots of YEC or we will return to the Dark Ages.
>> [3] Occam's Razor (look it up).
>
> Occam's Razor proves nothing and disproves nothing. I looked it up.
It does express a preference for the simplest model that fully explains
all the facts. A just so story in an odl book does not cut the mustard.
Regards,
Martin Brown
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
donald
Humans are always wiser then make up fantasies.
donald
Bill Sloman
"Rich the Philosophizer" <r...@example.com> schreef in bericht
news:pan.2008.10.04...@example.com...
The sort of religious nitwits who believe that God is an omniscient
Intellignet Designer never seem to be able to explain what she had in mind
when she designed the vagus nerve of the giraffe, which runs all the way up
the neck and back down again - some fiftenn feet - to connect two points
that are quite close together in the upper thorax.
It is routed the same way in all mammals but this doesn't usually present a
problem, except to people who make claims about an all-wise creator.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Kris Krieger
news:zfKdnRlE89O6ZnnV...@comcast.com:
WHich makes one wonder why such a God would have bothered giving humans any
capacity for rationality. Like most of the arguments I heard back as akid
in Catechism, the thing of "He already knows what you're up to and has
already rigged the game against you" is cruel and IMO makes God sound like a
total prick. I'm not an Atheist, but I certainly don't view the universe's
Creator as some petty sadistic jerk.
Kris Krieger
$48e5e865$31...@news.teranews.com:
Re: the last point, it is all up to interpretation. Probably most
Biblically-based religions view the Bible as more analogy or parable so to
speak, than word-by-word literal.
And interpretations even of the "literal" Bible generalyl tend to be
matters of radition. For example, Abraham and Isaac - tradition has it
that God was testing Abraham's featy, but if GOd is omniscient, why woul
dHe need to test that? I've only heard on eperson even mention the
possibility that it was to illustrate (IIRC in a time concommitant with
worship of Baal) that God rejected the sacrifice of children.
Also, some "literalists" say that, very specifically, the *King James*
version is "_THE_ Word of God", despite the existence of other
translations, and even tho' the old Testament was written in Hebrew and the
New, in Greek (?and Aramaic?)
IMO, the major error is not beleiving in Intelligent Design; teh error is
in presenting it as *Science*. IMO, humans are made as a combinition of
intellect AND "heart" AND spirit, and to use specious reasoning to force
ANY one of them to define/constrict any other, is at best hubris, mere
egotism/pridefulness.
Science is what it is. Emotion is what it is. Spirituality is what it is.
I thnk it's mere humna attempts at the manipulation of other humans, to
claim that spiritual beleifes ARE sceince, or so on. IMO, we're a
combination of these things for a reason, and IMO, that reason is, because
no one thing alone gives a sufficient insight into, and/or connection with,
the Creator.
IMO, the only reason to try to call religion, science is nothing more than
a petty human power-play, which foully denies the complex nature of both
Human and God.
donald
So god (tm) was created by man to control man.
religion (tm) was created by man from different parts of the earth to
control man.
This is the best explanation I have heard yet.
donald
bule...@columbus.rr.com
>
> Ignornt idiots who can't follow the tolerably complicated science
> involved do claim that that global warming is a religious dogma. It
> isn't, but educating idiots is difficult and not all that rewarding.
>
This is typical rhetoric from the "scientific" crowd who hide their
beliefs behind a lab jacket. Fact is that there are way too many
variables in global weather for anyone to claim knowledge.
Why don't we hear about the ozone layer dissapearing anymore? How
about acid rain? Remember in the 70's it was global cooling that was
going to do us in. All these predicted catastrophies by "scientific"
individuals are now all forgoten. I guess we don't hear about them
anymore because
1. The political agenda attached to these doomsday predictions were
accomplished
2. They became too hard to defend, so they just kind of melted away.
Here is a list of complete idiots for you to peruse:
>
> > The religious belief that we can NOT get oil and somehow magical
> > energy beams will show up at our doorstep to power our cars.
>
> In fact there is a rational belief that oil is going to get more
> expensive as we run through the easily extracted stuff and have to
> rely on less accessible sources like oil shales, to the point where
> electric cars are going to become popular. It would help if we managed
> to develop a somewhat more magical battery technology than the ones
> we've found so far, but the technology we've got would do an adequate
> job.
>
If oil gets more expensive because the market cannot deliver it, then
so be it. I have a problem with oil becoming more expensive because
liberal politicians feel it needs to be more expensive (of course
because of global warming) . They therefore limit the drilling of oil
- all to save the planet of course (They are such noble people).
Brent
bule...@columbus.rr.com
> "Rich the Philosophizer" <r...@example.com> schreef in berichtnews:pan.2008.10.04...@example.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Looks like you are smarter than God.
Brent
Jim Thompson
On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 16:43:23 -0600, donald <don...@notinmyinbox.com>
wrote:
[snip]
>
>So god (tm) was created by man to control man.
>
>religion (tm) was created by man from different parts of the earth to
>control man.
>
>This is the best explanation I have heard yet.
>
>donald
Agreed!
Also applies to politics ;-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food
Kris Krieger
news:W-idnQIV4s-T3nTV...@comcast.com:
Not "So". I didn't imply that - nothing between the lines, I just said
what I said, and nothing more than what I said. Your conclusions are your
own.
BTW I differentiate between the Creator, Spirituality, and Religion.
[snip]
krw
3fd0cf...@d31g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, bule...@columbus.rr.com
says...
> On Oct 5, 7:08 am, "Bill Sloman" <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
<snip>
> > The sort of religious nitwits who believe that God is an omniscient
> > Intellignet Designer never seem to be able to explain what she had in mind
> > when she designed the vagus nerve of the giraffe, which runs all the way up
> > the neck and back down again - some fiftenn feet - to connect two points
> > that are quite close together in the upper thorax.
> >
> > It is routed the same way in all mammals but this doesn't usually present a
> > problem, except to people who make claims about an all-wise creator.
> >
> > --
> > Bill Sloman, Nijmegen- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Looks like you are smarter than God.
He only thinks he is. ...at least that's what he tells anyone who
will put up with his ravings.
--
Keith
bill....@ieee.org
> Looks like you are smarter than God.
I'm clearly smarter than whatever designed the routing of the vagus
nerve in the neck of the giraffe - since it obviously wasn't designed,
but evolved - and I'm certainly better-informed than anybody who
believes Intelligent Design is a scientific theory that might be
taught as an alternative to Darwinian Evolution.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
> > involved do claim that that global warming is a religious dogma. It
> > isn't, but educating idiots is difficult and not all that rewarding.
>
> This is typical rhetoric from the "scientific" crowd who hide their
> beliefs behind a lab jacket. Fact is that there are way too many
> variables in global weather for anyone to claim knowledge.
Buleg finds that "there are way too many variables in global weather
for anyone to claim knowledge." The world's best climatologists have a
different opinion.
I think I'll go with the climatologists - Buleg isn't a name that
appears in the peer-reviewed literature on the subject.
> Why don't we hear about the ozone layer disappearing anymore?
We've vastly reduced the amount of ozone-destroying fluorcarbons being
injected into the atmosphere, and the ozone holes are shrinking.
Problem solved.
> How about acid rain?
Coal burning power stations now have scrubbers in their smoke stacks
to take out the sulphur dioxide that was causing the acid rain.
Problem solved.
>Remember in the 70's it was global cooling that was
> going to do us in.
It wasn't global cooling, but North Atlantic cooling. There are still
anxieties about the Gulf Stream - if the Greenland ice-cap melts too
fast, the extra fresh water pouring into the North Atlantic could turn
off the Gulf Stream and make the Northern atlantic and the surrounding
countries a lot cooler for a while. Since the 1970's the Gulf Stream
has been examined in some detail and while it has slowed down a bit,
there doesn't seem to be any immediate risk that it will turn off
completely and bring on an Even Younger Dryas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas.
>All these predicted catastrophies by "scientific"
> individuals are now all forgotten. I guess we don't hear about them
> anymore because
You don't hear about them any more because you are the kind of ill-
informed twit who doesn't listen in the right places.
