Has God always existed? chat & forums.

Posted In Forum:

Home

MyForums

Show ALL Forums

Author

Thread: Has God always existed?

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 73 (view)

Has God always existed? Posted: 11/10/2009 12:58:06 PM
did God direct his suffering to make him the man he grew into...? Are you likely to thank the father that beats you, simply because it gave you the strength to succeed later in life...? i know this may come as a shock to you rocket ........ but sometimes life is not just about you.

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 71 (view)

Has God always existed? Posted: 11/10/2009 11:30:21 AM
I'm more likely to put my trust in the pilot of an airplane that's lost all engine power than I am to put my trust in whatever god you might. The pilot has a record of coming through in hairy situations this type of logic has always perplexed me, when i read statements like this i often wonder why some people think that if you believe in God you have no faith in your own abilities(or those of your fellow man). why can't we have faith in our abilities, AND trust God will guide us and help us to use them wisely? perhaps a great story that will illustrate my point is that of Tibor Rubin. Tibor was a hungarian Jew that at the age of 13 lived through the mauthausen nazi concentration camp ... the rest of his family was not so fortunate. he vowed that if he ever made it to america he would repay america for liberating him. after WWII he did make it to america, and ended up volunteering for the army during the korean war. after basic training his unit was shipped to the front lines in korea. during a subsequent NK assault he held a hill single-handedly with nothing more than a M1 rifle and grenades for over 24 hours so his unit could make a safe withdrawal. his CO's wrote a citation for the medal of honor for Tibor, but those papers never made it to HQ because all his superiors were killed in a chinese offensive a few weeks later. Tibor was one of only a handful of soldiers that lived through that offensive and found themselves POW's to the chinese. what he did at the POW camp for the next 2.5 years was nothing short of heroic and did win him the medal of honor, but perhaps the most astounding thing he did was hold that hill single-handedly for over 24 hours against a company sized element of NK soldiers. of course Tibor had to call upon every ounce of skill he had to help him hold that hill ... but skill, nor luck, can account for sparing his life against such insurmountable odds ... just ask Tibor, he will tell you without any equivocation what helped him carry the day.

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 72 (view)

chemtrails Posted: 10/29/2009 12:48:28 PM
dukky, here is a link showing contrails from aircraft as far back as the 1940's. it also has many links you may want to read (chemtrail plausibility study, history channel chemtrails, many more). basically they are all debunking the idea that contrails are anything other than naturally occurring events due to temp/moisture. http://contrailscience.com/contrail-photos-through-history/ all though i am not privy to what airspace and corridors the USAF is allowed to train in over canada , i would not be too surprised to see kc-135, c-130 and other military aircraft flying over the winnepeg area. Minot AFB is just across the border in north dakota. It should be noted that the contrails are apparently left at about the same altitude this is to be expected. in fact bombers tactically fly low some times so as not to leave contrails. kind of like a big flag "here we are". air temps are colder at higher altitude, cold (moist) air is needed to form contrails. all though i am more familiar with thermolclines (layering of temperatures) in water than in the atmosphere, this would account for why you see contrails at similar altitudes. I NEVER observed lingering contrails until the mid-nineties and have observed many lingering ones that turn into cirrus-like clouds since then. Plausible explanation please. Don't say "coincidence" because the probability that it is, is vanishingly small. Something changed around 1995...What might it have been? i would have to say the only thing that changed was the detail of your observations. because i have witnessed contrails turning to cirrus like clouds since i was a little tike. that was way before the 90's ;-)

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 37 (view)

chemtrails Posted: 10/28/2009 7:58:05 AM
Unless... you think I am also one of "them." knowing how "they" operate, i find the whole idea rather silly. because if you really believe some covert branch of the military, or gov. is spraying you with chemicals why in hell would they do it during the day when you could see it? wouldn't it be much more "covert" and just as effective to do it during the night when you were asleep and couldn't see it? and why at such high altitudes? i would think a good share would end up in the ocean or in unpopulated areas ..... what a waste of good (and probably very expensive) chems!

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 9 (view)

chemtrails Posted: 10/27/2009 7:16:17 AM
there's not been very many times where i've had the opportunity to agree with stargazer, flyguy and rhino (all in the same thread no less) anyway, stargazer nailed it, flyguy reconfirmed it, and rhino is right ..... the OP is cute!

