Secretariat

[skate]

it looks worse than what i thought.

you appear to know very veeeery little about economics.

you never ever answer my questions, but ok , i understand

[46zilzal]

this is just imagination then?
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

[skate]

no, it's just another person, "who doesn't know econmics", very simple indeed.


we've All seen those graphs, but little is known about the opposite side of "the money " you refer.

if i can see that money does not just stop someplace, why can't you, you have the IQ?

so, i have three points at issue with your graphs ( i am not saying your graphs do not exist), but rather, i am saying:

1- where does the money go from your graph, it does not disappear. or does it?

2- what is happening conversely with the money in your chart?


3- how does the debt compare to others countrys.
now, Niger, Tibet, Tanzania might not have much DEBT, but why?
while countrys like Japan OVER 80% debt to GDP. and Europe is about the same, which means it is about twice the USA's Govt debt.

so my points would indicate that your charts do not give the full story. thats all i need, the full story.

use this;
current acct. deficit goes down. while the capital acct. surplus goes UP.

your charts only give one side of the story.
and after you figure out the other side, then you can explain what happens to the money in your chart, does it just "Voila" ?

[Ponyplayr]

this is just imagination then?
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
No..I'ts total CRAP.. Why would you take out the WWII debt? And what is First and Second Oil War. I must have slept through them. Did we win? :confused:

[dylbert]

From Steve McGourty's web site (aka source of skate's link about debt) --

Thoughts about SETI and SETI@home
It is impossible for me to conceive how vast the universe is, it is equally impossible for me to believe that our little blue orb is so unique that it is the only place in all that vastness that has life. The universe has been around a long time, which increases the odds that there is at least one if not many other orbs that have technology equal to or more advanced than our own. SETI is our best bet at the moment for finding that other life and I have always been excited about the chance to be part of the search. I just hope when we do make first contact, that they are more like Vulcan?s than Klingon's.

So, why is Mr. McGourty worried about a little debt in this vast universe?

[singunner]

As handicappers, I'd hope most people in here have serioues doubts about the Drake equation. Anyone who believes that the Universe supports life somewhere else just because "it's so big" needs to be severely scrutinized.

[Show Me the Wire]

As handicappers, I'd hope most people in here have serioues doubts about the Drake equation. Anyone who believes that the Universe supports life somewhere else just because "it's so big" needs to be severely scrutinized.

If you believe origin of life is random, or accidental, like evolutionists, it is easy to accept the argument life exists somewhere because the universe is so big.

[singunner]

You can count as many numbers between 0 and 1 as you can between 1 and infinity. The Universe is large, but so is the improbability of life forming. Intelligent life is even less likely. Professor Drake was optimistic to say the least, and wrong on a number of variables to be sure.

[betchatoo]

If you believe origin of life is random, or accidental, like evolutionists, it is easy to accept the argument life exists somewhere because the universe is so big.

If you believe in Creationism it seems like building the Universe is an awful waste of space if you're only going to support intelligent life on one, tiny planet.

[hcap]

Could be some still believe the heavens revolve around the earth. So although tiny it still is the center of all things.

A monumental ego that rules out selective scientific data can do whatever dogma allows.

Maybe the earth is still flat? And dinosaurs were on the Ark?
How old was the earth before the science of geology and carbon dating?
Remember that bishop that added up the Biblical lineage and came up with the official age? Say somewhere around 6000+. Give or take a few hundred.

I guess lack of a hand held calculator didn't slow him down.

[Hosshead]

Although I believe SETI's theory (about intelligent life out there) is correct, I don't think SETI will find it, and thus a waste of money.
Our Gov. has been covering up the Real Info about ET's and their vehicles for years. The info they have is right here on earth.
However, Seth Shostak (director of SETI) has ignored this aspect for years.
If he admitted it was true, he'd be out of a job.

Besides, with intelligent life out there, and some of them advanced thousands/millions of years ahead of us,
Who do you think will find who first ?

Or I should say, Who already found who, first ?
The Phoenix Lights? An ET tour bus ! - Smile for the people. err.. I mean .. beings.

[JPinMaryland]

If you believe origin of life is random, or accidental, like evolutionists, it is easy to accept the argument life exists somewhere because the universe is so big.

So what do you believe? DO you believe like Bala, that there is micro evolution going on but that macro evolution does not happen?

[Show Me the Wire]

JPinMaryland:

Need you ask after reading my posts? Simply put, I do not believe orgin, the creation of life, is accidental. I do not beleive humanity is the result of an accident due to randomness.

[46zilzal]

Do yourself an intellectual favor and find COMPLEXITY by Waldrop to read about new studies in self-organizing systems at the margins of chaos.

[Show Me the Wire]

And you a copy of the Holy Bible.

[46zilzal]

And you a copy of the Holy Bible.
Only read NON-fiction

[Show Me the Wire]

Only read NON-fiction

Then it is a must read for you. Jesus and his twelve disciples did live. Their presence was recorded in Roman historical records and even the Prophet, of allah, admitted Jesus lived.

[JPinMaryland]

was he the son of God, too? Did he ascend into heaven?

[Show Me the Wire]

JPinMaryland:

Those issues are addressed in the Gospels.

[46zilzal]

was he the son of God, too? Did he ascend into heaven?
defying the laws of gravity...interesting

[Show Me the Wire]

46zilzal:

The stances you take astound me. If you truly believe orgin of life is a cosmic accident, how can you be morally offended by loss of life. According to your view life is not sacred or something to be cherised, it is an accident and therefore without value. Based on this reasonong it is not immoral to kill others as life has no meaning. Under this view, the proper action should be to kill to acquire as much material wealth as possible to make your accidental creation to be as comfortable as possible. Other people's needs are irrelevant as their lifes are meaningless due to their accidentally being here and just happen to be in the way of the stronger.

According to your life view of orgin it is permissable for the stronger to eliminate the weaker and plunder their assets. This is what you are accusing the U.S. of doing. Under you view, creation is a meaningless act you should not be condemning the U.S. for acting according to the laws of "natural selection" the surival of the fittest.

Yes, you astound me because you criticize what you believe.

[46zilzal]

amateur psychologists abound here don't they?

[Show Me the Wire]

Has nothing to do with psychology. The opinions you voice are conflicting. On one hand you espouse sanctity of life and then you argue life is accidental. If life is accidental it certainly is not sacred.

[46zilzal]

Has nothing to do with psychology. The opinions you voice are conflicting. On one hand you espouse sanctity of life and then you argue life is accidental. If life is accidental it certainly is not sacred.
didn't say either of those two things.....Quote me

[Show Me the Wire]

didn't say either of those two things.

Yes, you do all the time. You champion accidental creation of life (even in this thread) and you decry the deaths of innocent people (life is sacred) all the time in the context of the Iraqi war.

That is your logic not mine.

[46zilzal]

yes and amateurs like yourself make these correlations that are not there.

[Show Me the Wire]

Amatuer about what?

I am not analyzing you. I am asking how you justify the logic you spew forth. Something you seem incapable of answering.

[JPinMaryland]

are you two husband and wife, by any chance?

[Show Me the Wire]

are you two husband and wife, by any chance?

JPinMaryland:

If I remeber correctly, 46zilzal's wife of many years passed away. Sort of a sensitive topic for him.

[JPinMaryland]

oh sorry, I did not know that.

[JustRalph]

at least she didn't have to read this thread...............

[chickenhead]

If you truly believe orgin of life is a cosmic accident, how can you be morally offended by loss of life. According to your view life is not sacred or something to be cherised, it is an accident and therefore without value.

I don't think your conclusions necessarily follow, SMTW. I am certainly willing to believe that humans are the result of an eons long evolution -- if anything that greatly increases the amount of respect I have for life.

Think of it this way: Humans are the highest form of life. It took a universe as miraculous and dynamic as ours millions of years to produce us through millions of small changes over time. Even my least favorite person in the entire world is the direct result of millions of years of time and circumstance, the very same effort that made me. How miraculous is that! How could I cherish my own life, while thinking his had no value? I definately think life is a vastly wondrous thing.

There can be value without a creator, because there can still be creation without a "creator" in the sense of a man-like being, which is how most people think of God. I consider the universe itself my creator. Did the universe have a creator? I have no idea. But I don't think it's important for the universe to have had "intentions" when it came to creating me. It's enough to just exist, don't you think?

In other words, my own appreciation of my own existance is where my morality comes from, and my respect for life. It's not necessary for me to know why I exist, or to believe that there is a "reason".

[46zilzal]

Bravo for Humboldt County logic.

[skate]

:lol: Proof that humans are the most Expendable Resource.:cool:

[singunner]

There's a social agenda which makes killing others unfavorable. Then again, it's only an imperative. Funny how the vast majority of religious text reads like a Social Engineering For Dummies book.

[skate]

There's a social agenda which makes killing others unfavorable. Then again, it's only an imperative. Funny how the vast majority of religious text reads like a Social Engineering For Dummies book.

myself, im not much into religion. hey , fine for those that want...i give them respect...

killing others...it depends on the others. mosquitos receive social agendas.
the social engineering books were written by the Only People Capable, Dummies or Not.

[PlanB]

You can count as many numbers between 0 and 1 as you can between 1 and infinity. The Universe is large, but so is the improbability of life forming. Intelligent life is even less likely. Professor Drake was optimistic to say the least, and wrong on a number of variables to be sure.

The Sum of ALL Even Numbers + The Sum of All Odd Numbers must be greater than the Sum of All Even Numbers. Yet BOTH are infinite. Ergo, how can this be? Is one set more infinite than the other? hehe, I had a prof who explained this puzzle but I didn't understand it then & not now. Yet mathematicians deal with these set theory puzzles easily.

Someone asked "where does the money go?" It's a trick question. There is NO SUCH THING AS THE MONEY. The measure of the money is what macro economists worry about. It's the measure because the "real thing, money, cannot be counted like dimes in your hand.
When macro measures like Service Jobs; Mfg jobs; Gas prices; Housing Starts; Businesses going under; Loan Defauts; etc etc -------- these are hints on Thumps Up/ Thumbs Down. When you mix UNdefined concepts with macro measures you wind up with mulligan stew. THIS ECONOMY RIGHT NOW, for many many citizens, is very worrisome.

[skate]

and that Dollar bill, is a debt. so give it up for humanity.


no trick...just dick...

[skate]

the money goes, as in rotates, simple.

instead of trickey

why make "it' complicated.

maybe thats what the teach was saying

[PlanB]

This thread had two easy topics: The Economy-Money Trick PLUS Does God Exist? umm, let's see, my smallish brain says YES to a Creator. It's probably because I had Benedictines menacing me from age 14 to 17. Yet, I just can't think that our wonderful complicated bodies just happened. Evolution, okay there's plenty to say for it, but does that mean case closed. If MAN CAN THINK THE THEORY IS EVOLUTION, then Evolution cannot be the final answer. I mean, name me ONE scientific theory that is "Case Closed."

[singunner]

I was, of course, quoting Twain's old paradox of Hercules versus the tortoise. Glad you caught on, but you're not entirely correct. The number of fractions between 0 and 1 is equal to the number of whole numbers from 0 to infinity. That is, counting infinitely between two points. Now, the number of fractions between 0 and infinity is infinitely more infinite. That is, counting infinitely between two points and every point between.

[JPinMaryland]

Twain's paradox? As in Mark Twain? I think you mean Zeno..

[singunner]

PlanB, what a menacing thing to ask trick questions. Scientific "theory" is, by definition, open. Now if you had said scientific "law"...

[singunner]

Yes, of course, you're right. Whenever I think of Zeno's Paradox though, I inevitably think of Twain and thusly typed the latter in error. I can't seem to take this thread seriously enough to double-check my posts.

[Bala]

In other words, my own appreciation of my own existance is where my morality comes from, and my respect for life. It's not necessary for me to know why I exist, or to believe that there is a "reason". Naturally since all things evolved from random chance your morality is only your own. In fact your post is irrelevant. Your thoughts are not your own but based on a genome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome) self compiled randomly over millions of years of trial and error. My morality is different than your.

Charles Manson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson) is my hero. A creature who understood the pleasures of life. Pleasures that can only be experienced be inflicting pain on others. Manson et el... is also a product of random processes. He must be freed at once. Who is to say our shared morality/ethics is wrong. We are merely living a life played out by our genetic programing.

Ultimately, the universe has no meaning, no purpose other than your own sense of self worth, your own fantasy must give some kind of purpose to your life.