<snip>
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Gordon S. Hlavenka
> I'm clearly smarter than whatever designed the routing of the vagus
> nerve in the neck of the giraffe
Yeah, I felt the same way the first time I looked at a PCB layout that
had a bunch of traces that would connect to ground on one end, wander
around the board aimlessly for a while, and then just stop.*
Turns out there were very good reasons for that, I just wasn't smart
enough at the time to see them. So I was sure I could have done a
better board layout than _that_ guy.
> I'm certainly better-informed than anybody who
> believes Intelligent Design is a scientific theory that might be
> taught as an alternative to Darwinian Evolution.
I'm with you on the concept that Intelligent Design Theory is pretty
ridiculous. The problem is that "theory" is a scientific term, and all
the evidence for an Intelligent Creator is unscientific. The ID'ers
just trying to shoehorn their religious beliefs into a science
classroom. I'm entertained by how transparently silly the arguments are
on both sides.
=====
*My apologies for dragging this thread somewhat closer to the group
charter. I'll try not to let it happen again.
donald
Ok, what does this mean:
>>> I thnk it's mere humna attempts at the manipulation of other
>>> humans,
donald
bule...@columbus.rr.com
Here is a climatologist that does not believe in Global Warming.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
Frome the article:
_________________
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of
Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the
history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of
dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an
issue with no scientific justification.
__________________
And this guy has a Phd in climatology!
And here is an article of a couple of heretics in the religion of
Global Warming that are going to lose their jobs.
http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/state-climatologists-attacked-for-global-warming-doubts
(If this doesn't look like the "scientific" equivelant of burning at
the stake, well - ha)
m...@privacy.net
bule...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
>Bill Sloman wrote:
>
>> The sort of religious nitwits who believe that God is an omniscient
>> Intellignet Designer never seem to be able to explain what she had in mind
>> when she designed the vagus nerve of the giraffe, which runs all the way up
>> the neck and back down again - some fiftenn feet - to connect two points
>> that are quite close together in the upper thorax.
>>
>> It is routed the same way in all mammals but this doesn't usually present a
>> problem, except to people who make claims about an all-wise creator.
>
>Looks like you are smarter than God.
Or that God does not exist.
Do you have a single shred of actual evidence that your invisible
friend up in the sky actually exits? I didn't think so.
donald
He (they) do not need evidence of the existence of anything.
What He (they) need to understand is that their make believe friend does
not control my world.
As such, laws passed under the light of their make believe friend are
false laws. Not to be revered as real laws of man.
Once this is understood, the world will be a less violent place to live.
donald
dlzc
On Oct 5, 5:33 pm, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> On 6 okt, 00:48, buleg...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
...
> > Why don't we hear about the ozone layer
> > disappearing anymore?
Why did the networks stop carrying Apollo feeds starting with Apollo
13, until a catastrophe occurred? People get tired of hearing the
same news that changes only slightly annually.
> We've vastly reduced the amount of ozone-
> destroying fluorcarbons being injected into the
> atmosphere, and the ozone holes are shrinking.
> Problem solved.
Not really shrinking, but not getting worse at least...
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/
... seems like we just got through with "record low ozone levels" at
both poles, so it might be a big premature to say "problem solved".
Espcially since there is still a good bit of trade in "illicit" R-12
still.
David A. Smith
Kris Krieger
news:ctOdnTbohefy83TV...@comcast.com:
Had you not ignored the last statement, the previous statements would have
been more clear, in terms of what I was presentign as my own personal view,
i.e. the section starting with "IMO".
Religion and spirituality are neitehr mutually exclusive, nor mutually
requisite. One can exist entirely without the other, although with most
people, there is a blending of the two (in varying proportions from
individual to individual). If an Ultimate Creator does exist, then
he/she/it exists regardless of human belief. Religions, OTOH, *only* exist
because of Human belief, and therefore seek *and keep* members. The latter
is what I think is behind both the power-hierarchy aspect, and the
manipulative aspect, of so many religions.
In terms of manipulation, simply believing in a Creator, or even in
Intelligent Design, does *not* in and of itself automatically imply or
cause some form of manipulation of others. One can believe in a Supreme
Being yet never even mention it to others, never mind try to use that
belief to make others do certain things.
My personal view is that no specifc religion is relevant merely by beign a
religion, because what is *IMO* relevant is whether one keeps one's
covenent with the Creator after making it. This is why I don't blather my
beliefs all over the internet or in public - I'm quite busy enough seeing
to my own soul to develop some sort of need to try to use my beliefs to
manipulate others - especially given that such manipulation goes against my
beliefs, with a very few specifc *possible* exceptions (similar to the one
exception I see to using violence is defense of self or others in a
definite mortal-threat situation). There are certain logical conclusions
that I think follow if one posits the existence of a Supreme Creator, one
of which conclusions is that an individual needs no power hierarchy to
intervene between, or translate for, one and the Creator. I've yet to come
across a religion (remember, man-made rule-set) which I can integrate with
those conclusions, and I therefore belong to no religion.
So, if you are speaking about religion specifically, yes, religions have
quite a few characteristics which I see as negative. But I wasn't speaking
about religion, but about spirituality. SO that's why I said that your
conclusions were your own, and not drawn from what I said re: spirituality.
Hopefully that is more clear.
donald
>
>
> So, if you are speaking about religion specifically, yes, religions have
> quite a few characteristics which I see as negative. But I wasn't speaking
> about religion, but about spirituality. SO that's why I said that your
> conclusions were your own, and not drawn from what I said re: spirituality.
>
> Hopefully that is more clear.
Ok, I will accept your _personal_ need to make a connection with some
spirituality.
Why can that not be yourself ?
donald
Don Klipstein
The only occureence of "record" on that page is:
Annual record since 1979
In this case, that is not a statement that a post-1979 record was
recently set, but what the recording of annual data since 1979 has been.
In terms of amount of area area having ozone depleted to less than "220
Dobson Units", 2008 did indeed set a post-1979 high by a small margin,
breaking the previous one of 2006. 1998 was only negligibly worse than
2006.
In terms of "Dobson units" for the most-depleted point in the ozone
hole, the worst year was 1998.
It does appear to me that the ozone hole's rate of worsening started
to slow down in 1992, and the ozone hole had close to zero long term
worsening since 1994.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ozone_cfc_trends.png
mentions that peak concentration of "equivalent chlorine" in surface
level atmosphere had peaked sometime in the range of 1992-1994.
The main graph there says global EECL ("quivalent chlorine"?) is down
from its peak by about 7%, as of what appears to me to be 2004. EECL
sharply leveled off in 1992-1993, with the peak in 1994 according to that
graph.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
>Annual record since 1979 (of ozone hole)
>
> In this case, that is not a statement that a post-1979 record was
>recently set, but what the recording of annual data since 1979 has been.
>
> In terms of amount of area area having ozone depleted to less than "220
>Dobson Units", 2008 did indeed set a post-1979 high by a small margin,
>breaking the previous one of 2006. 1998 was only negligibly worse than
>2006.
I meant to say "2006 was only negligibly worse than 1998".
> In terms of "Dobson units" for the most-depleted point in the ozone
>hole, the worst year was 1998.
>
> It does appear to me that the ozone hole's rate of worsening started
>to slow down in 1992, and the ozone hole had close to zero long term
>worsening since 1994.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ozone_cfc_trends.png
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
donald
"Individuals who lack control seek to find and impose order in the world
through superstition, rituals and conspiratorial explanations, according
to new research from The University of Texas at Austin and published in
Science."
Kris Krieger
news:w_WdnQMt851Co3fV...@comcast.com:
Aer you asking why I have a spiritual aspect? i don't see what that has to
do with teasing out the difference between a personal belief and a power
hierarchy.
I'm not going to discuss my personal spirituality any more than I have,
because the only thing about it that's relevant to anyone or anything else is
that it influences me to have a better attitude towards otehr people and
towards living things, and life, in general. There are other reasons as well,
but I think that one is more than sufficient.
donald
Your personal spirituality is not the point here.