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 16 (view)

Ardi, and the impact on evolution... Posted: 10/22/2009 8:17:15 AM
Do you mind sharing your popcorn? slaps chair seat pull up a chair wldflower.. the popcorn is hot and buttery, and the beer is cold

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 250 (view)

Kirk Cameron compares Charles Darwin to Hitler! Posted: 10/22/2009 8:13:44 AM
Any time a change is adopted that is intended to accommodate people of ALL faiths, people of the once-dominant faith scream that religion is being removed. Nothing could be further from the truth, but they're upset because they aren't Number One anymore i believe the price of beans went up as well ... life is sooooo unfair. but you know what i say, the fair comes in august .. don't miss it

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 12 (view)

Ardi, and the impact on evolution... Posted: 10/21/2009 11:06:44 AM
i have followed some of the articles on ardi for a while now, and it is exciting to see the analysis of the skeleton is now providing some insights. and, as the OP has suggested "this may change a lot about our current ideas of evolution" .. based on what analysis has taken place i think there is no doubt to that. and i will certainly defer to those whom are more skilled than i to offer a comment on that. but this statement seems to sum it up .. "What Ardi tells us is there was this vast intermediate stage in our evolution that nobody knew about, it changes everything" - Owen Lovejoy, anatomist at Kent State who analyzed ardi's bones. but what this reconfirms and proves to me is a couple things. science is never a totally linear process, what we think we know today may have to be revisited and revised tomorrow, so don't be so quick to hang your hat on yesterdays answers. no big deal there ... if you operate and conduct yourself under that premise anyway (subtle hint to some). secondly, and more important ... we still have a lot to learn, you never stop being a student. all though i have tried using this excuse as i pay to get into some college/high school sporting events, it never seems to fly with the person behind the counter, and they insist i must pay the adult rate, while they give me kudos for the "nice try" ;-) it will be fun to watch the science play out on this, i will sit back with my bowl of popcorn and enjoy the show.

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 246 (view)

Kirk Cameron compares Charles Darwin to Hitler! Posted: 10/20/2009 12:34:23 PM
still want to play games eh? well ok, you will find i can be as big an ass as anyone (bigger actually) So NOW you tell us about the more reasoned first option, eh i assumed you could figure that one out without me having to tell you. i didn't realize i have my very own puppet on a string here. this could be fun ... dance flyguy dance! Originally you only offered up the ole respectfully mature "love it or leave it" advice-- always a classic not only always a classic ... but always a valid option for those whom whine about not getting their way. if you were old enough i'd offer you a little cheese to go with that whine (i'm sure you have an affinity for that combination - read below) You did overlook one thing, though. The French roll their eyes about these oddities of the US as well so you equate yourself to the french ... i should care, how??? They had their medieval period of natural studies already well flyguy, you are not quite ready for medieval studies just yet. but if you work real hard, some day when you get out of kindergarten you will. back to your crayons now .. that's a good boy!

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 355 (view)

It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no. Posted: 10/20/2009 8:25:27 AM
Thinking some sky fairy is going to bail you out ..... Train to succeed, survive, and never give up, rather than get yourself into a bad spot and start praying why does it have to be one or the other? is it not possible to do both? it's nice to know that god may have your 6, but it's also nice to know your buddy with an M60 does as well. but IMHO god and your team member (or your family/friends/etc:) cover your back side in different ways. I just don't believe in fictional sky fairies, Valkyries, or gods that's fine, it's your life ... live it the way you see fit. why so much hate for those whom live their life different than yours?

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 243 (view)

Kirk Cameron compares Charles Darwin to Hitler! Posted: 10/20/2009 7:24:37 AM
That is not solving the problem... merely avoiding it. yes rocket, i understand. so the questions beg, how would you solve this perceived problem? how does this perceived problem affect you and (insert any other level here)? is it really a problem at all? or is this just a personal preference? of course all this is off topic, but what the heck ... let's continue. the beauty is, in a democracy you have a voice ... go ahead and use it. all the while understanding that the majority should rule. at least that's my take on how a democracy should operate (just wait, some jamoke will now present some far fetched scenario that will dispute this). and after all this has played out and the "problem" does not get solved (in your mind), what are your options? as i see them, there are three .. 1) continue to voice your opinions and do all you can to enact change 2) live with it 3) i hear france is nice ;-)