Your handicapping is also irrelevant. Picking winners is also a function of random chance. Who you marry, where you live.... all random events in an otherwise chaotic universe.

Nietzsche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nietzsche) was right. "We were born to die."

Human reason is nothing more than human attempts to make sense of this randomness. Human reason will itself always be flawed because it is based on random neurons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurons) in the brain misfiring. {Except for the Nietzche quote.}

Do yourself an intellectual favor and find COMPLEXITY by Waldrop to read about new studies in self-organizing systems at the margins of chaos. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Read up on information theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory).

Singunner – why take anything seriously at all? For everything does not matter.



____________________________________
Kill'um all randomly and let Allah (http://www.letusreason.org/Islam6.htm) sort'um out.

[JPinMaryland]

perhaps it is the concept of infinity that makes these problems so difficult. I mean we think we know what we mean when someone says "infinity" but do we really? Or is it more like a construct, something that people seem to agree but has no real logical basis.

A lot of these classic philosphical problems come down to something like that. Take Bernoulli's paradox where you are to decide how much money you would put up to play a game where you will be paid $1 if a coin flips heads, then double that if heads again, then double that etc. etc....

It is an infinite series so you are supposed to pay an infinite amout of money. Something like that, you can google it...

But the pt. is when you combine a tangible concept like money with something completely abstract like infinity are you really making any sense? There can be no infinite supply of money otherwise it would not be money, money is only valuable because it is scarce if it was infinite why would it have any value?

So you talk about this infinit series of even numbers and an infinite series of odd numbers and maybe it all makes sense in an abstract way. But not really in the real world...

[hcap]

Randomness does not mean lack of structure or form. An individual tree may have a random distribution of branches and leaves, but it is still recognizable as a tree. Before you tell me it is alive and is an exception, rivers and tributaries share similiar branching patterns. Things are random within limits.

Those limits are the laws of the universe. Evolution may include randomness as part of the process, but the existing laws of chemistry, physics, and consequently biology contain randomness within beautiful myriads of developed forms. Who's to say a creator didn't involve itself in those laws.

Beyond science is beyond the universe. Believe or not believe. The stuff of existence is wonderful.

Thatagatha in Buddhism is "suchness" . Sometimes awe is enough.

[Bala]

More on Professor Drake:
http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=17970
Windows media audio format. 30 minutes long. Just press play.



The Sum of ALL Even Numbers + The Sum of All Odd Numbers must be greater than the Sum of All Even Numbers. Yet BOTH are infinite. Ergo, how can this be? Kurt Gödel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorem) also here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Gödel) and here (http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/notebooks/mathematical-logic.html).




__________________
Think even if it hurts.

[Show Me the Wire]

Randomness does not mean lack of structure or form. An individual tree may have a random distribution of branches and leaves, but it is still recognizable as a tree. Before you tell me it is alive and is an exception, rivers and tributaries share similiar branching patterns. Things are random within limits.

Those limits are the laws of the universe. Evolution may include randomness as part of the process, but the existing laws of chemistry, physics, and consequently biology contain randomness within beautiful myriads of developed forms. Who's to say a creator didn't involve itself in those laws.

Beyond science is beyond the universe. Believe or not believe. The stuff of existence is wonderful.

Thatagatha in Buddhism is "suchness" . Sometimes awe is enough.


Darwin's Law of Natural selection says so and all those supporters of Darwinian evolution.

[PlanB]

Randomness does not mean lack of structure or form. An individual tree may have a random distribution of branches and leaves, but it is still recognizable as a tree. Before you tell me it is alive and is an exception, rivers and tributaries share similiar branching patterns. Things are random within limits.

Those limits are the laws of the universe. Evolution may include randomness as part of the process, but the existing laws of chemistry, physics, and consequently biology contain randomness within beautiful myriads of developed forms. Who's to say a creator didn't involve itself in those laws.

Beyond science is beyond the universe. Believe or not believe. The stuff of existence is wonderful.

Thatagatha in Buddhism is "suchness" . Sometimes awe is enough.


umm, a very unique view. bravo

[hcap]

Darwinian evolution concerns itself with natural law. Not the origins of natural law. One is science, the other religion/philososphy.

Not necessarily mutually exclusive.

[singunner]

There will always be things that cannot be understood. I don't see the point in trying to qualify them if they are not measurable or detectable. Work off of what you can and call the rest "God" if it helps you sleep at night.

[Bala]

.....perhaps it is the concept of infinity that makes these problems so difficult. I mean we think we know what we mean when someone says "infinity" but do we really..... You are the one who is misapplying “infinite.” This is a mathematical construct in numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_Theory) theory. I have in prior threads cited current and past Ph.D physicists. Also, the most current theories on cosmological evolution --- no one believes in an infinite universe. Even proponents of string (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory) theory, grand unification theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_unification_theory) {multiverse} states all things had a beginning. And all things have an end.

Your freewheeling use of infinity is not scientific.

_____________________________________________


hcap --- You have this bizarre tendency to intertwine {observable} science with Buddhism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism). Perhaps I'm missing something?



___________________________________


Buddhism >> The purpose of life is to allow the universe to become self aware. An important question is why does the universe need to become self aware?

[PlanB]

Darwinian evolution concerns itself with natural law. Not the origins of natural law. One is science, the other religion/philososphy.

Not necessarily mutually exclusive.

YES, but will that explain UGLY BETTY? I'm undecided, but the show's structure is BRILLIANT. It's like, Skate teaching Greenspan to be mysterious. What would Darwin think of that?

[Show Me the Wire]

Darwinian evolution concerns itself with natural law. Not the origins of natural law. One is science, the other religion/philososphy.

Not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Then why look for a miising link? Bettere yet why espouse a theory we will never need a missing link because the theory of small population explains why a missing link is not necessary?

Because Darwin was anti-God he wanted to prove man evolved, from a different orign than a Creator God. This is the philisopical underpinning of his natural law theory.

[Bala]

There will always be things that cannot be understood........ Precisely! All the work in the past 100 years is on Microevolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution). Variation within a species is empirical science.

Macroevolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution), one species jumping to another is fantasy. All the proofs as laid out by Stephen Jay Gould (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould), Richard Dawkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins), et el... are for Micro not Macro evolution.

[Bala]

It is the hight of stupidity to assume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor) Life can come from non life.

Your personal life experience tells you this can not be. Even Aristotle 2,500 years ago knew (http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/aristotle/section7.rhtml) the chicken must come before the egg.

[singunner]

Except under evolution.

In evolution, there was an egg that bore a chicken that was laid by two bird that were not quite yet chickens. It's entirely semantics as to whether you call that egg a "chicken egg" or not. Either way, what came out was a chicken. If you insist an egg containing a chicken is a "chicken egg", then the egg came first. If you insist that an egg laid by two non-chickens cannot be a "chicken egg", the chicken came first.

Hopefully we all know that the egg came first though, as eggs were being laid and hatched at least a billion years before animals ever walked the surface of the Earth.

[46zilzal]

Eggs came a long time BEFORE chickens as a reptilian reproductive maneuver. Avian species did not arrive for a long time after...

[Tom]

Eggs came a long time BEFORE chickens as a reptilian reproductive maneuver. Avian species did not arrive for a long time after...

Where do YOU shop?
Hope you get green stamps for those eggs!:eek:

[Tom]

yes and amateurs like yourself make these correlations that are not there.

And you are a pro?
Dude, if life was started as a fluke, then then can be no "wrong" wtih killing anyone we wnat to, right? I mean, if we are all flukes, freaks of nature, then killing people is not a matter of morality - there is no morality - that is crap made up by amatures, right?

[Bala]

I stand corrected. Evolution is indeed true. The evolved chimpanzees posting here must be using their reptilian brain to dispute Aristotle's magnificent logic. An argument that has never been challenged by current philosophers.

To think that a protein molecule self assembled itself in the primordial soup and millions of years later laid an egg – why that's brilliant.

Bill Gates should give back his billions. No doubt his baby {windows} came out of a random process. Even the computer was born miraculous by accident. The machine built itself!!!

Why can't I accidentally hit those elusive 99-1 shots at Delta Downs?



_____________________________________________
What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know.
Its' what we know for sure that just ain't so.
~ Mark Twain

[Show Me the Wire]

And you are a pro?
Dude, if life was started as a fluke, then then can be no "wrong" wtih killing anyone we wnat to, right? I mean, if we are all flukes, freaks of nature, then killing people is not a matter of morality - there is no morality - that is crap made up by amatures, right?

I needed Tom, as usual, to elegantly and concisely describe what passes as 46's logic is bullshit. :D

[Secretariat]

And you are a pro?
Dude, if life was started as a fluke, then then can be no "wrong" wtih killing anyone we wnat to, right? I mean, if we are all flukes, freaks of nature, then killing people is not a matter of morality - there is no morality - that is crap made up by amatures, right?

Read Satre or Camus on this.

[chickenhead]

I have never that I can recall intentionally insulted anyone, or called someone stupid, for believing in creation.

I'm actually a bit disappointed and surprised at the way some of you guys are behaving. You all do realize that it's quite possible none of us are right? That no human yet, with our limited minds and vastly limited information, have even sniffed at the true nature of the universe, it's origins, etc? Life included. In fact, that the odds say that is probably the case? How arrogant of you me anyone to think we KNOW, as gospel, how who why what happened...

I have beliefs, you have beliefs...we can explain them to one another, and at the end of the day, we each decide what is more useful to us.

But please, don't tell me I'm stupid. And don't condescend to tell me what my beliefs about origins dictate I must believe about the sanctity of life, that my friend is the only bullshit I see being peddled here.

[Show Me the Wire]

Read Satre or Camus on this.

Are you implying that Satre is a professional? He is well know philosopher in the school of existentialism, so what.

I am not familiar with Camus. So what is your obscure point?

[Show Me the Wire]

I have never that I can recall intentionally insulted anyone, or called someone stupid, for believing in creation.

I'm actually a bit disappointed and surprised at the way some of you guys are behaving. You all do realize that it's quite possible none of us are right? That no human yet, with our limited minds and vastly limited information, have even sniffed at the true nature of the universe, it's origins, etc? Life included. In fact, that the odds say that is probably the case? How arrogant of you me anyone to think we KNOW, as gospel, how who why what happened...

I have beliefs, you have beliefs...we can explain them to one another, and at the end of the day, we each decide what is more useful to us.

But please, don't tell me I'm stupid. And don't condescend to tell me what my beliefs about origins dictate I must believe about the sanctity of life, that my friend is the only bullshit I see being peddled here.

I am sorry if anything I posted offended you personally. However, if life is one big accident the only logical conclusion is there is no sanctity nor ryme or reason for our existence. Read Satre.

Darwin's theory of natural selection was a purposeful blow to the idea of sanctity of life. He was bent on proving, including origin, is based on the survival of the fittest and strongest and there is no purpose in life other than to survive, by taking advantage of the least fittest.

Therefore, the only logical conclusion of the law of natural selection is life is not special as the weak and unfit solely exist for the fittest.

[46zilzal]

what a qunatum leap. Darwin was set to prove a thesis. If there was some underlying agenda, only HE knew that.

[chickenhead]

I am sorry if anything I posted offended you personally. However, if life is one big accident the only logical conclusion is there is no sanctity nor ryme or reason for our existence.

I fundamentally disagree with the no sanctity part, at least by my definition.

There is a well known maxim that if you put a monkey in a room with a typewriter and leave him there long enough he'll write a Shakespeare play. (Tom? ;) )

Let's change that a little bit...let's say he wrote something better than the Bard could have written...he wrote the most wonderful thing ever written in the history of humankind, something that really went beyond anything we as humans had ever read before, touched us and informed us and astounded us at a level never before seen...profound beyond belief.

Would it matter that it was written by a chimp? Would it matter that he, the chimp, didn't have a clue what he was writing?

No, of course not. The end result is still the end result...it would still be the greatest thing ever written...would still have all of it's impact....would still be just as profound.

The only differences would be that we wouldn't revere the chimp..we would revere the product..and we may even revere the writing, the work, even more because we understoood just what a magnificent series of events were required for it to appear.....because we would understand just how lucky we were that it ever did appear, how unlikely and therefore even more wonderful it was.

[Show Me the Wire]

what a qunatum leap. Darwin was set to prove a thesis. If there was some underlying agenda, only HE knew that.

Darwin's philisophical ideals were well known.

[Show Me the Wire]

I fundamentally disagree with the no sanctity part, at least by my definition.