The desire to have a connection with something outside yourself is the
point.
When a stronger personality finds the common "spirit" of a group of
people, that personality can take advantage of the entire group.
(Jim Jones come to mind.)
Political systems around the world for centuries have used religion and
gods(tm) to control the masses and the political system in the usa is no
exception.
The weak willed and weak minded will fall prey to the "common good".
Please have your own personal "what ever you what to call it", its a
free country.
But when people are mentally abused or physically beaten because they do
not "believe" as you (the proverbial you) do, the system has gone too far.
donald
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
> Dear bill.slo...:
>> We've vastly reduced the amount of ozone-
>> destroying fluorcarbons being injected into the
>> atmosphere, and the ozone holes are shrinking.
>> Problem solved.
>
> Not really shrinking, but not getting worse at least...
> http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/
> ... seems like we just got through with "record low ozone levels" at
> both poles, so it might be a big premature to say "problem solved".
> Espcially since there is still a good bit of trade in "illicit" R-12
> still.
Problem with that is, there was never a problem in the first place.
The ozonists apparently don't even know where ozone COMES from - it's
the result of O2 being dissociated by a UV photon, stopping the photon.
The ozone is just a side effect of having all that free atomic oxygen
in the air.
And, of course, the reasons that there is a "hole" at the poles are
(1) very little sunlight, so very little ozone is being created.
(2) solar wind/auroras, which will aggressivly accelerate ozone's
natural breakdown process.
And what do they think causes CFCs, which weigh many times more than
air, miraculously levitate to the upper atmosphere, and travel all
the way to Antarctica to do its dirty work? And why don't they break
down the smog ozone on their way?
I notice the antismokerists, even though they won all those concessions
and successfully ripped off the tobacco companies for billions, are
still preaching.
Has anyone noticed that, while fewer people are smoking these days,
that cancer rates have been rising?
Thanks,
Rich
Kris Krieger
news:DL-dnVyELfqy-HfV...@comcast.com:
I'm not in a group. That was my point - a group isn't requisite and IMO,
the static of groupthink can just as easily interfere with spirituality,
spiritual connection. Also, if God does exist, neither the exitence, nor
lack thereof, of a group would be relevant to the existence of said deity.
>
> Political systems around the world for centuries have used religion and
> gods(tm) to control the masses and the political system in the usa is no
> exception.
>
> The weak willed and weak minded will fall prey to the "common good".
THat doesn't have anything to do with my point, but it is interesting that
you evidently do not recognize the potential value of "common good" - which
is a heck iof a lot more complex and sueful than your simplisticly equating
it with religious tyranny.
>
> Please have your own personal "what ever you what to call it", its a
> free country.
>
> But when people are mentally abused or physically beaten because they do
> not "believe" as you (the proverbial you) do, the system has gone too
> far.
WTF? I don't give a hoot what other poeple beleive or not, and how can I
be trying to force epoel to belive soemthign when I almost never talk *at
all* about what I beleive?
Why are you insisting upon equating I've said with Jim Jones? It's
annoying and absurd. And not worth my time.
James Beck
nu...@example.net says...
> in the air.
>
> And, of course, the reasons that there is a "hole" at the poles are
> (1) very little sunlight, so very little ozone is being created.
> (2) solar wind/auroras, which will aggressivly accelerate ozone's
> natural breakdown process.
It always made me laugh when they acted so......earnest about the hole
in the ozone layer at the south pole. Exactly where you would expect to
find one, right there where particles stream down the magnetic pole and
slam in to the atmosphere. Bet there is one over the northern magnetic
pole too. Another one of those DUH things the alarmists use to control
those that don't know better.
bule...@columbus.rr.com
>
> Your personal spirituality is not the point here.
>
> The desire to have a connection with something outside yourself is the
> point.
>
> When a stronger personality finds the common "spirit" of a group of
> people, that personality can take advantage of the entire group.
>
> (Jim Jones come to mind.)
Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler (Whose long term goal for Germany was the
slow death of Christianity), Fidel Castro. Funny how these leaders,
who espouse godless societies, wind up setting up far more reppresive
regimes than anything Christianity can muster up. Christian societies
have certain backstops in place that may eventually wake peoples
consciences to change their bad ways. It is kind of hard to see any
backstop in the non-religious regimes that we can are all too familiar
with.
>
> Political systems around the world for centuries have used religion and
> gods(tm) to control the masses and the political system in the usa is no
> exception.
Everybody has their "religion" Unless if you live on an island by
yourself, you wil l have to abide, to some degree, by the desires of
others. These desires will be spiffed up in some virtuous form. In
godless Communism, the state was the religion. Look what happened
there.
>
> The weak willed and weak minded will fall prey to the "common good".
I see. Does that common good extend down to taking care of your own
children? I guess most mothers who look after the common good of
their kids are weak willed by your definition. I guess a school board
member who tries to figure out how to spend money in a way that
benefits the most people is weak willed?
How moronic.
> Please have your own personal "what ever you what to call it", its a
> free country.
>
> But when people are mentally abused or physically beaten because they do
> not "believe" as you (the proverbial you) do, the system has gone too far.
Every single law that society has ultimately involves telling people
what they can or cannot do. Those laws (unless godless systems have
no laws) are based upon some value system. If you created your utopia
world, you too would create laws based upon your values (substitute
religion) and you WOULD impose those values on the members of your
perfect world. The alternative would be , for startes, murder,
kidnapping, rape, incest, theft, assault and other unspeakable things
happening with no condemnation at all for them. How would you
persuade a pervert, in your perfect godless world, to be a good boy
(oops - you would be trying to persuade him - that is wrong in your
world). I guess in your world, with no values imposed on anyone, that
anything (and I mean anything) goes. Survival of the fittest. Each
person gets to decide what is right in their own eyes.
You live in such a blessed country due to the centuries of your
ancesters trying to do the right thing and apply the right
principles. Too bad you are not able to see it.
bule...@columbus.rr.com
> buleg...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
>
> Do you have a single shred of actual evidence that your invisible
> friend up in the sky actually exits? I didn't think so.
Creation itself is evidence. I do not believe that any random proces
could ever have the outcome of life that exists.
Don Klipstein
The Antarctic ozone hole is centered, by a large margin, much closer to
the geographic pole than to the magnetic pole.
An Arctic hole has weakly turned up at times. Ozone holes are mainly an
Antarctic problem due to colder temperatures and to winds blowing more
steadily along latitude lines than in/near the Arctic.
When an Arctic hole does shows up, it will be in an Arctic polar vortex,
which could be over/near northern Canada or over Siberia because the land
is colder than the Arctic Ocean. The Antarctic polar vortex gets better
defined and generally sticks close to the geographic pole.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
m...@privacy.net
If his invisible friend up in the sky is really almighty, why does
he need puny humans to pass laws?
m...@privacy.net
bule...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
>Adolph Hitler (Whose long term goal for Germany was the slow
>death of Christianity),
Now you are just making things up. Naziism was a Christian
movement through and through, and Hitler was a Christian.
Today Christians stand at the head of this country ...
I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want
to destroy Christianity ... We want to fill our culture
again with the Christian spirit ... We want to burn out
all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the
theater, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out
the *poison of immorality* which has entered into our
whole life and culture as a result of *liberal excess*
during the past years.
-Adolph Hitler, the Speeches of Adolph Hitler 1922-1939,
Vol. 1 pg. 871-872
This human world of ours would be inconceivable without
the practical existence of a religious belief.
-Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf
"Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered
by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked
Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good
fortune of being permitted to live at this time."
-Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and
Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once
in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized
these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight
against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as
a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a
Christian and as a man I read through the passage which
tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and
seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood
of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against
the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with
deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever
before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed
his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty
to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be
a fighter for truth and justice ... And if there is
anything which could demonstrate that we are acting
rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as
a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And
when I look on my people I see them work and work and
toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have
only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I
go out in the morning and see these men standing in
their queues and look into their pinched faces, then
I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil,
if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our
Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by
whom today this poor people are plundered and
exposed."