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 235 (view)

Kirk Cameron compares Charles Darwin to Hitler! Posted: 10/19/2009 10:26:39 AM
The US's share should be less theocratic and less politically influential. if you feel that is a problem, you can solve it you know. i hear france is nice. you really should try writing with a pen as opposed to scribbling with a crayon ya know. see, i can play silly games too ;-)

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 231 (view)

Kirk Cameron compares Charles Darwin to Hitler! Posted: 10/19/2009 9:46:07 AM
Certainly not, but the US certainly has more than its share really? according to whom? what should the US's share be? why not just accept people for what/who they are? ... assuming they aren't trying to inflict harm upon you or others that is ;-)

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 229 (view)

Kirk Cameron compares Charles Darwin to Hitler! Posted: 10/19/2009 9:01:22 AM
Personal ignorance is a hell of a weak argument weak argument of what? Science is an atheistic pursuit i don't think this is correct. science is an "unbiased" pursuit of knowledge. The catch, however, is that a literal interpretation of religious texts can be proven or disproven by scientific knowledge this perhaps has some truth to it, but do you think religious text is taken "literally" by everyone that believes in god? and thanks for the cigar - but i don't smoke ;-)

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 226 (view)

Kirk Cameron compares Charles Darwin to Hitler! Posted: 10/19/2009 8:30:40 AM
In the fossil record the oldest (deepest) layers contain simple cells followed by more complex cells followed by invertebrate animals then the first fish, then amphibians, then reptiles then birds then mammals. Between these groups we find transitional fossils (fossils that retain traits from their ancestors). We find innumerable fossils with features of fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, and dinosaurs and birds. In essence, we see growing complexity in the fossil record from the simple cells of old to complex animals of today. attributing the progression of the fossil record as proof of evolution could be just a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, correct? some contributors like to throw that term around to discount other arguments ... why wouldn't it apply here? where are all the fossils that have attributes of both the lower and higher forms of life? those elusive transitional fossils that even darwin wondered about, there should be millions. i know lots of people like to say "all fossils are transitional fossils" .. i'm not particularly sold on that. that's no different than when one says "the evidence for god is everywhere". the truth is, we (all) have lots to learn, or at least i know i do. and even if evolution (as it is defined now) were true it does not disprove god ... or vise versa. and certainly just because one may believe in god, that does not then mean they have no respect or believe in what science contributes to humanity. believe it or not a person can believe in a creator, and embrace science. this is a quote from my favorite scientist, i (personally) think it sums up life quite well. "I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me." - Sir Isaac Newton

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 291 (view)

It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no. Posted: 10/16/2009 1:02:34 PM
Not even close, sorry.... you lose acient, based on your msg#327 you lose ... any respect i would have had for you that is. grow up, what are you 18? feel free to reply with whatever juvenile retort you may have. i will feel free to ignore it

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 281 (view)

It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no. Posted: 10/16/2009 11:08:16 AM
You don't "believe in science". Science is a method. It's simply a tool. yes funcuz, if you take "science" in the literal sense you have a valid point. however, being the question is phrased in a comparative sense you need to then consider "science" in the figurative form. the implied comparison being a "truth" as defined by science vs. a "truth" as defined from a creationist point of view, and the need (or perceived need) for "faith" in relation to both. so if you take "science" in the figurative form, the question then relates more to the "findings" and "conclusions" of science as opposed to the mechanism of science itself. perhaps a better way to phrase the question would have been "Why do you think a large amount of creationists believe that to accept the findings of science and reasoning as the truth is to be something also considered based on faith". but then, what fun would the last 13 pages or so have been? ;-) in the figurative form , science does require varying degrees of faith. let the grenade throwing begin ..... again!

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 248 (view)

It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no. Posted: 10/15/2009 1:59:16 PM
Don't try to slap some stupid label absolutely agreed! thank you. this is why i started up with you rhino. i absolutely hate attributing any label to a person. is it a label of some belief that defines a person? or is it their actions? if you look back on your msg 191 you may see where i'm coming from. Try to read what's written, not what you really, desperately, want to see all though i am not desperate, or at least i hope not .. i will admit i am guilty of this on occasion.