There is a well known maxim that if you put a monkey in a room with a typewriter and leave him there long enough he'll write a Shakespeare play. (Tom? ;) )

Let's change that a little bit...let's say he wrote something better than the Bard could have written...he wrote the most wonderful thing ever written in the history of humankind, something that really went beyond anything we as humans had ever read before, touched us and informed us and astounded us at a level never before seen...profound beyond belief.

Would it matter that it was written by a chimp? Would it matter that he, the chimp, didn't have a clue what he was writing?

No, of course not. The end result is still the end result...it would still be the greatest thing ever written...would still have all of it's impact....would still be just as profound.

The only differences would be that we wouldn't revere the chimp..we would revere the product..and we may even revere the writing, the work, even more because we understoood just what a magnificent series of events were required for it to appear.....because we would understand just how lucky we were that it ever did appear, how unlikely and therefore even more wonderful it was.

Honestly, I have no idea what you are telling me. I am confused how literary works composed by a monkey relate to sanctity of life?

[46zilzal]

another Wilberforce......Argue it all again and another Huxley will put you out of your element.

[chickenhead]

Honestly, I have no idea what you are telling me about how literary works composed by a monkey relate to the sanctity of life?

Really? Are you being coy or do you really not see my point?

[Show Me the Wire]

another Wilberforce......Argue it all again and another Huxley will put you out of your element.

The only one out of your element is you. You have not posted one cogent thought.

[Show Me the Wire]

Really? Are you being coy or do you really not see my point?

Really do not see your point. It is getting late and maybe I am not grasping it.

[46zilzal]

The only one out of your element is you. You have not posted one cogent thought.
been rationally, repeat RATIONALLY, (not those stupid "faith based" arguments), debated time and time again: data on one side, nebulous "faith" on the other.

here is your boy

[Show Me the Wire]

The only one out of your element is you. You have not posted one cogent thought.

46zizal:

Ever hear the saying shooting fish in a barrel? I picture you as the fish and Tom as the shooter. That is your element. However, it would be more appropriate to hand the monkey a rifle instead of a typewriter.

[chickenhead]

Maybe you wouldn't get that line of thought in any case.

How about a more direct approach. Do you understand, even if I believe life arose through random chance, why I value my own life? You can comprehend why I might, I assume. I enjoy it immensly, and it is literally all I know and all I have.

I believe Jesus said "Do onto others as you would have them do unto you", which to me is basic common sense. By enriching others lives, my own life is enriched. We learn that instinctively, or at least I did. Maybe other people are wired differently.

That is where my morality comes from, ultimately, and it requires nothing more than two things:

1.) Valuing and cherishing my own life.
2.) Common Sense.

There is absolutely no inconsistency to it, and no need for a belief in a creator.

[Secretariat]

Are you implying that Satre is a professional? He is well know philosopher in the school of existentialism, so what.

I am not familiar with Camus. So what is your obscure point?

Well, if being paid for your writings all your life qualfies you as a professional, then Sartre was a professional.

My point to Tom was in his comments relating to morality. If there is no God, no plan, then why not simply go after whatever you want, murder one's you despise, steal ,loot, since there is not eternal damnation.

I said Sartre and Camus because they've asked these same questions.

Sarte spoke of the existential anguish of not having the comfort of an all knowing God to put everything in place eventually.

"The existentialist says at once that man is anguish. "
Jean-Paul Sartre

Sartre speaks of man's ultimate freedom:

"Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does. "
Jean-Paul Sartre

Freedom is what you do with what's been done to you.
Jean-Paul Sartre

Basically creating his own moral code not blindly following dictates.

Camus is another philosopher like Sartre who asks if there is no meaning why not simply commit suicide, why avoid the inevitable? Camus speaks of the struggle of life w/o the promises of eternal life as do all existentialists.

I am not an existentialist, but existentialists such as Sartre are not devoid of morality, and woudl say that man creates his own morality, and that for Sartre it is in giving that he achieves his greatest happiness without owing any of it to a divine God or an obligation to do good deeds for a reward in the afterlife.

Sorry, got long winded with my obscure point. It was to address Tom's post.

[Show Me the Wire]

Maybe you wouldn't get that line of thought in any case.

How about a more direct approach. Do you understand, even if I believe life arose through random chance, why I value my own life? You can comprehend why I might, I assume. I enjoy it immensly, and it is literally all I know and all I have.

I believe Jesus said "Do onto others as you would have them do unto you", which to me is basic common sense. By enriching others lives, my own life is enriched. We learn that instinctively, or at least I did. Maybe other people are wired differently.

That is where my morality comes from, ultimately, and it requires nothing more than two things:

1.) Valuing and cherishing my own life.
2.) Common Sense.

There is absolutely no inconsistency to it, and no need for a belief in a creator.

Of course you would value your own life if origin was by accident. In the theory of natural selection this is the prime function of survival of the fittest, value your life and making it better by feeding off the inferior or weaker forms of life wether it is your own species or another.

If you use Jesus as an example it is in direct conflict with random or accidental creation of life, as Jesus says he speaks for the Father, the Creator. This teaching of "do unto others" was needed because it was not common sense then and it is not now.

[Bala]

I have never that I can recall intentionally insulted anyone, or called someone stupid, for believing in creation. Master Yoda – criticizing someones ideas is not the same as a personal attack. I emphasis an idea – a stone mutates into a protein, a protein mutates into an Ape, and eventually man. This idea is stupid. In no way does that disparage the poster. A free and open exchange of ideas is what made this country.



I am not familiar with Camus...... "Albert Camus (November 7, 1913 – January 4, 1960) was an Algerian-French author and philosopher. Although he is often associated with existentialism, Camus preferred to be known as a man and a thinker, rather than as a member of a school or ideology. He preferred persons over ideas. In an interview in 1945, Camus rejected any ideological associations: "No, I am not an existentialist. Sartre and I are always surprised to see our names linked....""

"In his essays Camus presented the reader with dualisms: Happiness and sadness, dark and light, life and death, etc. His aim was to emphesize the fact that happiness is fleeting and that the human condition is one of mortality. He did this not to be morbid, but to reflect a greater appreciation for life and happiness" Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Camus)


Secretariat -- now I understand where you get your ideas. Certainly not from Jefferson or Madison which you have lead me to believe.





_________________________________________
The Dollar needs so much FAITH they stamped "In God We Trust" on it!

[Show Me the Wire]

But Satre did embrace murder and violence if the human condition called for it. Murder is moral if it is the only way to express your situation. Sounds like a lack of sanctity of life.

[chickenhead]

This teaching of "do unto others" was needed because it was not common sense then and it is not now.

Empathy existed well before Jesus. Do some people get twisted...so that they either don;t love themselves, or have no empathy? Of course...happened before Jesus, and after Jesus.

The fact he said it then...doesn't mean that then was any different than now..empathy, was all too often lacking then as it is now. Just like common sense.

[chickenhead]

This idea is stupid. In no way does that disparage the poster. A free and open exchange of ideas is what made this country. [/size][/font]


Quite so. Would it contribute anything to the debate for me to state that Creationism is stupid? Or that SMTW's logic is bullshit?

I'm all for free and open discussion...so please engage the ideas, rather than give commentary on them. Giving commentary on ideas is not in the least contributory.

[Show Me the Wire]

Empathy existed well before Jesus. Do some people get twisted...so that they either don;t love themselves, or have no empathy? Of course...happened before Jesus, and after Jesus.

The fact he said it then...doesn't mean that then was any different than now..empathy, was all too often lacking then as it is now. Just like common sense.

Will agree empathy existed in some people prior to Jesus' teachings. The existence of empathy in some does not qualify as common sense for all. Yes, Jesus' teachings does sound like common sense, but there was a need for it during Jesus' life as there is need for it now. For it seems more people get twisted to pursue pleasure at the cost of their fellow man. Life is to be enjoyed, but not to the detriment of others. I agree with you on that point.

[Secretariat]

Secretariat -- now I understand where you get your ideas. Certainly not from Jefferson or Madison which you have lead me to believe.

________________________________________
The Dollar needs so much FAITH they stamped "In God We Trust" on it!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Apparently, you've not read my Jefferson quotes I've posted as well. btw..I guess you missed where I said I'm not an existentialist. Sartre and Camus didn't like being called existentialists, but some here don't like being called neocons, but are in fact exactly that.

......

"Nations of eternal war [expend] all their energies in the destruction of the labor, property, and lives of their people." --Thomas Jefferson

[JPinMaryland]

It is hard to understand why randomness or random collisions of molecules seem so difficult for you to admit. Arent the collisions of sperm and egg that produce our offspring random? or does God have to sit down and create each and every one of us?

If he doesnt then why is it such a leap of faith (logic?) to see that generations and generations of monkeys, apes, fish, whatever have been created by what you call, "random" processes?

If you want to say that some creator kicked off the whole universe thing or wahtever it is, that is fine with me. BUt what is happening every day on a daily basis? Are these not random collisions of molecules? If so then why not stretch it back millions of years??

And if you can then why didn the building blocks of life originate in this same random way?

Urey and MIller created amino acids out of the basic starting materials on earth in one week:


http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

[46zilzal]

I finished your book yesterday. . . Since I read Von Baer's Essays nine years ago no work on Natural History Science I have met with has made so great an impression on me & I do most heartily thank you for the great store of new views you have given me. . .
As for your doctrines I am prepared to go to the Stake if requisite. . .
I trust you will not allow yourself to be in any way disgusted or annoyed by the considerable abuse & misrepresentation which unless I greatly mistake is in store for you. . . And as to the curs which will bark and yelp -- you must recollect that some of your friends at any rate are endowed with an amount of combativeness which (though you have often & justly rebuked it) may stand you in good stead --
I am sharpening up my claws and beak in readiness

Letter of T. H. Huxley to Charles Darwin, November 23, 1859, regarding the Origin of Species

[Show Me the Wire]

It is hard to understand why randomness or random collisions of molecules seem so difficult for you to admit. Arent the collisions of sperm and egg that produce our offspring random? or does God have to sit down and create each and every one of us?

If he doesnt then why is it such a leap of faith (logic?) to see that generations and generations of monkeys, apes, fish, whatever have been created by what you call, "random" processes?

If you want to say that some creator kicked off the whole universe thing or wahtever it is, that is fine with me. BUt what is happening every day on a daily basis? Are these not random collisions of molecules? If so then why not stretch it back millions of years??

And if you can then why didn the building blocks of life originate in this same random way?

Urey and MIller created amino acids out of the basic starting materials on earth in one week:


http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

Maybe they are random and maybe not. No definitive answer yet. As Einstein espoused, God does not play dice with the universe.

Also, good night to all.

[46zilzal]

"evolution was more than random mutation and natural selection, it was also emergence and self-organization. Everything operates according to a kind of Darwinian principle of relativity: everything is constantly adapting to everything else. Evolution biologists have called this coevolving."

From Waldrop's Complexity

[JPinMaryland]

Well I think the last post sort of explains what the problem is. What is randomness? It is a construct is it not? It is something we think we all agree on but upon further reflection do we agree on it? Can we define it?

It is not so easy. We think we know what it is. It is when there is no deterministic reason for something to happen. But is that really true do things really happen for no reason whatsoever?

It is like saying "if I can conceive of it, it must exist." But I can conceive of pink elephants to do they really exist? Or do I just have an active imagination. Same with randomness, we think we know what it is of which we speak but does it really exist?

It seems it is easy to kick that term around when we have no good answer; like we have no good explanation for what happend 100 million years ago to some DNA so we say it was "random."

But do we really mean that? Do we really agree on what we define as random? IS there really such a thing as randomness? Or is it just some construct we use when we run out of something better to say..?

I would like to see you take a shot at defining what you think is meant by "random" or randomness, showme, since your entire argument seems to hinge on this...

[Show Me the Wire]

JPinmaryland:

Getting late, will touch base most likely tomorrow. BTW my position does not rely on randomness, but on purposefulness.

[JPinMaryland]

well hell, every other post of yours has something about "Gee isnt really frickin stupid to think that random molecules with random collisions can produce Shakespeare.." or something along those lines...

Now you are backing off that? You dont want to use randomness in any of your arguments now?

[Bala]

....Urey and MIller created amino acids out of the basic starting materials on earth in one week....... The Miller-Urey experiment was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions present on the early Earth and tested for the occurrence of chemical evolution.

Textbooks have now inserted acknowledgments that the Miller-Urey origin of life experiment was based on ideas about the earth’s early atmosphere no longer accepted by scientists. [Glencoe Biology; Holt Biology]

Much more here (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=200) and here (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3209).