-Adolf Hitler, speech on April 12, 1922,
published in My New Order
"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools
have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction
without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently,
all character training and religion must be derived from faith.
We need believing people."
-Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, from a speech made during
negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordant of 1933]
m...@privacy.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
bule...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
>
>m...@privacy.net wrote:
>
>> bule...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
>>
>> Do you have a single shred of actual evidence that your invisible
>> friend up in the sky actually exits? I didn't think so.
>
>Creation itself is evidence. I do not believe that any random proces
>could ever have the outcome of life that exists.
In other words, you have no actual evidence, just an assumption
about the way the universe must have arisen, which you believe
by faith.
Martin Brown
> In article <pan.2008.10.06....@example.net>,
> nu...@example.net says...
>> in the air.
>>
>> And, of course, the reasons that there is a "hole" at the poles are
>> (1) very little sunlight, so very little ozone is being created.
>> (2) solar wind/auroras, which will aggressivly accelerate ozone's
>> natural breakdown process.
You could not be more wrong. Go and read the peer reviewed literature.
>
> It always made me laugh when they acted so......earnest about the hole
> in the ozone layer at the south pole. Exactly where you would expect to
> find one, right there where particles stream down the magnetic pole and
> slam in to the atmosphere. Bet there is one over the northern magnetic
> pole too. Another one of those DUH things the alarmists use to control
> those that don't know better.
The truth is that even fluorine chemists like to be able to live on the
surface of the Earth. That is why we have the Montreal protocol.
The peak time for damage in the Antarctic polar region is when strong
sunlight returns in Spring (ie now) and the polar vortex is still very
cold with ultra high polar stratospheric clouds which hugely accelerate
the ozone depletion by providing reaction sites for the chlorine from
the CFCs. They are very beautiful although damaging to the ozone layer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_stratospheric_cloud
http://www.nezumi.demon.co.uk/astro/nacreous/3/nacreous3.htm
The North pole doesn't suffer quite so badly as the continents usually
stop an isolated very cold vortex from forming. However, last year was
exceptional for displays of PSCs in Finland. Whenever and wherever these
clouds appear in sunlight the ozone layer cripples very quickly.
I guess geography isn't one of the dittoheads strong points but in the
mid summer one pole is in continuous sunshine (and the other is in
darkness).
The ozone hole was and still is very real. AGW by trapping more heat in
the troposphere is cooling the stratosphere to an extent that the polar
stratospheric clouds which provide the catalysis sites are becoming more
common even at temperate latitudes. The CFCs are slowly dissipating but
their lifetime in the atmosphere is extremely long. It is because they
are so stable that the problem arises. The last time there was a serious
hole over Europe was in the PSC display of Nov 1999. The last small one
over the UK in February this year.
MOre details on the British Antarctic Site (which isn't responding
today) so here is a reference to Google cache
It is amazing just how bad US popular science has become.
Brain dead dittohead radio has a lot to answer for.
Regards,
Martin Brown
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
bule...@columbus.rr.com
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
>
> buleg...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
>
> >m...@privacy.net wrote:
>
> >> buleg...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
>
> >> Do you have a single shred of actual evidence that your invisible
> >> friend up in the sky actually exits? I didn't think so.
>
> >Creation itself is evidence. I do not believe that any random proces
> >could ever have the outcome of life that exists.
>
> In other words, you have no actual evidence, just an assumption
> about the way the universe must have arisen, which you believe
> by faith.
Everybody in the world, believer or athiest, operate their lives on
faith. Believers just have a set of guidelines that have been handed
down to them that are based upon some combination of revelation and
centuries of lessons that man learned the hard way. Non-believers
must either internally develop their faith or they conform to the
culture around them and just kind of absorb the beliefs of the
culture.
However, make no mistake, just because you do not subscribe to a
formal set of religious principles does not mean you do not operate
your life based upon some sort of faith. It is impossible to live
life without some set of beliefs that guide you to make a decision
when confronted with a decision where you must act quickly.
I suppose you could say that you have these beliefs but would not
impose them upon others. I would then say, do you vote? Do you teach
your children not to lie? Do you teach your kids to pay ther bills?
Why not just put a child in a bubble and let them develop all their
beliefs without your interference and manipulation?
You just think you are so brilliant that you can develop your own
religion. And certainly you have. However you do not realize how
much of your beliefs work, only because of all the groundwork that has
been laid for you and you probably also don't realize how much you
actually do conform to the religious beliefs of the people around you.
bule...@columbus.rr.com
Hitler was not a Christian. He too believed that Christianity was bad
and set out to define a new religion.
Here is material I got based upon a book "Secret Conversations of
Hitler" , Which , btw, I read many years ago.
following quotes pinched from here:
http://answers.org/apologetics/hitquote.html
------------------------------------------------------------
The claim is sometimes made that Hitler was a Christian - a Roman
Catholic until the day he died. In fact, Hitler rejected
Christianity.
The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar,
Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof
of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the
title, _Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the
Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.
All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:
Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest
blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity.
Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions
of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was
introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that
Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was
in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)
10th October, 1941, midday:
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against
nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the
systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)
14th October, 1941, midday:
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When
understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian
doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached
the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will
collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it
to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it
that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the
interests of the State. (p 49-52)
19th October, 1941, night:
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was
that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and
Christianity.
21st October, 1941, midday:
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the
destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the
work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of
personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into
the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of
old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of
Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today,
Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl
Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of
which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)
-----------------------------------------
m...@privacy.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
In other words, you do not have a single shred of evidence
that your invisible friend up in the sky actually exists.
You are the one who claims, without evidence, that such a being
exists. I am making no claims one way or the other about an
invisible person in the sky. Thus the above agrument that we
are both religious fails. I also have never, ever claimed that
I know that something exists despite a total lack of evidence
that it does. For every case where I believe that something or
someone exists, I have evidence that led me to that conclusion.
You, on the other hand, do not have a single shred of actual
evidence that your invisible friend up in the sky exists.
BTW, I do have evidence that the universe is billions of years
old, not thousands. If it were thousands of years old we wouldn't
be able to see stars that are millions of liht-years away.
m...@privacy.net
bule...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
>Here is material I got based upon a book "Secret Conversations of
>Hitler" , Which , btw, I read many years ago.
The actual title was "Secret Conversations, 1941-1944", better
known under the title under which it was published in 1953:
"Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-1944)".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler's_Table_Talk
>following quotes pinched from here:
>http://answers.org/apologetics/hitquote.html
Ah yes. The unique methods that Christians use to tell fibs
shows its head once again. As a Christian, you are not allowed
to tell lies, and indeed you are not doing so now. Instead,
you blindly believe any source that supports your views, no
matter how dubious. By not asking whether the source is telling
a fib, you get to pass on a fib without actually yourself fibbing.
The scribes and Pharisees would be so proud!
Let us compare sources, shall we?
I quoted:
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler 1922-1939
Mein Kampf - written and published by Adolph Hitler
My New Order - written and published by Adolph Hitler
You quoted:
A dubious transcript that was heavily edited by an anti-Catholic
in order to make it seem as if Hitler agreed with his views, and
which contains views found nowhere in any other of hitler's private
dialogs and conversations, or in any of his public speeches or
interviews.
Not only that, but the passages you quoted did not support your
theory until you cut big chunks of them!
For example. you wrote:
>Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the
>destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the
>work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of
>personal exploitation....
But the full, unedited quote is as follows:
"Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism
the destroyer. Nevertheless, the Galilean, who later was called
Christ, intended something quite different. He must be regarded
as a popular leader who took up His position against Jewry.
Galilee was a colony where the Romans had probably installed
Gallic legionaries, and it's certain that Jesus was not a Jew.
The Jews, by the way, regarded Him as the son of a whore-- of
a whore and a Roman soldier."