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 244 (view)

It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no. Posted: 10/15/2009 12:50:09 PM
Otherwise, I'm perfectly okay suspending judgement so you choose option C: avoidance. i agree, that works for a lot of questions For all I KNOW, the universe could have been here forever ah yes, as it was and ever shall be .. universe with no end (or beginning). that sounds more like religion than science. all you're missing is the amen.

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 242 (view)

It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no. Posted: 10/15/2009 11:52:56 AM
Then again, I live in a universe that exists. I exist. Something lead to this point in space-time. I just don't know what. Neither do you. so with this admission you are saying that you are open to the possibility that a deity created the universe, correct? or is it, you have faith that science will one day prove that to be a fallacy? because as you say, the universe does indeed exist ... so it came to be some how, correct?

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 219 (view)

It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no. Posted: 10/13/2009 12:14:09 PM
So if two people claim that X is Y, it means that X is Y and that's the end of it? Wow. Okay...so according to that urm....logic, I guess all I need is to find two people to say that the earth is triangular shaped/the moon is made out of cheese/there are no gods and that should be the end of that then? yes brick, there certainly is some validity in what you are saying ... however, i just don't have the time to spell it all out for you. could this be a case of argument for argument's sake? btw - i always love those X, Y equations >Firstly, I have never called anyone ridiculous, stupid or ignorant for being spiritual OR for believing in something that requires faith. My own folks are deeply faithful (and religious)....in fact, my entire family and most of my friends are people of faith. pretty simple then, my comment didn't pertain to you. why did you feel it did? did you use other words that implied the same meaning? Haha. You mean like how it's important to YOU that YOU are right no matter how many times that I (or others) try to tell you that no, it's not how I/we feel or see things? no brick, i have no problem admitting when i am wrong. In fact i'm sure i learn more when i'm wrong than when i'm right ;-) But i must confess, i am not familiar with the "many times" you have tried to correct, or enlighten me. I do however have an issue with your "i/we" statement. the "I" you can speak to, the "we" ... not so much

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 213 (view)

It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no. Posted: 10/13/2009 10:36:01 AM
ten pages of arguments over not understanding the basic definition of a word (hard to believe ... but true) not only hard to believe Thorb ... but rather sad in a way. I have seen two scientist state on this very thread that indeed faith is needed in science. So one would think that would be the end of this bickering. But the problem for a lot of folks here, at least the ones that seem to vehemently deny science requires faith, is they have made a living (so to speak) preaching about how ridiculous/stupid/ignorant the spiritual type folk are for believing in something that requires faith. So, you can see the conundrum they have created for themselves. So the denials will continue. oh! and let us not forget just how important it is to be "right".

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 150 (view)

Believe! Posted: 10/9/2009 1:56:22 PM
Regardless, that so many take it as an empirically factual story, I think the lesson has been sorely missed! Frogo, i have been impressed with the passion you express in the subjects that interest you, even though i often do not agree with your opinions. Here (above) is a case where i wholeheartedly agree.

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 143 (view)

Believe! Posted: 10/9/2009 10:55:46 AM
there is no hell. hell is an interesting concept, and i have no idea what it is (or is not). but consider this ... the musings of a young child: "maybe we are already in hell, and the only way to get to heaven is to be good to others and believe in God. If you don't, then God sends you back to earth again when you die"

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 139 (view)

Believe! Posted: 10/9/2009 10:19:38 AM
Why would you want to believe in a being that sends us to burn for eternity just for using the mind that he gave us to question him?? questioning might be one thing ... outright refutation may be another. i am by no means an authority on the bible, but the story of the prodigal son is an interesting one. but i doubt hell is similar to the hollywood version

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 35 (view)

It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no. Posted: 10/7/2009 10:10:27 AM
The pure scientific world is only half of our existence and anyone who thinks differently is a fool and has not researched the human brain very well. ahhhh, thank you thorb! you have restored "my" faith .... i shall now slip back into the jungle from which i came.

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 33 (view)

It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no. Posted: 10/7/2009 9:11:26 AM
Appeal to authority here? So what. Darwin mentioned a "Creator" in Origin of Species. He was surrounded by Creationists. I guess it might have been better PR to at least give grudging nod to popular belief. obviously, you spoke with Darwin concerning this ... or could your "guess" perhaps be wrong? or perhaps your "guess" is right. As for me, i prefer to take a person at their word, and not assume i know their thoughts behind their words. in reality, it doesn't matter what Darwin (or you or i for that matter) think. I used Darwin's quote as an example to illustrate there are many forms of "creationism".