________________________________________
Gandhi: "The things that will destroy us are: politics without principle; pleasure without conscience; wealth without work; knowledge without character; business without morality; science without humanity; and worship without sacrifice."

[Bala]

well hell, every other post of yours has something about "Gee isnt really frickin stupid to think that random molecules with random collisions can produce Shakespeare.." or something along those lines... Alright, answer your own question. Can it produce Shakespeare,Keats, Beethoven, Michelangelo etc......

If yes, what does art or music have to do with survival of the fittest.

[Bala]

In biology:

"The theory of evolution ascribes the observed diversity of life to random genetic mutations some of which are retained in the gene pool due to the improved chance for survival and reproduction that those mutated genes confer on individuals who possess them."

___________________________________

The empirical evidence always shows that mutations cause adverse effect on an organism. In other words – cancer. The fossil record is replete with finds of extinctions. Most probably caused by mutations forced by the environment or other {chaotic} natural forces.

[Bala]

Do yourself an intellectual favor and find COMPLEXITY by Waldrop to read about new studies in self-organizing systems at the margins of chaos. I found it impossible to tolerate the hundreds and hundreds of pages of oggeling the great men of science and the mundane minutia of thier careers, personalities and personal lives. There's not a single equation or chart in the whole book.

The science of complexity is only treated to serve as a glue between the personal accounts of scientists {Brian Arthur, Murray Gell-Mann, Phil Anderson, etc.} while any serious discussion of it throughout the text is avoided.

I would recommend any one who is interested in this topic to read Gleick's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos:_Making_a_New_Science)"chaos: making a new science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory)". If Gleick's book is too painful for you, you might as well give up. Some kids become scientists, some kids become handicappers.



___________________________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. ~ Dr Seuss

[PaceAdvantage]

Seems to this observer that SMTW has thrown 46 for a serious loop. Instead of bowing out gracefully (nothing he has stated to date has come close to reconciling his conflicting beliefs) he continues to swing and miss by a country mile.

Bravo SMTW!

[hcap]

Originally posted by Balahcap --- You have this bizarre tendency to intertwine {observable} science with Buddhism. Perhaps I'm missing something?What I am trying to do is point out the futility of science per se, and our limited intellect to answer these larger questions.

If you want to discuss religion or philosophy fine, but using marginalized scientific doctrine to establish credible arguments against well established scientific thought is beyond our scope. Would you also argue with nuclear physicists concerning the validity of controlled fusion? You may disagree with the safety or economics of such but face it YOU are not qualified to enter into a technological debate. Neither am I, unless we are working in the field and have the technical expertise.

We only have the differing views by skilled practioners to rely on. If 999 out of 1000 agree that it is only a matter of time until controlled fusion is doable, and 1 out of 1000 say no-who would you bet on??

This is not saying you cannot bring up philosophical arguments against the ability of "randomness" to affect evolution, but THIS IS NOT in the realm of SCIENCE.

Religion, yes, philosophy, yes, Epistemology yes.

Wiki--The term God-of-the-gaps argument usually refers to an argument that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, and is a variant of an argument from ignorance. Commonly such an argument can be reduced to the

following form:

* There is a gap in scientific knowledge.
* The gap is filled with acts of a god (and therefore also proves, or helps to prove, the existence of said god).


One example of such an argument might be as follows: "Because science can't figure out exactly how species change, it must be God who causes it to happen." (See, for example, Intelligent Design)

************************************************** *

Now as far as your out of context "meaning" of BuddhismBuddhism >> The purpose of life is to allow the universe to become self aware. An important question is why does the universe need to become self aware?
From Wiki on EpistemologyMuch of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as truth, belief, and justification. It also deals with the means of production of knowledge, as well as skepticism about different knowledge claims. In other words, epistemology primarily addresses the following questions: "What is knowledge?", "How is knowledge acquired?", and "What do people know?". This is much more important to Buddhism. In fact in Buddhism the concept of God is irelevant. Whether or not the universe is becoming self aware is just a variation on this irrelevancy to the main Buddhist concepts. Sort of like a discussion of whether or not Jesus in reality healed physical maladies in addition to those of the spirit. An interesting discussion, but intefers with the larger message contained within The Sermon on the Mount.

Twenty-five centuries ago the Buddha taught that the existence of a God or gods was irrelevant, which is a nice distinction from saying there isn’t one.
The revelation of the reality of God or no God or something else was to be acheived by means other than only intellect.

[betchatoo]

I need to first admit that my tiny brain has no concept at what happened, "In the beginning." Because I have a hard time picturing my own demise, I can conceive of a world without end, but every time I try to think about how something began out of nothing, or try to determine that there was always something there, my mind boggles and I give up trying.

That being said I need to decry the specious argument that if we are the products of evolution (which some here refer to as an accident or random event), that we should just be able to take or do whatever we like, including human life.

Law and ethics have been at the center of the human race since before written history, thus preventing chaos and encouraging the preservation of those ideas that do not just belong to the strongest. The most often cited first example of law is Hammurabi's code, but even that was taken from earlier religious codes of his area.

Some 2 centuries or so later came Moses and the 10 commandments (originally 15 if you believe Mel Brooks), which bore some rules of common sense that have been used for years as the basis of modern law.

Now some believe these to be the word of God. Others think they were created by very bright men who passed them off as the creation of higher beings to ensure that people would follow them. Either way they served the purpose and a sense of right and wrong have been passed down for generations.

I would propose to you that is this sense of right and wrong, an inner feeling of ethics that prevents most of us from just doing what we want. If you only stop from doing evil because you will be punished by society then you are just a criminal that's yellow! And if the only reason you don't sin is because you fear eternal damnation then you are simply a cowardly sinner. And worse, a damned hypocrite.

And that's all I have to say about that.

[hcap]

betchatooI would propose to you that is this sense of right and wrong, an inner feeling of ethics that prevents most of us from just doing what we want.Empathy and love may have evolved as a very useful adaptation.

Early man became "herd creatures" All herd animals relate to others through emotion. Think of why domesticated pets have been successful in living with humans. Anyone care to deny the bonding that takes place between humans and cats and dogs? Certainly requires no artificial human contrived moral laws for empathy and care shown by master and pet. Laws may have been a later expression of these innate feelings. Again as a useful adaptation. Whether or not a creator infused love, is besides the point. Do you think of God as you pet your dog? I suspect only after the innate emotion of rare unselfish love.
God is irrelevant but not neccesarily absent.

So why can't humans show empathy towards other humans?

[Show Me the Wire]

well hell, every other post of yours has something about "Gee isnt really frickin stupid to think that random molecules with random collisions can produce Shakespeare.." or something along those lines...

Now you are backing off that? You dont want to use randomness in any of your arguments now?

Gee, I don't believe I stated "isn't really frickin stupid to think that random molecules with random collisions can produce Shakesspeare..."

I, am a simple man, and I simply was stating the logical conclusion to the argument of "accidental" creation of life resulting from randomness. As Hcap stated in an earlier post randomness does not necessarily mean without structure.

I am not backing off of anything, I said about randomness regarding the accidental creation of life.


My original post on this subject was a question to 46 how he can reconcile his conflicting beliefs. PA understood the gists of my posts.

[Show Me the Wire]

Seems to this observer that SMTW has thrown 46 for a serious loop. Instead of bowing out gracefully (nothing he has stated to date has come close to reconciling his conflicting beliefs) he continues to swing and miss by a country mile.

Bravo SMTW!

PA, thank you for the accolade, but it is undeserving. I only sought truth from 46zilzal about his egnimatic postitions.

Thank you for noticing though.

[RBrowning]

Empathy and love may have evolved as a very useful adaptation.

Early man became "herd creatures" All herd animals relate to others through emotion. Think of why domesticated pets have been successful in living with humans. Anyone care to deny the bonding that takes place between humans and cats and dogs? Certainly requires no artificial human contrived moral laws for empathy and care shown by master and pet. Laws may have been a later expression of these innate feelings. Again as a useful adaptation. Whether or not a creator infused love, is besides the point. Do you think of God as you pet your dog? I suspect only after the innate emotion of rare unselfish love.
God is irrelevant but not neccesarily absent.

So why can't humans show empathy towards other humans?





---------

That was beautiful.

I'm going to cry and then write what will be, perhaps ,my greatest work.









I'm kidding.

But it was pretty good.

[46zilzal]

Seems to this observer that SMTW has thrown 46 for a serious loop. Instead of bowing out gracefully (nothing he has stated to date has come close to reconciling his conflicting beliefs) he continues to swing and miss by a country mile.



Bull SHIT... debating religous based "science" leads to frustration since it has NO BASIS in fact but rest on a nebulous concept of "faith."

[Show Me the Wire]

Bull SHIT... debating religous based "science" leads to frustration since it has NO BASIS in fact but rest on a nebulous concept of "faith."

Swing and a miss. Your not even in the ballpark. The debate is about the logic and the resulting conclusions, not about faith based "science" that has no basis in fact, but rests on the nebulous concept of faith.

[Secretariat]

I've seen threads get off Topic before, but this is ridiculous.

[Show Me the Wire]

I've seen threads get off Topic before, but this is ridiculous.

About as ridiculous as discussing Martha Stewart and HGTV, in a thread about TVG's stupidity for not carrying GP's signal. OOPs, I guess legitimate confusion is possible as HRTV, has three of the same letters as HGTV.

[skate]

Faith is what Faith Does.

Money is what Money Does.


even Randomness plays a role in any animal Behavior.
so, no wonder... its confusing to everyone cept "the Skate", roll baby.

[Tom]

46zizal:

Ever hear the saying shooting fish in a barrel? I picture you as the fish and Tom as the shooter. That is your element. However, it would be more appropriate to hand the monkey a rifle instead of a typewriter.

You calling ME a monkey???? :lol:

[Bala]

.......but using marginalized scientific doctrine to establish credible arguments against well established scientific thought is beyond...... Your appropriating as if science has never been wrong or made mistakes.......

I am not assailing all disciplines of science only a small sliver of it. Darwinian {macro} evolution. To do otherwise would show me to be a hypocrite. I am typing this post on a computer, a product of computer sciences which blossomed out of WWII. A science conceived and guided by an intelligent cause – Man. Nothing random about it. The proofs for Darwinian evolution is insulting to the rational-logical mind. Macroevolution is not proven.

One of the truly fascinating human science is quantum mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics). Conceived {founded} by Niels Bohr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr). This construct is confusing even to scientist. It seem to conflict with Newton's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton) laws of nature. Experiments have been conducted in the past 50 years with astonishing results. The results are inconsistent with all known laws of our universe.

All experimental conclusions in quantum physics are different and not reproducible by others in the field. What the quantum theory (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-quantumt.html) states is this:

All data will be different, all conclusions will be different depending on the observer. The experimenter himself/herself largely determine the data. Therefore, nothing absolute can be made of the quantum state in physics. Man determines the data by merely looking at it and the data changes depending on man's state of mind. Man is the experiment! This stuff borders on the supernatural. Of course science does not believe in something outside this universe. Ergo, the grand unification theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_unification_theory) and multiple universes. {A multiverse}

Quantum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum) physicists never speak of randomness. “There is an order so deep, we humans are to stupid to figure it out.” Their words not mine. If this should turn out to be true then evolution – things self assembling themselves – will be relegated to the dust bin of history. There is an order to the known universe we {humans} cannot yet see.

Also, Information theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy) renders Darwinian evolution mute. In order for a mutation to be beneficial new and better information must be added to the genome.




_______________________________________
The universe is not only stranger than you imagine....it is stranger than you can imagine. ~ Albert Einstein

[betchatoo]

betchatooEmpathy and love may have evolved as a very useful adaptation.

Early man became "herd creatures" All herd animals relate to others through emotion. Think of why domesticated pets have been successful in living with humans. Anyone care to deny the bonding that takes place between humans and cats and dogs? Certainly requires no artificial human contrived moral laws for empathy and care shown by master and pet. Laws may have been a later expression of these innate feelings. Again as a useful adaptation. Whether or not a creator infused love, is besides the point. Do you think of God as you pet your dog? I suspect only after the innate emotion of rare unselfish love.
God is irrelevant but not neccesarily absent.

So why can't humans show empathy towards other humans?

I can think of no reason. But there is a major difference between emotions and ethics. A man may love his family but kill his neighbor and steal his possessions.