"The decisive falsification of Jesus's doctrine was the work of
St. Paul. He gave himself to this work with subtlety and for
purposes of personal exploitation. For the Galiean's object
was to liberate His country from Jewish oppression. He set
Himself against Jewish capitalism, and that's why the Jews
liquidated Him."
Note that in the unedited passage, Hitler never condemns Jesus.
On the contrary, he sees Jesus as an Aryan, a liberator against
Jewish oppression! If Hitler did not see himself as a Christian,
why would he write that? Why does he paint Christ as a liberator?
In your attempt to rewrite history, you dismiss Hitler's actual
words and instead rely on indirect quotes from questionable
sources such as Bormann's edited version of the table talk.
Read the following if you wish to stop using the special Christian
method of fibbing and thius follow the commandment against bearing
false witness.
dlzc
On Oct 6, 12:53 pm, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <n...@example.net>
wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 08:59:43 -0700,dlzcwrote:
> > Dear bill.slo...:
> >> We've vastly reduced the amount of ozone-
> >> destroying fluorcarbons being injected into the
> >> atmosphere, and the ozone holes are shrinking.
> >> Problem solved.
>
> > Not really shrinking, but not getting worse at
> > least...
> >http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/
> > ... seems like we just got through with "record
> > low ozone levels" at both poles, so it might be
> > a big premature to say "problem solved".
> > Espcially since there is still a good bit of trade
> > in "illicit" R-12 still.
>
> Problem with that is, there was never a problem
> in the first place.
Remains to be disproven, however. A mechanism has been shown, and the
stuff has been observed in "atmospheric location in question".
> The ozonists apparently don't even know where
> ozone COMES from - it's the result of O2 being
> dissociated by a UV photon, stopping the photon.
> The ozone is just a side effect of having all that
> free atomic oxygen in the air.
Not exactly. The concentration of ozone at any given time and place
is a complex balance of UV exposure, oxygen concentration, water vapor
concentration, temperature, plus any additonal compounds (if any) that
either destroy ozone, or take water vapor out of the mix. And
diffusion from adjacent areas.
> And, of course, the reasons that there is a
> "hole" at the poles are (1) very little sunlight,
*No* short wave UV, having been passed obliquely through atmosphere.
> so very little ozone is being created.
Yep.
> (2) solar wind/auroras, which will aggressivly
> accelerate ozone's natural breakdown process.
I don't believe this, and never have. Particle accelerators *make*
large amounts of ozone, to very high concentrations. What cosmic rays
do, is act as seeds for clouds. Water vapor destroys ozone, not in
seconds... but much faster than ozone's natural decay rate. Pure
liquid ozone has a half-life of "about a week".
> And what do they think causes CFCs, which
> weigh many times more than air, miraculously
> levitate to the upper atmosphere, and travel all
> the way to Antarctica to do its dirty work?
They have been observed there. Ozone is heavier than air too.
Diffusion does not care.
> And why don't they break down the smog
> ozone on their way?
They do help, except the photoactivated state that destroys ozone is
very short lived in the lower atmosphere. Tropospheric ozone is
"gone" before the Sun goes down.
> I notice the antismokerists, even though
> they won all those concessions and
> successfully ripped off the tobacco
> companies for billions, are still preaching.
>
> Has anyone noticed that, while fewer people
> are smoking these days, that cancer rates
> have been rising?
You really need to retire this straw man argument:
http://www.cancer.org/downloads/stt/CFF2007AgeAdjDthRatesFem.pdf
the increase in lung cancer has largely disappeared, as those people
that did smoke die over some period of time, and do not "heal" the
instant they stop smoking.
David A. Smith
Rich the Philosophizer
> Gordon S. Hlavenka wrote:
...
>> Occam's Razor proves nothing and disproves nothing. I looked it up.
>
> It does express a preference for the simplest model that fully explains
> all the facts. A just so story in an odl book does not cut the mustard.
And it's a brand-new channeling, none of that 2000-years-old crap:
http://www.godchannel.com
Cheers!
Rich
Rich the Philosophizer
> "Rich the Philosophizer" <r...@example.com> schreef in bericht
>> On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 19:21:29 -0600, donald wrote:
>>> Rich the Philosophizer wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 23:14:10 -0500, Gordon S. Hlavenka wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The creator God, as posited, is infinitely powerful. So any test we
>>>>> invent, he's already figured out and planned for the results to come
>>>>> out
>>>>> a certain way. I'm not saying that's how it is, but how would we KNOW?
>>>>
>>>> Internally:
>>>> http://www.godchannel.com
>>>
>>> Pick your favorite GOD (tm):
>>>
>>> http://www.godchecker.com/
>>
>> Did you try any of the experiments, or did you just pooh-pooh the whole
>> site, having decided that you're wiser than God herself?
>
> The sort of religious nitwits who believe that God is an omniscient
> Intellignet Designer never seem to be able to explain what she had in mind
> when she designed the vagus nerve of the giraffe, which runs all the way up
> the neck and back down again - some fiftenn feet - to connect two points
> that are quite close together in the upper thorax.
>
> It is routed the same way in all mammals but this doesn't usually present a
> problem, except to people who make claims about an all-wise creator.
Hey, evolution happens!
And you've either refused to even visit the site, or you've decided it's
crap because you already know everything there is to know in all of the
Universes.
Which is it?
Thanks,
Rich
Rich the Philosophizer
>>> Intellignet Designer never seem to be able to explain what she had in mind
>>> when she designed the vagus nerve of the giraffe, which runs all the way up
>>> the neck and back down again - some fiftenn feet - to connect two points
>>> that are quite close together in the upper thorax.
>>>
>>> It is routed the same way in all mammals but this doesn't usually present a
>>> problem, except to people who make claims about an all-wise creator.
>>
>
> Or that God does not exist.
>
> friend up in the sky actually exits?
Sure - Life.
Cheers!
Rich
Rich the Philosophizer
> John Popelish <jpop...@rica.net> wrote in
> news:zfKdnRlE89O6ZnnV...@comcast.com:
>
>> Gordon S. Hlavenka wrote:
>> (snip)
>>> The creator God, as posited, is infinitely powerful. So any test we
>>> invent, he's already figured out and planned for the results to come out
>>> a certain way. I'm not saying that's how it is, but how would we KNOW?
>>
>> Yes, logic and evidence is useless in the presence of an
>> infinitely powerful deceiver.
>>
>> All arguments for any claim on reality would be pointless,
>> including those for the existence of such a being.
>
> WHich makes one wonder why such a God would have bothered giving humans any
> capacity for rationality. Like most of the arguments I heard back as akid
> in Catechism, the thing of "He already knows what you're up to and has
> already rigged the game against you" is cruel and IMO makes God sound like a
> total prick. I'm not an Atheist, but I certainly don't view the universe's
> Creator as some petty sadistic jerk.
"He sees you when you're sleeping, he knows when you're awake,
He knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness' sake!
"Oh, you better watch out, you better not cry, you better not pout,
I'm telling you why..." Oh! Is that God?
Thanks,
Rich
donald
>
> Here's a new model that actually _does_ fully explain all of the facts.
>
> And it's a brand-new channeling, none of that 2000-years-old crap:
> http://www.godchannel.com
>
> Cheers!
> Rich
>
No new _facts_ just the same old shit.
But if you want to find a new god(tm) to entertain yourself with check out:
donald
donald
> Hey, evolution happens!
>
> And you've either refused to even visit the site, or you've decided it's
> crap because you already know everything there is to know in all of the
> Universes.
>
> Which is it?
>
> Thanks,
> Rich
>
Oh come on Rich,
This is just too much fun.
You try to get serious about make believe deities and I will follow you
up every time.
Yes, I have visited your wonderful site.
Its the same old shit about how this thing in the sky will make your
life better if you only just believe.
Your web site starts out with: "God's Intention".
Well sorry, its just too much to ask from me.
I am not a believer in any god(tm) or religion.
And to ask me to believe that this thing called "god" has any reality at
all, its just to much.
Its a free country, believe in any cock-n-bull story you like.