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 19 (view)

It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no. Posted: 10/6/2009 1:03:08 PM
The use of "creationism" in reference to more moderate ID views, including such very basic and non-Abrahamic views as an entity which kick-started the universe and then sat back and watched, is yet another example of "re-branding". Change the definition, validate the new definition, and use the validation to shore up the OLD definition. It's a fallacy, not a valid argument, and a very popular approach for those who would supplant reason with ideology I understand your argument, but your logic "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" does not add up in all cases. Sometimes a new idea is just that ..."new", as in unique. I wonder how you would classify Darwins views on creation. Would you equate this to YEC as well? "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and...from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved". -Charles Darwin

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 11 (view)

It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no. Posted: 10/6/2009 7:39:25 AM
I wonder how long it will take for this forum to degenerate into a "there is a God" vs. "there is no God" argument like so many similar forums do. I predict by the end of the second page (or maybe it already has). That's a shame really. In my opinion science does have an aspect of faith to it, or perhaps a better word would be belief. But it is different than the religious faith needed to believe in a creator. In a religious sense faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes. In a scientific sense belief is needed to fill in some of the gaps of evidence and observations contained within theories. It's a petty argument that i will not indulge in. But it's important to recognize the wide range of viewpoints that fall under the generic banner, "creationism". It's not quite fair to equate old-earth creationists, or even "Intelligent Design" with young-earth creationists. That is why i do not agree with this statement from Frogo, and suggest it is a bit to simplistic a stance. True, but "creationism" incorporates demonstrably false claims. Your point is irrelevant, and creationism is demonstrably false. Let's consider the big bang is indeed how the universe was formed. There is no evidence obtained on what caused this, or why it went bang at all. So let's say for arguments sake that a universal intelligence was the one that caused the big bang to go bang. How is this definition of "creation" demonstrably false?

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 17 (view)

Are we really in control? Posted: 10/5/2009 9:43:09 AM
So the keyword I would ponder most would be "influence" more so than control. rocco has touched on a subject that i was taught at an early age about a perspective on life.. which is; Our life is a lot like a leaf that is dropped into a running stream. For the most part we, and the leaf, will travel the path that has the greatest influence on us. And every now and again we will be faced with a decision (or obstacle if you will). Like when the leaf bumps up against a rock in the stream. The path the leaf most likely will take is the one that has the greatest influence on it, and so it is with us. But here is where we differ from the leaf, as we grow and mature we have control on what influences we let into our lives (this is where free will comes into play) and we can actually create the path we wish to follow. So be aware, and choose wisely on what forces you allow to influence your life, because these "influences" will most likely have a bearing on the decisions you make in life.

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 11 (view)

Mind Games Posted: 10/1/2009 11:21:40 AM
soldier, i read your profile all though i do not condone your behavior in regards to your first post, i salute your service. i served with ST2 DetB in the Rung Sat area (69-70).

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 6 (view)

Mind Games Posted: 10/1/2009 9:22:09 AM
for christ sake people, why do you feel the need to make fun of the OP? and we wonder why we (as a civilization) are spinning down the toilet. i'm not sure the OP is being straight with this story, but i see no reason for him to lie so i am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. especially considering his condition could indeed be serious OP, do you and your father have a solid relationship? if it's so-so, or if your father deals with his own psychological problems, could he be intentionally trying to contribute to yours? for instance, you may very well have seen him doing what you said (because he did it), and he made sure you seen him doing it. he then went back out and put the antenna back up and waited for you to call his cell. all though he said he was at work, how would you know? if you feel you are seeing things, maybe try carrying a camera with you (even a cell phone one will do). take pictures to confirm some activities in your day and review them nightly. and as another has suggested, review any meds you may be on with your doctor

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 103 (view)