[Tom]

Hcap posted:
"God is irrelevant but not neccesarily absent.
So why can't humans show empathy towards other humans?"

But, according to you, his presence is also irrelevant. If God is irrelevent, why should we bother? We are random life forms, there can be no right and wrong - we kill who we want when we want. There is no hearafter, no souls, no morality - just random life forms. Why would I hesitate to kill you if we ever met?
Why would anyone bother to try to stop me?

[hcap]

Bala,

Of course science has been wrong. But it is a developing discipline. Generally the only way we know if science is on the right track is by proposing specific hypotheses as explanations of natural phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these predictions for accuracy.

Religious models on the other hand do not use the same means for verification. In fact when they have ventured out into the real world they have been mostly failures. The earth is no longer 6000+ years old, nor does the sun and heavens revolve around Constantinople

Your main objection to Macro evolution appears not based on scientific principles. But rather on philosophical distress. Which actually is fine. Randomness and order are difficult concepts. Neither exists as an absolute. Our flawed perceptions mangle how exact we can be even in discussing it. Your observations about quantum theory illustrate difficulties in describing reality. But please don't use the guise of "scientific scrutiny" to debate specific details of Darwinian evolution. Very little of your scientific critique stands up. Most of it has been discredited. Evolution-as in macro, is well accepted by the majority of the scientific community.

From Wiki...

Criticisms of macroevolution

While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution" (Theobald 2004). Nevertheless, macroevolution is sometimes disputed by religous groups. Generally speaking, these groups attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution, asserting various hypotheses which are considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of ScienceQuantum physicists never speak of randomness.
Actually randomness does play a large part in quantum mechanics. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle pretty much says as you know more about the specifics of a sub atomic particles position, the less you know about its momentum. And vice versa. Probabilties become the best we can do. I guess that automatically infers degrees of randomness. But randomness within limits of lower and upper bounds.

Again Wiki..

Mathematics provides a positive lower bound for the product of the uncertainties of measurements of the conjugate quantities. The uncertainty principle is one of the cornerstones of quantum mechanics and was discovered by Werner Heisenberg in 1927.

[hcap]

bet,

I suspect the development of ethics is based on 2 major factors.
First came the emotional unthinking feeling of empathy or connection. Herd derived. Of course with this came sometimes attacking the other herd down the hill.

And then enlightened self interest. A logical later development that concluded by reason common goals are more easily accomplished by compromising savage tendecies and not allowing the ID- Forbidden Planet-Monsters from the ID- from popping out and eating your neighbors kid.

But I will not rule out another possibility.
Conscience. That is not so easily defined. And may be the best evidence for more than a material only universe.

[Show Me the Wire]

You calling ME a monkey???? :lol:

It sure came out that way, purely unintentional :lol:

[Bala]

hcap -- I also use wiki as a source largely because it is free. The most relevant parts of Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia, Smithsonian, etc...are pay per view and copyright material. It is quite sensible to presume wiki is a forum for mainstream scientists to bring their work to the layperson. Dissident scientist {and doctors (http://groups.msn.com/DissidentScientists)} have a limited outlet for their voice.

I am assuming for the sake of argument you've received a fair amount of instructions in the hard sciences - as have I.

Once I believed science, given enough time will find the answers to the human condition. However, I had a professor who took the time to throughly indoctrinate me in Occam's razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor). I have never forgotten this most important lesson.

As I continue to study the hard sciences both generally accepted paradigms and the arguments from dissident scientists – I can only conclude – some of what is factually known is based on to many assumptions!

One example may be the direct challenge to modern sciences “holy grail.” Einsteins' famous postulate {now law} of matter and energy. Who could envision in 2007 a handful of dissident scientists claim (http://www.circlon-theory.com/HTML/EmcFallacies.html) that a photon has some mass. Thereby, directly postulating E=mc squared as inconclusive.

My study of macro evolution only involves reading PhD biologist from major universities. Several who have published in peer review journals. These dissident scientist attack of their own disciplines need to be heard. >>>

William A. Dembski PH.D
Phillip E. Johnson PH.D
Michael J. Behe PhD

I will leave you with this final thought. If the universe is 14 to 16 billion year old the law of entropy strongly suggest there should be nothing in this universe. Not to worry, astronomers have conceived of “dark matter” and “dark energy” to help fill in the gaps. Two terms that have no definition. http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2004/11/27/beyond_einsteins_relativity_cosmology_dissident_sa ys_big_bang_absurd.htm

The greatest discoveries in our world have come not from the Establishment but from rebels with a cause.






________________________________________
If you want to get rid of all the rebels, then give them their freedom.

“We need more people speaking out. This country is not overrun with rebels and free thinkers. It's overrun with sheep and conformists.”

[Show Me the Wire]

Bala:

Enjoyed reading your post. Noticed the tag line, "“We need more people speaking out. This country is not overrun with rebels and free thinkers. It's overrun with sheep and conformists.”

Very true, the sad scenario is the sheep and the conformists are deluded into believing they are the rebels and free thinkers.

[Bala]

A couple poster have chastised me for using stupid and science synonymously.

Prime example >>> Scientists discover that not eating makes you feel hungry. Still no cure for stupid, wasteful studies at taxpayer expense.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070104-13100300-bc-us-fasting.xml







_________________________________________
Dissident Science Links (http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/science.html)

[singunner]

Summarizing a scientific study in a one-line description is what makes a lot of things sound stupid. As for me, I can't say I'm sure from personal experience whether it's not eating that makes me hungry or some biological need triggered by low energy. Seems like a fairly interesting study to me.

[JPinMaryland]

Textbooks have now inserted acknowledgments that the Miller-Urey origin of life experiment was based on ideas about the earth’s early atmosphere no longer accepted by scientists. [Glencoe Biology; Holt Biology].. ."

ANd so what? So some OTHER planet, planet X, that didnt have the exact component's that earth did, could produce amino acids? ANd then maybe the amino acids could turn into DNA...

Meanwhile back on planet earth, that didnt have the exact Miller Urey composition what is happening? Oh nothing like that at all, some all knowing being is actually putting the amino acids together and creating animals.

What is your pt? What diff does it really make if the composition was not the exact same?

[Bala]

.....What is your pt?..... I thought the point was obvious. An intelligent agent {Miller-Urey} created a spark. More importantly, where did the original ingredients come from. Did they create the gases out of nothingness. This is what big bang cosmology postulates.

Miller-Urey danced around the possibility of self-replication. They quickly slide over the key issue. How did pre-biotic amino acid become living organism? Ask yourself this: the origin-of-life experiments was over 40 years ago. Why hasn't it gone anywhere?

Nobel Prize winner Christian de Duve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_de_Duve) already stated that life did not arise by chance, and chemistry is deterministic.





______________________________________
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.

The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd ~ Bertrand Russell

If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. ~ Albert Einstein

[hcap]

Tom,Hcap posted:
"God is irrelevant but not neccesarily absent.
So why can't humans show empathy towards other humans?"

But, according to you, his presence is also irrelevant. If God is irrelevent, why should we bother? We are random life forms, there can be no right and wrong - we kill who we want when we want. There is no hearafter, no souls, no morality - just random life forms. Why would I hesitate to kill you if we ever met?
Why would anyone bother to try to stop me?First of all I never said we are random life forms. The world around us is highly organized and structured. Even mathematical studies of randomness show order beneath the noise. Fractals, and for instance distribution patterns such as a bell curve indicate order. Roll marbles randomly down an incline into a series of bins, and the bell curve becomes visible. The center bins contain more than the outliers. Why? Laws of the universe are what they are and distribute matter and energy along certain paths.

I mention earlier my theory of randomness within limits. Trees, rivers the nervous system all share "branching patterns", or how nature distributes one source into many divisions, or vice versa-collects from the many and returns into one. Trees, repeat this pattern on many levels. The main trunk-then the main branches-branches on those-and so on until we get to the leaves, and once again discover a mini tree, with the same patterns. In addition the hidden root system mirrors what we see above the ground. Above the ground the tree is encompassing a volume of space, to collect sunlight and other nutrients. Beneath the ground water and different nutrients. The growth that occurs to enclose both volumes is random wihin the limits of a trees' basic form. Even our hands and feet reflect branching patterns.

Are there complex patterns of events that take place within stars?
The structure and organization of a star is far from random. The thermonuclear reactions produce swirling masses of gas and electric and magnetic fields, but procede along well established physical laws. Can we understand a star when only looking at the paths of a few particles that appear random? Much more is happening.

The "suchness" of stuff is awe inspiring. Being around witnessing things is almost religious in itself. Many of us approach this feeling of awesomeness in different ways. Some call on a direct creator, some an indirect creator, some no creator. So be it.
there can be no right and wrong - we kill who we want when we want. There is no hearafter, no souls, no morality
All major religions talk about a golden rule. Buddhism as well. So although it differs from theistic religions in that a God is not the central theme, compassion is.

"In Tibetan Buddhism, a Bodhisattva is anyone who is motivated by compassion and seeks enlightenment not only for him/herself but also for everyone...

A Bodhisattva is motivated by pure compassion and love. Their goal is to achieve the highest level of being: that of a Buddha. Bodhisattva is a Sanskrit term which translates as: Bodhi [enlightenment] and sattva [being]. And their reason for becoming a Buddha is to help others. The Bodhisattva will undergo any type of suffering to help another sentient being, whether a tiny insect or a huge mammal. In Shakyamuni Buddha’s 'Perfection of Wisdom in 8,000 Lines' it states: “I will become a savior to all those beings, I will release them from all their sufferings.” If this sounds familiar to anyone not acquainted with Buddhism, then you only need to think of the example of Jesus Christ, a true Bodhisattva."

[hcap]

Originally posted by Bala I continue to study the hard sciences both generally accepted paradigms and the arguments from dissident scientists – I can only conclude – some of what is factually known is based on to many assumptions!

One example may be the direct challenge to modern sciences “holy grail.” Einsteins' famous postulate {now law} of matter and energy. Who could envision in 2007 a handful of dissident scientists claim that a photon has some mass. Thereby, directly postulating E=mc squared as inconclusive.Are you talking about rest mass or relativistic mass?

Anyway, far be it for me to squelch dissidents. Who knows, maybe faster than light is around the corner. Should we buy stock in the company that announces it will soon be beaming us up. Particulary when no experimental evidence is forthcomming, and the company works out of the garage down the street? For every Apple, there are 100's of rotten apples. However I am intriqued by these guys as well. It is just that I don't base my scientific world view on Scotty& Co. Inc. :jump: I will leave you with this final thought. If the universe is 14 to 16 billion year old the law of entropy strongly suggest there should be nothing in this universe. Not to worry, astronomers have conceived of “dark matter” and “dark energy” to help fill in the gaps. Two terms that have no definition. http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmo...Bang-Theory.htm
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sep...bang_absurd.htmSo you are saying there is no dark matter? Or dark energy? Occams razor is a two edged sword. The links you provided are quite detailed. Can you summarize? Re entropy.

[Show Me the Wire]

hcap:

Why have compassion? If human life is an "accident" there is no purpose. What would be the goal of enlightenment? The enlightened would know there is no purpose, life is an accident and therefore, life is worthless.

Implied in your thoughtful composition, there is purpose in life. People can seek enligtenment (purpose) through compassion. I agree there is purpose to life, but we differ on how one seeks enlightenment.

hcap, it is simple, either or or. Either there is purpose to life and life is sacred, worhty of compassion or it is accidental and therefore meaningless and no amount of compassion can lead to enlightenment.

I must confess, on my first read of your thoughtful post, I misread your statement comparing Buddhism to other GOD centered religions.

So I guess, I am asking you directly do you subscribe to the theory of accidental creation of life? I ask this question as I can not really tell from your prior postings on this topic. It seems you lean toward purposeful creation, but at times you defend accidental creation (evolution).

So is life accidental?

[Show Me the Wire]

re: Dark matter.

If it does exist there is not enough to explain the effect of gravity in outer planets of different galaxies.

[Tom]

re: Dark matter.

If it does exist there is not enough to explain the effect of gravity in outer planets of different galaxies.

I dunno about dark matter, but GRAY matter seems to be in short supply.:rolleyes:

[hcap]

SMtW,

I have an enormous amount of respect for religion and those that believe.
I also think religion is not science and should avoid competing in areas where it is weak. What I have tried to do is provide a synthesis showing where believing is appropriate and where science is appropriate. There is not one way, as there is not one type of person. I also believe compassion and love come before codified explanations. Not the other way round.