Just allow me the same privilege. Thats all I ask.
donald
Rich the Philosophizer
> Rich the Philosophizer wrote:
>>
>> Here's a new model that actually _does_ fully explain all of the facts.
>>
>> And it's a brand-new channeling, none of that 2000-years-old crap:
>> http://www.godchannel.com
>
OK. If you want to limit the Universe to your own personal box, that's
your right.
Good Luck!
Rich
Rich the Philosophizer
> You try to get serious about make believe deities and I will follow you
> up every time.
Well, if in your tiny little segment of the Universe, you insist on
denying Spirit and Will, that's your choice - that's what Free Will is
all about.
Good Luck!
Rich
m...@privacy.net
Rich the Philosophizer wrote:
>
>me wrote:
>>
>> Do you have a single shred of actual evidence that
>> your invisible friend up in the sky actually exits?
>
>Sure - Life.
It is an odd sort of "evidence" that leads one person to
believe that your invisible friend up in the sky exists
and onother equally intelligent and educated person to
not come to such a conclusion. I contend that you believe
that life implies the existance of your invisible friend
up in the sky by faith. If it was by logic or evidence,
it would convince nonbelievers, just as, say, someone
shooting bigfoot and bringing the corpse down the mountain
on the hood of his car would convince all those who don't
believe that bigfoot exists. IOW, "life" is not actual
evidence that your invisible friend up in the sky exists.
m...@privacy.net
Rich the Philosophizer wrote:
>
> Here's a new model that actually _does_ fully explain all of the facts.
>
> And it's a brand-new channeling, none of that 2000-years-old crap:
>
> http://www.godchannel.com
I looked at about a dozen pages and failed to find the place where
you attempt to establish the existance of your invisible friend in
the sky. All the pages I read accept that as a given - an unexamined
and unproven assumption. Could you point me to the particular page
with evidence for the existance of your invisible friend in the sky?
That would seem to be needed in order to "fully explain all of the facts."
z
> mpm wrote:
> > For those of your who believe the world is only 6,000 years old (Sarah
> > Palin?), this Bud's probably NOT for you!
>
> Well now, if God really did create everything, and he chose to make it
> APPEAR to be billions of years old, how would we go about detecting the
> subterfuge?
>
> Picture God, in the void, 6700 years ago, playing with something like
> this:http://tinyurl.com/3vfq4a. He's got a vial labeled "Carbon 14",
> one labeled "Carbon 13", and one labeled "Carbon 12". He can mix them
> up in any ratio he wants to. Then he can use that carbon to make an
> interesting fossil (with or without transitional forms, depending on his
> whim at the moment) and stuff it into a geological stratum that matches
> what the radiocarbon dating would say.
>
> Ice cores, K-T boundary iridium levels, entrapped atmospheric gas
> ratios, all the details pointing to the same number. But MADE that way.
>
> The creator God, as posited, is infinitely powerful. So any test we
> invent, he's already figured out and planned for the results to come out
> a certain way. I'm not saying that's how it is, but how would we KNOW?
>
> Gordon S. Hlavenka
> Join the Revolution athttp://www.ronpaul.com
my religion believes in extreme young earth. god created the earth a
millisecond ago to appear like he created it 6000 years ago to appear
like it was created 3 billion years ago.
m...@privacy.net
z wrote:
>my religion believes in extreme young earth. god created the earth a
>millisecond ago to appear like he created it 6000 years ago to appear
>like it was created 3 billion years ago.
If an omnipotent deciever exists, the above and an infinite number
of other claims become untestable and unfalsifiable. The problem
is that the exact same logic can be used to "prove" anything. Example.
*My* religion believes in extreme old earth. god created the earth
trillions of years ago to appear like he created it billions of
years ago to appear like it was created thousands of years ago.
bill....@ieee.org
> bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> > I'm clearly smarter than whatever designed the routing of the vagus
> > nerve in the neck of the giraffe
>
> Yeah, I felt the same way the first time I looked at a PCB layout that
> had a bunch of traces that would connect to ground on one end, wander
> around the board aimlessly for a while, and then just stop.*
>
> Turns out there were very good reasons for that, I just wasn't smart
> enough at the time to see them. So I was sure I could have done a
> better board layout than _that_ guy.
I know the feeling; and I've had it often enough that I do go to the
trouble of working out what the layout guy thought they were doing
when they laid out a board in a particular way before I fix the
problem they've created.
The routing of the vagus nerve in the giraffe (and every other mammal)
is perfectly explicable in terms of evolution from a common ancestor.
One can't exclude the possibility that the hypothetical intelligent
designer is planning to do something interesting with fifteen feet of
redundant nerve fibre in the distant future - maybe use it as the
aerial of a wetware radio - but he's not done anything else
perceptible on the project, which isn't exactly intelligent design.
<snip>
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
> On Oct 6, 5:02 am, m...@privacy.net wrote:
>
> > buleg...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
>
> > Do you have a single shred of actual evidence that your invisible
> > friend up in the sky actually exits? I didn't think so.
>
> could ever have the outcome of life that exists.
Then you don't understand how evolutuion works.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
Buleg doesn't understand the difference between science and religion.
Religion involves beliefs that you are told are true, and aren't
allowed to question. If you choose to believe something different, you
are heretic,
Science involves beliefs that have been tested against reality. You
are welcome to put forward a different belief; if you can shown that
it fits reality better than the belief - theory - that it supersedes,
you will be a hero. It does happen to be a better way of building a
model of the world.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
> On Oct 5, 8:33 pm, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
>
> > On 6 okt, 00:48, buleg...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 3, 3:41 am, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
>
> > > > Ignorant idiots who can't follow the tolerably complicated science
> > > > involved do claim that that global warming is a religious dogma. It
> > > > isn't, but educating idiots is difficult and not all that rewarding.
>
> > > This is typical rhetoric from the "scientific" crowd who hide their
> > > beliefs behind a lab jacket. Fact is that there are way too many
> > > variables in global weather for anyone to claim knowledge.
>
> > Buleg finds that "there are way too many variables in global weather
> > for anyone to claim knowledge." The world's best climatologists have a
> > different opinion.
>
> > I think I'll go with the climatologists - Buleg isn't a name that
> > appears in the peer-reviewed literature on the subject.
>
> > > Why don't we hear about the ozone layer disappearing anymore?
>
> > We've vastly reduced the amount of ozone-destroying fluorcarbons being
> > injected into the atmosphere, and the ozone holes are shrinking.
> > Problem solved.
>
>
> > Coal burning power stations now have scrubbers in their smoke stacks
> > to take out the sulphur dioxide that was causing the acid rain.
> > Problem solved.
>
> > >Remember in the 70's it was global cooling that was
> > > going to do us in.
>
> > It wasn't global cooling, but North Atlantic cooling. There are still
> > anxieties about the Gulf Stream - if the Greenland ice-cap melts too
> > fast, the extra fresh water pouring into the North Atlantic could turn
> > off the Gulf Stream and make the Northern atlantic and the surrounding
> > countries a lot cooler for a while. Since the 1970's the Gulf Stream
> > has been examined in some detail and while it has slowed down a bit,
> > there doesn't seem to be any immediate risk that it will turn off
> > completely and bring on an Even Younger Dryas
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas.
>
> > >All these predicted catastrophies by "scientific"
> > > individuals are now all forgotten. I guess we don't hear about them
> > > anymore because
>
> > You don't hear about them any more because you are the kind of ill-
> > informed twit who doesn't listen in the right places.
>
> > <snip>
>
> Here is a climatologist that does not believe in Global Warming.
>
> http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
You are a gullible twit. The author is a paid liar for the energy
industries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Ball
<snipped rubbish>
> And here is an article of a couple of heretics in the religion of
> Global Warming that are going to lose their jobs.
>
> http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/state-climatologists-attacked-for-...