Kirk Cameron compares Charles Darwin to Hitler! Posted: 10/1/2009 8:00:07 AM
fishmuskie, I said coping mechanism and I see it there. What I haven't seen is any reaction to the fact that I am not just talking about any one religion but the whole concept of why religions developed in the first place yes snapington i see the words "coping mechanism" in your original post as well. i think you and i know those are not the words i am objecting too. intelligent, mature people generally don't resort to name calling while debating or making their point. especially when they feel the facts are in their favor. but let's assume just for argument sake you are correct, religions are nothing more than a coping mechanism. based on scientific fact it apparently is a good one, because people that believe in a god and practice a religion .. on average live longer, healthier lives. so if we must throw derogatory names around, whom then really are the fools? as for the second portion of your statement, let's consider this. are all scientific hypotheses correct? of course not. but does that then mean since one scientific hypothesis has been proven false then all must be false? of course not. so extending this logic let's consider god/s a hypothesis? is it not "possible" that there is indeed one god and some of the many others defined throughout the history of man may be false? i suggest it is possible. the difficulty here is being able to prove this, it can't be done. so we are left with dealing with intelligent "possibilities". which then goes back to my original post#25 in this forum. and yes, i understand your questioning as to "why religions started in the first place", but i think it is a bit too simplistic to chalk it all up to "supertitious coping mechanisms" as you have suggested. but if that is your opinion that's fine. leave the name calling to the little ones on the playground.

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 40 (view)

A math question: Is there any way to increase your odds when buying lottery tickets? Posted: 9/30/2009 12:24:54 PM
Buy a computer program which will allow you to keep track of the whole history of the lottery you are interested back in the early 80's when the US suffered it's last significant economic downturn our IT group was not very busy. so for fun, and to occupy myself during slow days i did just that, i wrote a computer program that calculated the lottery numbers that were most often picked. variables and parameters were added if you wished to use - day of week, # of days without a winner, etc: - (which did change the output and added a bit of novelty) or you could just use the static output of what numbers were most often selected. now, i didn't load the entire history of winning lottery numbers, but approximately 5 years worth of winning numbers were loaded. and it was quite a hit within the company. but the end result was ......... you guessed it, no statistical difference in winnings compared to letting your 2 year old pick the numbers, or letting the lottery computer pick the numbers. if i remember correctly the 2 most often selected numbers were oddly close to each other though, 24 and 26. but again, this was with limited data

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 90 (view)

Kirk Cameron compares Charles Darwin to Hitler! Posted: 9/30/2009 7:50:17 AM
What part of I think religion is a coping mechanism didn't you get? that's not quite how you posed it in your msg#76, now was it snapington? take a look back and reflect a bit on the differences. perhaps then you will understand sahara's msg #79 ... and my previous response. It is not envy in my analogy but getting a fair share you know "pie in the sky when I die" if one feels like they did not get their "fair share of the pie" as you say, what emotion/feeling would that be born from? instead of me reiterating, perhaps it would be useful for you to read my original post (#25) in this forum to get a better perspective of my views. you know, before you start generalizing again.

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 83 (view)

Kirk Cameron compares Charles Darwin to Hitler! Posted: 9/29/2009 7:58:15 AM
My thought is that people need something more because most of us aren't in the chief's or warlord's or king's family and we eat the leftovers so some guy says give me some food and I'll tell you a wonderful story of how everything will be different in the "afterlife" there the king will eat leftovers from you. That $hit is as old as the hills. interesting logic there snapington. so you are saying all religions were built on envy? that is a pretty broad brush you are painting with. if you are happy in your life choices and it works for you, great! by all means carry on soldier. but as sarah has suggested those whom belittle or berate other's beliefs usually do so to reassure themselves, or are attempting to justify their own beliefs (read: insecure). No different than the fundamentalist that says you will burn in he[[ because you don't believe as they do.

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 25 (view)

Kirk Cameron compares Charles Darwin to Hitler! Posted: 9/25/2009 11:10:12 AM
In regards to Kirk Cameron, everyone is entitled to an opinion. And that's just what it is, his opinion. In regards to Darwin, you do know he believed in a "creator", right? The last sentence in "Origin of Species" "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and...from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved". -Charles Darwin The point in this is not that Darwin was necessarily right. But instead, it's important to recognize the wide range of viewpoints that fall under the generic banner, "creationism". It's not quite fair to equate old-earth creationists, or even "Intelligent Design" with young-earth creationists. So the question is, why aren't scientists more accepting of even Darwin-style creationism? maybe it's because they fear these forms of "creationism" would be used to get nonscientific (read: religious and philosophical) ideas into the science classroom and that bothers them. That's a shame really, because scientists would agree they don't have all the answers, and i think most would agree that philosophy and religion can contribute to our perspective on life. And based on all that we know, and all the great work science has done, "creation" by a universal intelligence is still a valid possibility.