You ask about "The goal of enlightenment". I wish I could claim knowledge of that sort. My understanding is that all of us experience a taste of something extraordinary every so often, and that taste leads us to look for something other than the ordinary. Science and religion are both valid ways of doing this. Both are capable of illustrating the extraordinary.

Words are great but sometimes limiting. The word randomness for some reason seems to have started a battle. As I have said if things were truly random the universe would have no structure or form. We would not be arguing. There would be no we, and nothing to argue about.
hcap, it is simple, either or or. Either there is purpose to life and life is sacred, worhty of compassion or it is accidental and therefore meaningless and no amount of compassion can lead to enlightenment.Either or is the problem. Duality without seeing the oneness behind may be the hurdle.
Is there randomness. Yes. Is there order. Yes. Do both interact and create everything around us. Yes. Could there be something greater than either? Something that gives rise to both? That is what to look for.

Either or is a false duality. You don't necessarily have to choose.

********************************************

God and Moses play Golf...

One day God and Moses decided to play golf.
Moses steps up to the tee and carefully sets his ball. Chooses the perfect club, and swings with awesome strength and skill. The ball shoots through the air and lands wihin a few feet from the hole and gently rolls in.

Moses says to God " It's your turn"

God straightens his robes, and majestically walks up to the tee.
Swings and misses by a mile.

But just then a rabbit pops out of the ground grabs the ball and runs away in the wrong direction. Gets about 100 yards, and suddenly an eagle swoops down, grabs the rabbit by the scruff of the neck, and heads off to the green. Circles the hole and releases the rabbit. The rabbit falls 20 feet from the hole, and opens his mouth the ball bounces eratically, heads towards the hole, circles a few times and rolls in.

Out of exasperation, Moses turns to God and says " Will you stop screwing around and PLAY golf!!"



Sometimes even God has got to play by the rules. Doesn't invalidate God or the rules

[Bala]

......First of all I never said we are random life forms. The world around us is highly organized and structured. Even mathematical studies of randomness show order beneath the noise. Fractals, and for instance distribution patterns such as a bell curve indicate order....... Most scientists concede that there are features of our observed universe which appear "contrived" or "ingeniously arranged" in their relationship to the existence of biological organisms in general, and intelligent observers in particular. This is sometimes referd to as "bio-friendliness." Perhaps because it was intelligently designed?

.......maybe faster than light is around the corner........
....... I don't base my scientific world view on Scotty& Co. Inc........ I'll assume here your being factious. I would hate to think of you as intellectually dishonest. Picture this >> your on a train traveling 50mph. You walk/run forward on this train at 2mph. In this instance you {a particle} are moving faster then the train. However, the train {a light beam} velocity is a constant 50mph.

When Dr. Michio Kaku, Brian Green, Stephen Hawking, et el.... speak of faster than light they mean – a sufficiently advance civilization uses planck energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_energy)to punch a hole in the fabric of space-time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime). This wormhole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole) could carry a traveler to distant galaxies faster than light. An analogy; a traveler is going through a tube (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Worm3.jpg) while light must move throughout open space (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_space).

The links you provided are quite detailed. Can you summarize? Re entropy.... I will. To do it justice I need time for a long post with necessary examples. Sometime after this weekends football games.

In a nutshell, not only is the existence of dark matter in question so is the generally accepted theory on Black holes.

Teaser >>>> Quasars and Black Holes <<<<<
"The central radio source and emerging jets looked exactly like quasars and active galactic nuclei that emit such jets- which has long been observed, and which Alfven had theorized plasma processes can generate. Evidently there is no need for a black hole at the galactic center to generate such energy, because trapped magnetic energy, squeezed by the pinch effect, can do the trick even better."

"Quasars appear to be only a light-year across, compared with the one hundred thousand light years of a galaxy and the ten thousand light-years cell-size of his stimulation."

"In 1989, however, new evidence developed which will probably doom the black-hole hypothesis. Gas and plasma near the center of galaxies has always been observed to move at a high velocity, up to 1500 km/sec for our own galaxy, and similar or higher values for others. These velocities are generally treated as evidence for a black hole whose powerful gravitational field has trapped the swirling gases. But the two scientists at the University of Arizona, G.H and M.J. Rieke, carefully measured the velocities of stars within a few light-years of the center of our galaxy, and found the velocities are no higher than 70km/sec, twenty times slower than the plasma velocities measured in the same area. since the stars must respond to any gravitational force, their low velocities show that no black hole exists. The high-speed gases must therefore be trapped only by a magnetic field, which does not affect the stars."

"Tully's results quickly became a hot topic in cosmological circles. However, any alternative to the Big Bang remained almost unknown, since plasma cosmology was routinely rejected by astrophysical journals, and our papers were published only in plasma physics journals, which astronomers never read." Source (http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm)



_______________________________________
If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. ~ Albert Einstein

[Bala]

hcap -- Previously I brought up quantum mechanics. Of course I was attempting to keep things simple. Your response was somewhat disingenuous. The quanta is far more than Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

David Bohm; here (http://twm.co.nz/Bohm.html) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm). Interconnectedness principle.

An aspect of quantum reality that Bohm found especially interesting was the strange stat of interconnectedness that seemed to exist between apparently unrelated subatomic events.

Niels Bohr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr);
Bohr pointed out that if a subatomic particles only come into existence in the presence of an observer, then it is also meaningless to speak of a particle's properties and characteristics as existing before they are observed. Naturally, is was/is disturbing to many physicists.

Einstein found Bohr's conclusion that a particle's properties don't exist until they are observed objectionable. But it has been proven by modern methods.



The concept of Quantum Non locality is absolutely intriguing possibly even mindboggling The same particle can exist “here” and “there” without violating general relativity.

A handful of establishment scientist have publicly stated – consciousness and energy are related and possible interdependent.






_______________________________________
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd ~ Bertrand Russell,

[Show Me the Wire]

hcap:

Are you running for office, if so that was a fine fence straddling effort, verbose without any conclusion.

Okay, I believe in science (provable fact) and I believe in religion. They are not separate and distinct. Philosophy begat science and religion begat philosophy.

To clarify I have no axe to grind with science and I benefit everyday from past scientific discoveries.

Also, my question was not about randomness, it focused on accidental and purposeful. Interesting you went through great effort to totally ignore the construction of the question

Again, I emphasize randomness is not relevant to this discussion, as I agree randomness can have structure.

Simple question and has nothing to do with duality of anything.

In everything there is one truth and everything else is false.

Do you believe life evolved from pure accident (not chance) or created from purpose (not necessarily by God)?

[JustRalph]

I love to hear people talk about 'Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy"

I say we change the names to

"Shit we made up to make our theories and Math problems work"

"And more shit we made up to make somebody elses theory work"

[46zilzal]

I love to hear people talk about 'Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy"

I say we change the names to

"Shit we made up to make our theories and Math problems work"

"And more shit we made up to make somebody elses theory work"
Opinions akin to that started the dark ages...Science works eventually even if it takes a few steps to get there.

[Show Me the Wire]

Opinions akin to that started the dark ages...Science works eventually even if it takes a few steps to get there.

Through the radicals, the ones that do not accept the conventional theories i.e the earth is the center of the universe, yup that was learned scientific thought, not superstiion. And the radical ones, of our current time, don't buy into dark matter or Darwin's law of natural selection as applied to man.

[Tom]

Opinions akin to that started the dark ages...Science works eventually even if it takes a few steps to get there.

So you agree that the jury is still out on evolution, and that current scientific theory on it may well totally inaccurate? Good for you, you are finally getting it. Seems odds that since the dawn of man, every civilization has always had God or Gods, but not doctors. Maybe science will someday arrive at the consitency of fatih.

[hcap]

Dark Matter?

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article2134891.ece

The universe gives up its deepest secret
It is the invisible material that makes up most of the cosmos. Now, scientists have created the first image of dark matter
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Published: 08 January 2007

One of the greatest mysteries of the universe is about to be unravelled with the first detailed, three-dimensional map of dark matter - the invisible material that makes up most of the cosmos.

Astronomers announced yesterday that they have achieved the apparently impossible task of creating a picture of something that has defied every attempt to detect it since its existence was first postulated in 1933.

[hcap]

SMtW hcap:

Are you running for office, if so that was a fine fence straddling effort, verbose without any conclusion.

More about The Tao Te Ching another non theistic "religion", connected
to Buddhism.

From Wiki...

Connections with Christianity

Since Christian missionaries were among the first Westerners to study the Tao Te Ching, it is not surprising that they connected Taoism with Christianity. They drew many parallels between the New Testament and the Tao Te Ching, for instance, "Do good to those who hate you" (Luke 6:27, tr. NASB) and "Requite injuries with good deeds" (chap. 63, tr. Waley[14]). Note that the Chinese Bible translates logos as Tao.

Two particular Tao Te Ching chapters are perceived as exemplifying Christian themes. Chapter 42 bears a resemblance to the Trinity doctrine: "The Way gave birth to unity, Unity gave birth to duality, Duality gave birth to trinity, Trinity gave birth to the myriad creatures." (tr. Mair 1990:9).


As I said before Either or is a false duality. You don't necessarily have to choose.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Lao_zi.PNG/180px-Lao_zi.PNG


This image is very well known. The wise man riding a bull.
The bull may represent the "lower qualities". Duality is initially the struggle to contain chaos by "order". But it is one nature

[Show Me the Wire]

hcap:

I tried to impress on you I am not talking about connection between the religions. Do not cloud a clear issue. It is not about how a person chooses to express sanctity of life (your posts), it is about whether the idea of sanctity of life is bogus.

you always have to choose what belief is proper and how to impliment your belief. You are ignoring the basic question to state why it is not important how a person impliments his beliefs (your duality issue), My question is not how. Rather it is a why should we even try to impliment a belief system.

If pro-natural selection devotees are correct creation of life is accidental (not random) the idea of faith based religion or philosophy of any kind is ludicrous. There is no need for any type of religious education about moral behavior, based on the concept humans are special.

This concept creates the false environment that moral conduct can be defined solely through laws.

[hcap]

It is not about how a person chooses to express sanctity of life (your posts), it is about whether the idea of sanctity of life is bogus.There may be some built in emotional organs that help us relate to life in general. If one believes in God, one may use sanctity. If not inviolability. Neighter side likes to hear "bogus" applied to their beliefs.

Value of life can be defended from ethical and moral grounds. Morality and ethics may be non religious, and wind up agreeing with basic religious tenets. This is not contradictory. Although some may argue that all laws and ethics are "faith based", I don't think that is the case. Probably conscience based.

I said thisBut I will not rule out another possibility. Conscience. That is not so easily defined. And may be the best evidence for more than a material only universe.

[Show Me the Wire]

There may be some built in emotional organs that help us relate to life in general. If one believes in God, one may use sanctity. If not inviolability. Neighter side likes to hear "bogus" applied to their beliefs.

Value of life can be defended from ethical and moral grounds. Morality and ethics may be non religious, and wind up agreeing with basic religious tenets. This is not contradictory. Although some may argue that all laws and ethics are "faith based", I don't think that is the case. Probably conscience based.

I said this
But I will not rule out another possibility. Conscience. That is not so easily defined. And may be the best evidence for more than a material only universe.

Let us distill the discussion to its essence. You do not think it is an either/or argument because Conscience is the wild card. You imply that it may be the best evidence for more than a material universe.

Well do you believe the existence of conscience is accidental or purposefull?

[46zilzal]

hdcap...give up, methinks it is this guy on the other end.

THUMP THUMP THUMP

[Show Me the Wire]

hdcap...give up, methinks it is this guy on the other end.

THUMP THUMP THUMP


zilzal, ever notice I do not call you names or post images that are suppose to be offensive as you do constantly about other people? I will tell you why.

To describe someone as a clown, a vegetable, a rube, and posting insulting images, etc, it takes an understanding through experience by the person spewing the disparigng descriptions how to belong to the group the identifier is relating too. Thus the saying it takes one to know one is a truism of the concept.

I don't address you in the fashion you address others as I do not know how one behaves.

[46zilzal]

I didn't call you anything...likened your posts to the good old minister however

Call the A-hole president what he richly deserves to be called: a vegetable.

[Show Me the Wire]

hcap:

Yes give up on an interesting intellectual discussion. The concept of origin has been at the center of human existence. The great philisophical ideas were rooted in the orgins of philosophy, why do we exist.

Yes, give up on intellectual growth, because it does not fit into someone's political agenda. Yes, give up because it is too difficult to intellectually defend mutually exclusive ideals, especially when subterfuge doesn't work.