>
> (If this doesn't look like the "scientific" equivalent of burning at
> the stake, well - ha)
The link is broken - ""global-warming-doubts" seems to have fallen
off. Try
http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/
state-climatologists-attacked-for-global-warming-doubts
discusses a couple of understandable attempts by US state
administrations to sideline elderly climatologists whose eccentric
views are being given embarassing publicity by fuel industry funded
web-sites - of which The National Center for Policy Analysis’ E-Team
is a blantant example.
As persecution goes, this does fall a little short of burning at the
stake. And there's nothing scientific about it - it all seems to be
purely politics as usual.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 08:59:43 -0700, dlzc wrote:
> > Dear bill.slo...:
> >> We've vastly reduced the amount of ozone-
> >> destroying fluorcarbons being injected into the
> >> atmosphere, and the ozone holes are shrinking.
> >> Problem solved.
>
> >http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/
> > ... seems like we just got through with "record low ozone levels" at
> > both poles, so it might be a big premature to say "problem solved".
> > Espcially since there is still a good bit of trade in "illicit" R-12
> > still.
>
> Problem with that is, there was never a problem in the first place.
You'd better find yourself another god. The one that you are listening
to at the moment has been lying to you
> The ozonists apparently don't even know where ozone COMES from - it's
> the result of O2 being dissociated by a UV photon, stopping the photon.
> The ozone is just a side effect of having all that free atomic oxygen
> in the air.
O2 - regular gaseous oxygen - absorbs UV light at wavelengths from
70nm to 250nm. O3 - ozone - absorbs from 220nm to 330nm, though the
absorbtion tails off fairly rapidly for wavelengths longer than 290nm
The sun is a black-body radiator, and there's not a lot of 70nm to
250nm photons in the radiation hitting the atmosphere, and quite a lot
more in the 250nm to 290nm (UV-B) range that ozone does absorb.
http://www-sgc.colorado.edu/symposium_archive/2004/final/Keith_Nunn.doc
We do need that ozone to absorb the UV-B radiation.
<snipped subsequent nonsense>
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
MooseFET
You missed an important point. "Creation" may or may not exist. We
firmly believe that the universe does but "creation" is quite a
different matter. The entire universe could be just one of those
things that happens now and then.
Quantum physics says that things don't actually need causes to happen
and that things can come into existence from nothing. The greater the
mass or energy involved, the lower the odds but the odds never hit
zero. Since we would not exist in any of the cases without a
universe, the odds become 100% if you only include the cases with us
to remark on the issue.
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
> In article <pan.2008.10.06.20.53.19.887...@example.net>,
> n...@example.net says...
>
> > in the air.
>
> > And, of course, the reasons that there is a "hole" at the poles are
> > (2) solar wind/auroras, which will aggressivly accelerate ozone's
> > natural breakdown process.
>
> in the ozone layer at the south pole. Exactly where you would expect to
> find one, right there where particles stream down the magnetic pole and
> slam in to the atmosphere. Bet there is one over the northern magnetic
> pole too. Another one of those DUH things the alarmists use to control
> those that don't know better.
The ozone hole isn't confined within the Antarctic and Artic circles;
no ozone at the poles is associated with reduced ozone levels closer
to the equator.
Less ozone means more UV-B which means more skin-cancers. The more
common skin cancers are easy to treat, but malignant melanoma is a
killer.
You'd laugh on the other side of you sun-burnt face if you found that
kind of change in a wart or mole.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
MooseFET
> z wrote:
> >my religion believes in extreme young earth. god created the earth a
> >millisecond ago to appear like he created it 6000 years ago to appear
> >like it was created 3 billion years ago.
>
> If an omnipotent deciever exists, the above and an infinite number
> of other claims become untestable and unfalsifiable. The problem
> is that the exact same logic can be used to "prove" anything.
No:
In a universe with a deceptive god, nothing can ever be proven. This
god would also be meddling with the functioning of your brain to make
it so that logic would not work. You would believe that a bogus
argument was completely correct etc. You would perhaps not even be
able to read the next paragraph where I prove this argument.
m...@privacy.net
MooseFET wrote:
>
>m...@privacy.net wrote:
>
>> If an omnipotent deciever exists, the above and an infinite number
>> of other claims become untestable and unfalsifiable. The problem
>> is that the exact same logic can be used to "prove" anything.
>
>No:
>In a universe with a deceptive god, nothing can ever be proven.
That's what I wrote above. Note the quotation marks around "prove."
It's saying the same thing another way.
>This god would also be meddling with the functioning of your brain
>to make it so that logic would not work. You would believe that
>a bogus argument was completely correct etc.
Yet another reason why in a universe with an omnipotent and
deceptive god nothing can be proven or disproven.
If such a deceptive god exists, I would still stick with science
and reject religion on pragmatic grounds. Living that way leads
to a better life.
Eric
There is no universe. This is all just mad turtle's dream.
m...@privacy.net
Eric wrote:
>
>MooseFET wrote:
>> In a universe with a deceptive god, nothing can ever be proven. This
>> god would also be meddling with the functioning of your brain to make
>> it so that logic would not work. You would believe that a bogus
>> argument was completely correct etc. You would perhaps not even be
>> able to read the next paragraph where I prove this argument.
>
>There is no universe. This is all just mad turtle's dream.
NO!!! It it the dream of a mad LIZARD, not a TURTLE!! DIE, HERETIC!!!!
Rich the Philosophizer
> Rich the Philosophizer wrote:
>>me wrote:
>>>
>>> Do you have a single shred of actual evidence that
>>> your invisible friend up in the sky actually exits?
>>
>>Sure - Life.
>
> It is an odd sort of "evidence" that leads one person to
Who ever said anything about an "invisible friend up in the
sky"? That's closer to the Santa Clause model of "God."
I'm talking about the original essence that MADE the sky out of its
own substance; IOW, it's everything, and everywhere, including inside
yourself; just denying it doesn't make it not be.
But, if you're not interested, I should stop nagging. You're free
to believe anything you want; but nobody can tell me I didn't feel
my root chakra open, and the resulting flow of Kundalini. I _know_
that was real, to the same degree of confidence that I _know_ that
my shit comes out of my asshole. (which, BTW, is where god lives
inside you - the demons hid her away someplace where no one will
ever look, i.e., your own ass. >:->
Good Luck!
Rich
donald
> But, if you're not interested, I should stop nagging.
But your kind won't.
> You're free to believe anything you want;
I asked for that privilege already, but you won't let it go.
> but nobody can tell me I didn't feel my root chakra open,
"Individuals who lack control seek to find and impose order in the world
through superstition, rituals and conspiratorial explanations,"
Its all in _your_ mind.
donald
m...@privacy.net
Rich the Philosophizer wrote:
>
>me wrote:
>
>> Rich the Philosophizer wrote:
>>
>>>me wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Do you have a single shred of actual evidence that
>>>> your invisible friend up in the sky actually exists?
>>>
>>>Sure - Life.
>>
>> It is an odd sort of "evidence" that leads one person to
>> believe that your invisible friend up in the sky ...
>
>Who ever said anything about an "invisible friend up in the
>sky"?
You did, when you answered a question about him by claiming
that life is evidence that he exists. See above.
>That's closer to the Santa Clause model of "God."
>
>I'm talking about the original essence that MADE the sky out of its
>own substance; IOW, it's everything, and everywhere, including inside
>yourself;
Do you have a single shred of actual evidence that your original
essence that made the sky out of its own substance which is
everything and everywhere actually exists?
>just denying it doesn't make it not be.
Nor does asserting it make it true. Got evidence?
>But, if you're not interested, I should stop nagging.
Didn't say I was not interested. Said I wanted a straight
answer to a simple question; where is the evidence that your
(insert your own description here) actually exists?
>You're free to believe anything you want; but nobody can
>tell me I didn't feel my root chakra open, and the resulting
>flow of Kundalini. I _know_ that was real,
The problem is that there are others who _know_ things based
on equally compelling but non-verifiable experiences that
are incompatable with that you know. Some of them _know_
that root chakras don't exist and that Jesus is the only
supernatural entity. You can't both be right.
>to the same degree of confidence that I _know_ that my shit
>comes out of my asshole.