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 6 (view)

Is the AGW discussion even relevant anymore? Posted: 9/22/2009 12:18:14 PM
Good discussion points stargazer, and in my opinion very poignant for our times. Before i comment let me premise my following statements with this belief. people (in general) are not very good at doing the things they "should" do. And are only marginally better at doing the things they "must" do. Our warning came in the '70s with the gas shortage then. It wasn't heeded. agreed, all though certain band-aid policies were implemented (ie: strategic petroleum reserve), the general problem was not addressed. Is what has happened with gas prices another chance to start rethinking our energy source choices? One would hope. I know people did make changes when gas prices were at their highest (personally i drove less/consolidated my travels/and went from a 20 mpg vehicle to a 37 mpg vehicle). But sadly, most reverted back to old habits once the gas prices went back down to the new normal. The writing is on the wall, are we reading it? In my opinion the general answer to that is no. all though the spike in prices were more to do with speculation than actual supply and demand, that is irrelevant. The use of fossil fuels is not sustainable and we should be more aggresive in our research of alternative fuels. Are there legitimate (and real) technologies out there to improve our efficiency at using the energy source of choice? Yes of course, and in my opinion it makes the most sense to start weaning our dependence of oil in the automobile/transportation sector first. And if the recent auto show in Frankfort is any indication, the American car companies are way behind in this regard. The American presence in the hybrid/alternative energy vehicles was almost nonexistent in comparison to the European and Asian car makers. but to address your specific question about the human factor in regards to GW, and is is relevant anymore. I would think it is if you believe we contribute (in any degree) to GW. And I believe we do through pollution and our use of energy. And if that is true, it would seem to make sense that we should do all we can to lessen our detrimental impact.

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 1233 (view)

Evolution. Posted: 9/21/2009 7:31:52 AM
saying god created everything gives us as much answers about the universe as saying a giant pink elephant farted the universe into existence. or i suppose we could make another idiotic claim and say verzen created the universe (no proof you didn't right?). thankfully discerning minds have the capacity to understand real possibilities. apparently some others don't . if you want to have an intelligent conversation, i would be glad to oblige. otherwise you have made the "ignore" list. congratulations

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 1231 (view)

Evolution. Posted: 9/21/2009 7:05:50 AM
The origins of the universe are another matter. We can trace back to tiny fractions of a second after "creation", but we simply lack any means to go back further other than conjecture. thanks for admitting that. that means all possibilities as to "creation" of the universe are on the table. this would include an intelligent deity (aka: God). One is free to throw deities into the equation of course, but that really doesn't provide and meaningful answers are you kidding me?!? if it was determined that an intelligent deity created the universe, wouldn't that thow us into a whole new realm of "meaning"? since one is then left with an overly complex, undefined, unexplainable entity with no predictable influences. oh well, if that's what ends up being the case ... then it is what it is. it would then be time to re-evaluate everything we thought we knew. does that unnerve you for some reason?

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 163 (view)

Debunking creationist myths Posted: 9/18/2009 11:20:53 AM
It IS a cop out. Saying that you dont need to find answers any more because God did it is a cop out. It doesnt answer any questions. verz, don't you understand ... the ANSWER for that person would be God did it. question posed, question answered. It may not be the answer you want to hear, or obviously agree with, but an answer (for them) none the less. Answers that you don't agree with do not equate to cop out. Do you continue to question evolution? if not, by your logic above that is a cop out. what's that you say? you have supporting evidence, scientific backing, yadda-yadda. The person that believes God did it has their evidence as well. what's that you say? not supported by scientific methods, yadda-yadda. you are correct, that's why we are back to what i said, it's a belief.

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 159 (view)

Debunking creationist myths Posted: 9/18/2009 8:26:24 AM
I don't know how it could have happened so God did it. that's not a cop out, it's a belief. we all have them, it's part of our nature. and one should not be so quick to discount another's beliefs. as for me i prefer to accept what is proven, and consider all possibilities on that which is not. as others have eluded to, there is plenty of room for science and religion to coexist. in fact i think it would be useful for science to be actively engaged in the study of religion. for instance why does TLE invoke religious visions in both atheists and believers alike why do people that believe in God live longer healthier lives on average i would think mankind could benefit from knowing the answer to some of these questions. perhaps it will bring us closer to finding God, or perhaps not. science should be unbiased in it's pursuit of knowledge, and i believe science is, but there are many people whom are not.