Yes, listen to zilzal's call for ignorance.

[46zilzal]

this blabber is why philosophy classes have major echoes.....the students figure out quickly what complete baloney contemplating nothing is: "Am I really here or I am dreaming this while in 1823 Stockholm"...what a waste of time

[hcap]

Conscience gets covered up by rationalizations. And intellect.

I cannot and will not attempt a scientific argument for purpose. I said before that is not the realm of science. But I do believe in other forms of understanding, and although science may have philosophical limits, the reality that it helps uncover helps feed a more holistic approach.

I have no EVIDENCE that intuitition/emotions/conscience can do what I believe science alone cannot do. Nor do I expect you to accept my take. Nevertheless, there have been incidents in my life that have pointed to a larger reality.

Call it what you will. But I also believe naming it also it limits it.
Poetry, parables and symbols paint images not easily defined.

You saidIn everything there is one truth and everything else is false.
This why people fight wars. The missinterpretation of this is We have the truth, and everyone else does not

But you are missing the cosmic dance. In many eastern philosophies, yes there is one truth, but it takes myriad forms. The manifestation of one to the many and the return of many back to the one. Unfortunately, we live in the many. And mistake it for the source.

[Show Me the Wire]

hcap:

Not that I am not accepting. I am not comprehending the totality of what you are saying. And I am not one about being shy about saying I do not understand.

First, I do not understand the reference to science at this time in our running discussion. I do not believe I am asking you to make a scientific argument nor do I believe I am making a scientific argument.

Second, I agree naming limits.

Third, I agree wars are waged over the interpretation of truth. Current situation with Islam.

I have been expressing a logical argument regarding orgin. You aptly name or label it te source. I agree there is only one source and one truth.

Distilled to the essence, we are not naming, but describing the beginning, the source and therefore was life brought into being with purpose or not.

I only seek your belief if life is intentional or not from the foundations of the beginning (source). Note I am not asking if the source itself, the way, or any description of the source is intentional or how did the source come into being. That is entirely different and beyond the scope of our discussion.

So we agree there is a source independent of human creation, a source we do not understand and can not label. Thus, do you believe human life resulting from the source is intentional or accidental?

Are we on the same page now?

[skate]

I've seen threads get off Topic before, but this is ridiculous.

well, i could be thinking that you did not see the topic, but then how could you know the topic is "off" .

that's the first part to the joke, then you question "off topics" when you do not answer Questions.
of coarse it is OFF Topic, gees.

somehow that way to 'thinking', answers Everything.

but why would you bother to twist?
facts are as facts do
half facts don't do

[Secretariat]

well, i could be thinking that you did not see the topic, but then how could you know the topic is "off" .

that's the first part to the joke, then you question "off topics" when you do not answer Questions.
of coarse it is OFF Topic, gees.

somehow that way to 'thinking', answers Everything.

but why would you bother to twist?
facts are as facts do
half facts don't do

Seriously, are you retarded?

[Show Me the Wire]

sec:

Skate is very philosophical. Doncha get it? It is so appropriate.

And NO I am not skate, I am Dave.

[skate]

thank you skate... i mean, Dave.

[Secretariat]

thank you skate... i mean, Dave.

thank you Dave....??? i am skate!

[Show Me the Wire]

sec:

Late night last night or just a rough day?

I said I wasn't skate, but Dave (for typing Dick, and that is what my typing is good for, instead of Dave in another post)

[PaceAdvantage]

Seriously, are you retarded?

Now, now, that's not very nice (or PC). I could very well ask the same of YOU given the way you answered my last post on Iraq and the sectarian violence going on over there.

[Tom]

Seriously, are you retarded?

What the hell is wrong with you, dude?
How about acting like a civilized person when you post here?
How about YOU, dude - you continunally violate PA rules about copywrite infringment and ingore it - you got a learning disability - you stupid? You can't read?
See?
Grow up.

[PaceAdvantage]

I think someone may have hijacked Sec's account....:lol:

[dylbert]

What do you expect from Sec? People have spoken in poll I posted. They think he's da bomb!

As Forrest Gump's mom explained, "stupid is as stupid does". PA should put him in "penalty box" for "unsportsmanlike conduct."

[Show Me the Wire]

I think someone may have hijacked Sec's account....:lol:

Really???? ?

[Secretariat]

I suggest any sane person go back and read skate's post that lead to this remark. However, I do apologize for it. It was in bad taste.

[skate]

no, it's just another person, "who doesn't know econmics", very simple indeed.


we've All seen those graphs, but little is known about the opposite side of "the money " you refer.

if i can see that money does not just stop someplace, why can't you, you have the IQ?

so, i have three points at issue with your graphs ( i am not saying your graphs do not exist), but rather, i am saying:

1- where does the money go from your graph, it does not disappear. or does it?

2- what is happening conversely with the money in your chart?


3- how does the debt compare to others countrys.
now, Niger, Tibet, Tanzania might not have much DEBT, but why?
while countrys like Japan OVER 80% debt to GDP. and Europe is about the same, which means it is about twice the USA's Govt debt.

so my points would indicate that your charts do not give the full story. thats all i need, the full story.

use this;
current acct. deficit goes down. while the capital acct. surplus goes UP.

your charts only give one side of the story.
and after you figure out the other side, then you can explain what happens to the money in your chart, does it just "Voila" ?


ok ok ok, Sec;
do you see the above quote? they are some questions that follow the post which was directed to you.

you did not have answers for my questions, not just the above questions but many other questions, you simply do not answer, ok fine.
you post some issue about a debt and you get this info from sites outside "PA", you have NO idea about this outside info, you seem to have no knowledge about economics.
i don't know how else to say this, seems simple as can be.

then, of all things, you go and make a statement about "the post is off topic" and then i say NO poop sherlock, since you did not answer my questions. da!



Look look look, go find yourself an accountant and ask some questions.
for example, when talking about accounting (economics) what else takes place, aside from debt? anything else take place, pist, like maybe credit, ya go ahead, ask him.
then ask him about balance. to be specific, ask him/her about the interest payments you(others also) keep refering to ,you know, those charts that give the amount of money per minute that of which is being paid out by the USA (gov.).
then ask him if he is aware of the $110 Trillion of assets that generates a $13 Trillion GDP which is a 12% yield and compare that 12% yield with your 6% interest rate that your charts, quotes , graphs and turbans are talking about when they cry about all that money.
do they see the profit, the credit, the growth between 12% and 6%. do they see that, as fast as that money is moving on their charts, when it indicates money we owe (bull crap anyway), do they see that twice the amount is going into the economy than is going out?

or, hey, lets all be retards and ignore the account surplus, which is another question i asked you about, yeh, ok, we can all be retards and play the stupid game that has only one side.

[PaceAdvantage]

I suggest any sane person go back and read skate's post that lead to this remark. However, I do apologize for it. It was in bad taste.

OK, looks like Sec got his account back.....:lol:

I was really starting to worry....

[hcap]

Originally Posted by SMtW.

Distilled to the essence, we are not naming, but describing the beginning, the source and therefore was life brought into being with purpose or not.

I only seek your belief if life is intentional or not from the foundations of the beginning (source). Note I am not asking if the source itself, the way, or any description of the source is intentional or how did the source come into being. That is entirely different and beyond the scope of our discussion.

So we agree there is a source independent of human creation, a source we do not understand and can not label. Thus, do you believe human life resulting from the source is intentional or accidental?

Are we on the same page now?I guess we just approach this issue differently.

Duality 1 source independent of human creation
Duality 2 intentional or accidental?

Both dualities are resolved-for me-by trying to see the apparent contradictions as the two poles of one "sphere".

The problem is the words. My tree analogy again.

A tree has a main trunk the source for fluids traveling thru layers of branches to eventually the leaves. Are the leaves seperate from the trunk? Yes. But are they really seperate from the tree? There is a multi level unity that encompasses the entire tree. Are there structural differences, sure but it functions as one organism

If the trunk and the leaves are one unit, can we really argue that the trunk caused the tree? There was growth, yes. One was before the other, yes. But then again the acorn caused the trunk. Born from the forest of earlier trees.
And so on and so on.

The ultimate first cause may not be knowable along with the associated first intent. At this point in my life I look at the apparent duality of creator or no creator as one larger sphere that contains both. For me the role of emotions and conscience points to consciousness. The intellectual scientific "pole" sees structure and relationships of form.

So the only answer I can give you is I believe in a larger reality that does connect with a larger consciousness. But the role of the larger mind in creation is not something I can describe. Assigning it first cause may be as deceptive as thinking the acorn came first.

If I sound vague or as purposefully evading your question, I am sorry.

[hcap]

This from Alan Watts. One of the first western Zen writers.

"This is the problem of the expanding universe. Are the other galaxies moving away from ours, or ours from them, or all from each other? Astronomers are trying to settle the problem by saying that space itself is expanding. But, again, who is to decide? What moves, the galaxies or the space? The fact that no decision can be reached is itself the clue to the answer: not just that both the galaxies and space are expanding (as if they were two different agents), but something which we must clumsily call galaxies/space, or solid/space, is expanding.

The problem comes up because we ask the question in the wrong way. We supposed that solids were one thing and space quite another, or just nothing whatever. Then it appeared that space was no mere nothing, because solids couldn't do without it. But the mistake in the beginning was to think of solids and space as two different things, instead of as two aspects of the same thing. The point is that they are different but inseparable, like the front end and the rear end of a cat. Cut them apart, and the cat dies. Take away the crest of the wave, and there is no trough.

....A similar solution applies to the ancient problem of cause and effect. We believe that everything and every event must have a cause, that is, some other thing(s) or event(s), and that it will in its turn be the cause of other effects. So how does a cause lead to an effect? To make it much worse, if all that I think or do is a set of effects, there must be causes for all of them going back into an indefinite past. If so, I can't help what I do. I am simply a puppet pulled by strings that go back into times far beyond my vision.

Again, this is a problem which comes from asking the wrong question. Here is someone who has never seen a cat. He is looking through a narrow slit in a fence, and, on the other side, a cat walks by. He sees first the head, then the less distinctly shaped furry trunk, and then the tail. Extraordinary! The cat turns round and walks back, and again he sees the head, and a little later the tail. This sequence begins to look like something regular and reliable. Yet again, the cat turns round, and he witnesses the same regular sequence: first the head, and later the tail. Thereupon he reasons that the event head is the invariable and necessary cause of the event tail, which is the head's effect. This absurd and confusing gobbledygook comes his failure to see that head and tail go together: they are all one cat.
The cat wasn't born as a head which, some time later, caused a tail; it was born all of a piece, a head-tailed cat.

Our observer's trouble was that he was watching it through a narrow slit, and couldn't see the whole cat at once.

[Show Me the Wire]

hcap:

It is okay to say I don't know, would have been more concise. I see you have cited two philosphies. Could you enlighten me about the relationship of Zen to Buddhism.

From my understanding the Dali Lama is an authoritive figure in Buddhism. The Dali Lama, in his writings and interviews has conveyed his idea about life. The Dali Lama has repeatedly said the purpose of life is to be happy and everyone should seek their purpose in life. Additionally, does not Buddhism embrace the concept of reincarnation? If so, isn't the philosphy of reincarnation based in the status of rebirth based on your behavior in the prior live?

So if someone leads a totally immoral life, he will return as an insect of some sort (only an example, not sure if insect is the lowest life). If this is true, then orgin of the current life is purposeful.

Without purpose Buddhist would not believe in their interpretation of reincarnation. So if one understands the basic concepts of Buddhism, it is inferred the creation of life has a purpose.

[Secretariat]

ok ok ok, Sec;
do you see the above quote? they are some questions that follow the post which was directed to you.

you did not have answers for my questions, not just the above questions but many other questions, you simply do not answer, ok fine.
you post some issue about a debt and you get this info from sites outside "PA", you have NO idea about this outside info, you seem to have no knowledge about economics.
i don't know how else to say this, seems simple as can be.

then, of all things, you go and make a statement about "the post is off topic" and then i say NO poop sherlock, since you did not answer my questions. da!