No you don't. You can, if you wish, get a witness to verify
that you shit, and there is physical evidence waiting to be
flushed when you finish. If I asked you whether you have a
single shred of actual evidence that your shit actually exists,
you would be able to provide evidence that would convincce any
reasonable person. You can weigh your shit with a scale. You
can measure the temperature of your shit with a thermometer.
you can time it with a stopwatch. Where is your Kundalini flow
meter? What are the units of measurement for Kundalini flow?
Not the the same degree of confidence at all...
>(which, BTW, is where god lives
>inside you - the demons hid her away someplace where no one will
>ever look, i.e., your own ass. >:->
Proctologists look there all the time. Have any of them seen
any of these demons? Do you have a single shred of actual
evidence that your invisible ass demons actually exist?
Rich the Philosophizer
> Rich the Philosophizer wrote:
>
>
> I asked for that privilege already, but you won't let it go.
So why do you keep reading my crap and responding? _You_ could
let it go, but you seem not to want to.
Thanks,
Rich
Rich the Philosophizer
OK, you don't believe in anything greater than yourself, and you
already know everything there is to know about the Universe.
So tell me, what exactly made some piles of atoms decide to locally
reverse entropy and make cells? Inquiring minds want to know.
Good Luck!
Rich
--
For more information, please feel free to visit http://www.godchannel.com
bule...@columbus.rr.com
He is only allowed to attack your silly beliefs. His silly beliefs
(er - I mean totally scientific, objective and well thought out
beliefs) are not open to scrutiny.
donald
>-- For more information, please feel free to visit
For the best information, visit:
http://www.godchecker.com/
PS: When did god(tm) start channeling to you?
Don Klipstein
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
I just want to let it be known that transparency of gaseous 02 to UV
gets good when wavelength gets much past 200 nm. Wavelengths much longer
than 220 nm don't have much chance of producing ozone if there is already
much ozone in the way.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
bill....@ieee.org
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 19:49:39 +0000, me wrote:
>
> OK, you don't believe in anything greater than yourself, and you
> already know everything there is to know about the Universe.
>
> So tell me, what exactly made some piles of atoms decide to locally
> reverse entropy and make cells? Inquiring minds want to know.
The particular piles of atoms where "entropy reversed" were part of a
larger pile of atoms, and the entropy of the whole system did not
reverse.
Evolution is all about exploiting random flucuations - the first very
crude replicating molecules represented nothing more than random
fluctuations in some kind of primordial soup, but once something fell
together that could replicate, the survival of the fittest took over
and here we are.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
m...@privacy.net
Rich the Philosophizer wrote:
>OK, you don't believe in anything greater than yourself, and you
>already know everything there is to know about the Universe.
You conclusion does not match the data before you. Asking whether
you have a single shred of evidence that your invisible ass demons
actually exist does not imply either of the above. How about simply
answering the question? Inquiring minds want to know!
>So tell me, what exactly made some piles of atoms decide to locally
>reverse entropy and make cells? Inquiring minds want to know.
I do not know, seeing as how I do NOT already know everything
there is to know about the Universe. I do know that, if I ever
get an answer to that question, it will be based on evidence, not
on the voices in my head from invisible demons who live in my rectum.
m...@privacy.net
bule...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
>He is only allowed to attack your silly beliefs. His silly beliefs
>(er - I mean totally scientific, objective and well thought out
>beliefs) are not open to scrutiny.
I expressed no beliefs. I simply asked you whether you have a
single shred of actual evidence that your invisible friend up
in the sky exists. You have ducked the question again and
again, just as you hav ducked the question of whether you are
bearing false witness about whether Hitler was a Christian,
and thus are disobeying your Lord's commandments. If you are
right and he exists, he will be asking you the same question
when you meet him. How will you answer? Will you tell him
that he is wrong and that the ten commandments don't apply
to you?
Rich the Philosophizer
> bule...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
>
>>He is only allowed to attack your silly beliefs. His silly beliefs
>>(er - I mean totally scientific, objective and well thought out
>>beliefs) are not open to scrutiny.
>
> I expressed no beliefs. I simply asked you whether you have a
> single shred of actual evidence that your invisible friend up
> in the sky exists.
I've tried to explain, but you reject my answer because it conflicts
with your faith. "Atheists" are even more dogmatic than most fundies.
What I'm trying to explain is that there is no such thing as an "invisible
friend up in the sky" - that's your terminology; evidently you're not
ready to take on any larger concepts.
Oh, well, some people can't heal in their present form.
Good Luck!
Rich
Rich the Philosophizer
He hasn't - the channelers on his website do it for him.
You can read about it here:
http://www.godchannel.com/channelers.html
But you insist that it couldn't possibly be true, because it conflicts
with your dogma. You consistently try to refute something that you refuse
to even read, a lot like the warmingists and their ilk.
Cheers!
Rich
donald
bule...@columbus.rr.com
>
> I expressed no beliefs. I simply asked you whether you have a
> single shred of actual evidence that your invisible friend up
> in the sky exists.
The evidence is the universe. Since man has been in existence man has
universally accepted their world around them as evidence for God. That
is not to say that the self evidence of the world will lead man to a
consistent set of beliefs as to who or what God is, but I think every
culture, forever, has realized that their existence cannot be
rationalized in any other manner except the existence of God (or
perhaps of gods).
I would say that athiesm is a relatively recent phenomenon. It does
not show any real enlightenment at all. I can see where a person
could easily reject the dogmas of any given religious system, but
complete rejection of God (or gods) is not rational at all.
I can offer no evidence to add to what you experience every single
day.
>You have ducked the question again and
> again, just as you hav ducked the question of whether you are
> bearing false witness about whether Hitler was a Christian,
> and thus are disobeying your Lord's commandments.
Why do you attempt to shame me with a lame attempt to claim I broke
one of the ten commandments? What held beliefs or principles can I
shame you with. (Oh yeah - as an athiest you have no moral obligation
to any higher authority, so there is no means of trying to get you to
evaluate your actions relative to some "higher" principle that you
hold. You live in a world where you can condemn me for my
inconsistancies, but, you, being so brilliant, have no set of
principles to which I can compare your statements to. That does give
an athiest a rather nice advantage.
> If you are
> right and he exists, he will be asking you the same question
> when you meet him. How will you answer? Will you tell him
> that he is wrong and that the ten commandments don't apply
> to you?
I will answer him that based upon my readings of what Hitler said to
his closest friends I came to the conclusion that Hitler despised
Christianity. I will also say that I understood that Hitler held some
level of respect for Jesus "The rebel" but any attempt to explain or
advance the works of Jesus, especially as conducted by Saint Paul,
where categorically rejected by Hitler.
m...@privacy.net
Rich the Philosophizer wrote:
>I've tried to explain, but you reject my answer because it conflicts
>with your faith. "Atheists" are even more dogmatic than most fundies.
Please provide a direct quote where I have claimed to be an atheist
or that there is no God. All I have done is ask for evidence from
those who claim that there is one - or, in your case, from those who
claim to have a demon hidden in their ass.
>What I'm trying to explain is that there is no such thing as an "invisible
>friend up in the sky" - that's your terminology; evidently you're not
>ready to take on any larger concepts.
I asked you a direct question using YOUR terminology. Twice.
Why won't you answer?
After you wrote
"I'm talking about the original essence that MADE the sky
out of its own substance; IOW, it's everything, and
everywhere, including inside yourself"
I asked this:
"Do you have a single shred of actual evidence that your original
essence that made the sky out of its own substance which is
everything and everywhere actually exists?"
Note that I used YOUR terminology. And just to make sure, I then
asked
"Where is the evidence that your insert your
own description here) actually exists?
So again I will ask you the simple question that you keep ducking;
Do you or do you not have a single shred of actual evidence that
(insert your own "terminology" here) actually exists? It is a
simple question. There is no shame in admitting that your beliefs
are based on faith rather than on evidence. Why not simply admit
the truth rather than dancing around refusing to give a straight
answer to a simple question?