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 71 (view)

Do Animals Have Rights? Posted: 9/17/2009 1:21:55 PM
Without the wolf the rabbit would overpopulate, and get diseased not to worry, without the wolf there are still plenty of critters to keep the rabbit population down. The fox, coyote, hawks, owls, raccoons (yep), bobcats, and even your domesticated house cat. And let's not forget that wascally wabbit hunter Elmer Fudd. seems like everthing is trying to keep the poor rabbit down

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 113 (view)

Debunking creationist myths Posted: 9/17/2009 10:51:53 AM
In the previous quotation...which is what you were accusing me of doing. your logic is totally lost on me No you yours, such as assuming I am somehow quoting scientific scripture as a member of the science "flock" without having fully considered the implications of what I am stating. and based on this, and other responses, my logic is apparently lost on you. moooooovin' on

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 111 (view)

Debunking creationist myths Posted: 9/17/2009 9:19:54 AM
who said "only one possible conclusion"...besides you, that is? please identify where i implied anything of the sort. if i did i was wrong, but i'm pretty certain i did not. I strongly suspect most cosmologists are a lot more humble about this conclusion than some of those who propose to argue against big bang the funny thing is, i have gone on record many times saying that evidence collected thus far supports the big bang theory. don't let your prejudice blind you sir. Ah, okay. "Godidit." No need to look into it any further, then? why stop looking? the fun would really just be beginning

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 109 (view)

Debunking creationist myths Posted: 9/17/2009 9:07:14 AM
How does Creation theory account for the cosmic background radiation? How does it explain the observed motion of galaxies? let's just say for arguments sake that God, and i honestly think that word alone causes people to think irrationally, so let me start over. let's just say for arguments sake that a universal intelligence was the one that cause the big bang to go bang. Would the theory of creation then account for cosmic background radiation and the motion of galaxies?

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 108 (view)

Debunking creationist myths Posted: 9/17/2009 8:52:07 AM
Um...wrong ok, if you say so it must be true. But didn't you also say something to this effect. However, the moment someone says there can be "only one possible conclusion," then that is faith. It's not science. I guess all i can say then is .. welcome to the flock so riddle me this batman, what caused the big bang to go bang? why did it go bang at all? I know these are simple questions, but hey! what do you expect from a simple mind. So i will wait for your infinite wisdom to enlighten me.

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 105 (view)

Debunking creationist myths Posted: 9/17/2009 8:27:45 AM
There is the possibility that invisible pink elephants with machine guns are standing behind you ready to fire as well verzen, so you have ancient literature that supports this claim? of course anybody can put forth a claim (no matter how silly, like yours). maybe someday you can get funding to research this .. perhaps discerning minds will not prevail. We have to weight the evidence. agreed, we should always follow the evidence. How much evidence do we have for ID/Creation? the same exact amount of evidence that we have on how the universe came into existence. Can we say it all together now .... none evolution specifically disproves creationisms 6,000 year old universe i would agree that evidence collected disproves a very specific claim of a 6,000 year old ID/creationist universe. Is that what I said? narrow minded much?

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 102 (view)

Debunking creationist myths Posted: 9/17/2009 7:45:32 AM
I will believe in evolution when how matter/energy originally came to be is explained - from paul k. What on earth has the origins of the universe got to do with the theory of evolution - from quitejohn quitejohn, i think you are missing the point that paul k. was trying to make. You are looking at his one statement above and responding to only that, but if you take paul's statement in context with the rest of his post i think what he is saying is; " until the origins of all matter and energy (in other words - how did our universe come into existence) are defined and explained the concept of ID/creation will always be a valid possibility. In fact ID/creation may even be proven to be correct" if this was indeed paul's point, i would have to concur

fishmuskie

Joined: 12/17/2008

Msg: 91 (view)

Debunking creationist myths Posted: 9/16/2009 2:03:05 PM
I understand your point Frogo. I guess there are times when one has to agree to disagree .... this is one of those times. time to move on I suppose. Probably just as well, i don't think we were debunking very many creationist myths anyway

Show ALL Forums