Look look look, go find yourself an accountant and ask some questions.
for example, when talking about accounting (economics) what else takes place, aside from debt? anything else take place, pist, like maybe credit, ya go ahead, ask him.
then ask him about balance. to be specific, ask him/her about the interest payments you(others also) keep refering to ,you know, those charts that give the amount of money per minute that of which is being paid out by the USA (gov.).
then ask him if he is aware of the $110 Trillion of assets that generates a $13 Trillion GDP which is a 12% yield and compare that 12% yield with your 6% interest rate that your charts, quotes , graphs and turbans are talking about when they cry about all that money.
do they see the profit, the credit, the growth between 12% and 6%. do they see that, as fast as that money is moving on their charts, when it indicates money we owe (bull crap anyway), do they see that twice the amount is going into the economy than is going out?

or, hey, lets all be retards and ignore the account surplus, which is another question i asked you about, yeh, ok, we can all be retards and play the stupid game that has only one side.

I'd be happy to answer your questions if in fact they had been directed at me prior to my post.

Here is what I posted and then your reply:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Secretariat
"I've seen threads get off Topic before, but this is ridiculous. "

Quote:
Originally Posted by skate
"well, i could be thinking that you did not see the topic, but then how could you know the topic is "off" .

that's the first part to the joke, then you question "off topics" when you do not answer Questions.
of coarse it is OFF Topic, gees.

somehow that way to 'thinking', answers Everything.

but why would you bother to twist?
facts are as facts do
half facts don't do"

This prompted me to make a reply using a name for which I have apolgized. This despite the number of names I have been called on this board by others. Again I apologize for being reduced to that type of retort.

However, you are mischaracterizing the chronology of what actuualy occurred in this discussion. Those questions were never directed at me PRIOR to my remark. As you state they followed my post. They have no relation to my post as I had no idea what you were going to ask AFTER my post.

As to accountants, I've quoted you Nobel Prize winning economists who disagree with you, but obviously you're free to take the word of your local neocon CPA. (btww..I do not consider neocon or liberal or conservative or progressive name calling but general philosophies - look up Leo Strauss for more information). Your ignoring of massive debt and credit for temporary growth matches the logic prior to the Great Depression.

[hcap]

Sec,

da skater an hiz unca george wun't rispond to da incalish langewdge.
trie anuder. :sleeping: :sleeping:

[hcap]

SMtWIt is okay to say I don't know, would have been more concise. I see you have cited two philosphies. Could you enlighten me about the relationship of Zen to Buddhism.

From my understanding the Dali Lama is an authoritive figure in Buddhism. The Dali Lama, in his writings and interviews has conveyed his idea about life. The Dali Lama has repeatedly said the purpose of life is to be happy and everyone should seek their purpose in life. Additionally, does not Buddhism embrace the concept of reincarnation? If so, isn't the philosphy of reincarnation based in the status of rebirth based on your behavior in the prior live?

So if someone leads a totally immoral life, he will return as an insect of some sort (only an example, not sure if insect is the lowest life). If this is true, then orgin of the current life is purposeful.


Without purpose Buddhist would not believe in their interpretation of reincarnation. So if one understands the basic concepts of Buddhism, it is inferred the creation of life has a purpose.All along I have been saying we may not be in a position to know, and that knowing requires other means than the intellect alone.

Zen is more mystical than most Buddhism. It a form of Mahayana Buddhism that places great importance on moment-by-moment awareness and "seeing deeply into the nature of things" by direct experience.

Compassion is important in all schools of Buddhism, but is particularly emphasized in all Mahayana. A transcendent God is not required. Reincarnation implies spirit but again does not require a transcendent God. Purpose is connected to release from the endless cycle of death and rebirth.

In my religious discussions with Boxcar, I have posted from the viewpoint of Mysticism and allegory, vs his hermeneutic and literal Biblical worldview. I have always maintained we may have many beliefs, but know very little.

[Show Me the Wire]

hcap:

Thanks for your response. Yes, the end purpose is connected to release from the endless cycle of death and rebirth. There also no need for a transcendental god as we are all gods and that is the end purpose to attain our god status and break the cycle of death and rebirth, is that not so?

Please correct me if I am wrong, as I do not misrepresent the basic beliefs of Bhddhism.

[hcap]

Most Buddhists would not claim their goal is to become God. Transcendence of one sort of another, yes.

Not all Buddhism is the same just like all Christianity or Judaism or Islam. There are sects that talk about celestial realms and "powers". Just as some fundamentalist Christians believe in the rapture there are all sorts of divisions in Buddhism. Don't try to pidgeon hole all of it as believing in they are simply trying to become God.

Mahayana mostly concerns itself with..

1- Universalism, in that everyone will become a buddha
2- Enlightened wisdom
3- Compassion

Remember Buddha did not mention his god status.
Bodhisattva, yes but not God. Zen on the other hand talks even less about trancendence. In fact, the student is warned about such things.

From memory, so don't quote me..

There was a student who asked his master " How can I learn the Buddhas' teachings?" The master replied " Practice meditation for 30 years". Upon hearing this the student left and became a hermit high in the mountains. Every day he meditated from morning to night. Many years later he decended and returned to visit his master, now an old man.

"Master come with me down to the river. I must show you something"
Down at the river the student walked from one shore to the other, not even getting his shoes wet. He said to his teacher.

"I did what you said" Are you not impressed with my new abilities?"
The master inquired
" How long did you spend learning this?"
" 30 years, as you recommended"
" I recommended learning the Buddhas' teachings, 30 years is a very long time indeed to learn this. You could have taken the ferry"

Also you might find this interesting

"One of master Gasan's monks visited the university in Tokyo. When he returned, he asked the master if he had ever read the Christian Bible. "No," Gasan replied, "Please read some of it to me." The monk opened the Bible to the Sermon on the Mount in St. Matthew, and began reading. After reading Christ's words about the lilies in the field, he paused. Master Gasan was silent for a long time. "Yes," he finally said, "Whoever uttered these words is an enlightened being. What you have read to me is the essence of everything I have been trying to teach you here!"

[Show Me the Wire]

hcap:

Enjoyed your quotes. At least it seems to me that practicioners of Buddhism believe there is purpose to life and life is not an accident.

I admit Buddhism is a captivating philosophy especially if we get life wrong there is another chance at transcendence versus the one and only chance in Christianity.

For me the tipping point is purpose of life and the context purpose of life is used. It seems to me from my experience Eastern religions/philosphies have the context of purpose at the end , i.e. transcendence. The same could be argued about Christianity. But putting the emphasize on purpose of life at the end, I believe is a misapplication of purpose of life in Christianity.

I say this for the same reason theortical mathematicians and/or physicist state they instinctively know a theory is right because it is beautiful. Applying purpose the solely to the end means, eternal reward or damnation is not beautiful.

However, applying purpose to orgin is so beautiful. We are created to LOVE and be LOVED. Reading Holy scriprture in the context of Love for God, God's Love for us, and the commandment to Love one another is so moving and beautiful.

[hcap]

However, applying purpose to orgin is so beautiful. We are created to LOVE and be LOVED. Reading Holy scriprture in the context of Love for God, God's Love for us, and the commandment to Love one another is so moving and beautiful.There are many good things here. Love is the starting point and transcends the specifics. The shinning point of Christianity, spoken as a non-Christian with a functioning conscience.

[Show Me the Wire]

Most Buddhists would not claim their goal is to become God. Transcendence of one sort of another, yes.
...............



In fact, the student is warned about such things.

From memory, so don't quote me..

There was a student who asked his master " How can I learn the Buddhas' teachings?" The master replied " Practice meditation for 30 years". Upon hearing this the student left and became a hermit high in the mountains. Every day he meditated from morning to night. Many years later he decended and returned to visit his master, now an old man.

"Master come with me down to the river. I must show you something"
Down at the river the student walked from one shore to the other, not even getting his shoes wet. He said to his teacher.

"I did what you said" Are you not impressed with my new abilities?"
The master inquired
" How long did you spend learning this?"
" 30 years, as you recommended"
" I recommended learning the Buddhas' teachings, 30 years is a very long time indeed to learn this. You could have taken the ferry" ........


I enjoyed this snippet, I reflected on it this morning. During my contemplation I realized this is also the same primary message of the Garden of Eden in Genesis. Do not be tempted to be like God.

[hcap]

Christians might call it Sin of Pride. Eastern thought generally says that the ego gets in the way of spirituality. The ultimate hubris being thinking you have already "arrived"

One of the main points is the concept of attachment. There are grand interpretations, and there are not so grand. In India they catch monkeys by filling a narrow neck jar with berries and nuts. The jar is tied to a tree. A monkey will investigate, reach inside and grab the treats. When he attempts to remove his hand, now a fist, he can't. When the hunter returns, he simply unties the rope and takes the monkey away, probably complaining, but in denial of his capture by his own fat fist.

There are different kinds of attachments. One is refered to as the "golden chain", or going way off bounds in the study of these spiritual philosophys. And becoming attached to the illusion of having arrived. Supposed to be the most insidious of all. That walking on water Zen story addresses that.

The Tower of Babel in the old testament also makes a similiar point. You may not agree, but there are many similarities shared by many different religions once you get passed the outer cliches.

[JPinMaryland]

" I recommended learning the Buddhas' teachings, 30 years is a very long time indeed to learn this. You could have taken the ferry"

Yeah but imagine the number of bar bets he could win.

[Indulto]

... One of the main points is the concept of attachment. There are grand interpretations, and there are not so grand. In India they catch monkeys by filling a narrow neck jar with berries and nuts. The jar is tied to a tree. A monkey will investigate, reach inside and grab the treats. When he attempts to remove his hand, now a fist, he can't. When the hunter returns, he simply unties the rope and takes the monkey away, probably complaining, but in denial of his capture by his own fat fist.hcap,
You frequently remind me of the grasshopper's (young Caine's) mentor and it makes me wonder how your interest in horseplaying relates to your spirituality.

Or is it that you can't remove your hand from the cashier's window? :lol:

[singunner]

Down at the river the student walked from one shore to the other, not even getting his shoes wet. He said to his teacher.
The water was in a state of being a non-newtonian liquid. I haven't even been alive 30 years and I can already do that. Next time have the student stand still in the middle for a good laugh.

Good story all the same. I always love a good parable.

[hcap]

Indultohcap,
You frequently remind me of the grasshopper's (young Caine's) mentor and it makes me wonder how your interest in horseplaying relates to your spirituality.

Or is it that you can't remove your hand from the cashier's window?
The sound of one hand cashing? :jump:

singunner
The water was in a state of being a non-newtonian liquid. I haven't even been alive 30 years and I can already do that. Next time have the student stand still in the middle for a good laugh.I forgot, the last thing the master told the student was " Or if you only knew where the rocks were. Damn can't teach these young grasshoppers a thing!"

JPinMaryland
" I recommended learning the Buddhas' teachings, 30 years is a very long time indeed to learn this. You could have taken the ferry"


Yeah but imagine the number of bar bets he could win.But the moral of the story is by not learning the the rest of the teaching you wind up moving to the states and can only do it in your backyard when there's no one looking. Be careful of what you wish for
http://www.e-h.us/blog/levitation-thumb.jpg

[singunner]

I hadn't realized shorts would expose the tension in the muscles of the supporting leg and completely ruin that trick. I never wear shorts, but I suppose it's good to know anyways.

[hcap]

No one ever said it would be easy.

[Show Me the Wire]

Opinions akin to that started the dark ages...Science works eventually even if it takes a few steps to get there.

Care to comment on Dr. Hamer's scientific work. I believe he claimed he found the god gene, VMAT2. Interesting idea as ties the belief in God to evolution.

Pretty radical idea for its time, eh zilzal. sort of like the earth orbits the sun, and not visa-versa.

[JPinMaryland]

Scientists have also found the shyness gene. It took them several years longer than anticipated as the gene was found hiding behind another gene.

[Show Me the Wire]

Scientists have also found the shyness gene. It took them several years longer than anticipated as the gene was found hiding behind another gene.


As zilzal says,"science always works." ;)

[46zilzal]

As zilzal says,"science always works."

nope more akin to this

[PlanB]

Scientists have also found the shyness gene. It took them several years longer than anticipated as the gene was found hiding behind another gene.

LOL.

[skate]

Scientists have also found the shyness gene. It took them several years longer than anticipated as the gene was found hiding behind another gene.

makes cents to me

[Show Me the Wire]

Zilzal,

Are you saying you reject he idea of this particular gene on the grounds of your personal beliefs?

[singunner]

Okay, I believe in science (provable fact) and I believe in religion. They are not separate and distinct. Philosophy begat science and religion begat philosophy.
The Dewey Decimal System would disagree... Philosophy is 100 while Religion is 200. However, Science is 500, so its roots aren't so easy to trace, I suppose.