On 2/14/2006 10:44 AM Tim Daneliuk mumbled something about the following:
Odinn wrote:

On 2/13/2006 8:55 AM Tim Daneliuk mumbled something about the following:

Odinn wrote:

On 2/13/2006 1:34 AM Tim Daneliuk mumbled something about the
following:
[ snipped the majority, just going to hit on one point here ]


Your question has no simple answer, nor is there any "proof" - see my
earlier post about the non-provability of axiomatic starting
points. All
I can give you is *my* take on it. You may- or may not find it
responsive. Note that I am not trying to convert you or sell you
anything here, I am merely responding to your question in the only
way I
can. I am a Theist - someone who believes in an Author - for several
reasons:

1) Step back from the detail of biology, physics, or any of modern
science
and look at the Whole Picture we see so far - The Universe
taken as
whole. I know of no example *within* that Universe we're looking at
where Something comes from Nothing. All Somethings have a First
Cause -
another Something or Someone that brought them into being. It thus
seems reasonable to infer that the Universe itself had a First
Cause.

The fact that anything exists implies it came
from somewhere/someone/somehow.



Okay, so what is the First Cause for a god? Using your distinction
above, all somethings (god is a something) have a first cause. So
there is a first cause for god, where's the first cause for this
something that created god? Where's the first cause for this
something that created the something that created god? Where's the
first cause for......?


I hope this answers your question...


Nope, see my question(s) above.


Go back and reread 2c and 2d for my take on this.


I did. It still doesn't match. You can't say you have to have a
First Cause, then at some arbitrary point say it isn't needed. Either
a First Cause is needed for everything, or the universe doesn't need a
First Cause.


Either you have an infinite recursion of first causes or the recursion
terminates. The point is that in either case they are *causal*, thereby
leading to what we see today as the Universe. Absent something like this,
how would explain that anything exists at all?


I don't have to explain how anything exists at all. It doesn't matter
how it came into existence, nor does it matter if it has always existed,
it exists at the present. It's simple for me. I don't need some sort
of creator for the universe to exist, it simply exists. I don't need
some sort of mysticism to make my life meaningful.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS BS ???

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply

Teamcasa wrote:
Teamcasa wrote:
...

What motive?

Ignoring all other points FF replied:
DAGS "Wedge Document".

So what? Do you think that the DI speaks for all the people that believe in
God?

I think you asked "What motive?"

I think I answered accurately and succintly.

I don't know if you are ****ed off to learn that there IS a prominant
organization with an apparent motive of the sort alluded to, or if
you are ****ed off that the information is freely available.
Personally,
I think you should be ****ed off at the way they've been
manipulating you.

Its hard to imagine that the entire body of academia trusts solely
modern science without dissent? There must be a balance. After all, what
frightens the evolutionists so much that they are un-willing to have all of
the information available discussed without healthy debate?


I am not aware of any 'evolutionist' who is afraid of free discussion
of
the information.

Any number of people capable of debating the issues decline to
do so for a number of reasons. Some of them simply have
better things to do. Others decline for the same reasons that
the American Cancer Society quit debating the tobacco companies.

Plainly if you are interested in a healthy debate you'll post over
on talk.origins, where the issue is on-topic and will attract the
attention of people competent and willing to debate it.

OTOH, if you are afraid of a healthy debate, you will not.

--

FF

In article , Joe Barta
wrote:

Or maybe I can ;-) You can only do that in a VERY limited way. And
even then it's probably more huff and puff than anything else. I could
probably go through your house and find tons of stuff that 1) are made
in or have parts made in what you might consider an undesirable
country, and 2) find tons of stuff that you really don't know where
it's been made and 3) it's made somewhere you don't approve of, but
doing without it is not something you'd "choose".

Try going back and read what I wrote.

--
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it. "
-- Gene Spafford, 1992

Joe Barta wrote:
Dave Balderstone wrote:


If people buy local, then imports will decline.

I choose to participate in the market economy by making informed,
concious decisions about who gets my money.


Can't argue with that.

Or maybe I can ;-) You can only do that in a VERY limited way. And
even then it's probably more huff and puff than anything else. I could
probably go through your house and find tons of stuff that 1) are made
in or have parts made in what you might consider an undesirable
country, and 2) find tons of stuff that you really don't know where
it's been made and 3) it's made somewhere you don't approve of, but
doing without it is not something you'd "choose".

Considering how difficult it can be to "buy local" I would be very
hesitant to call any expressed desire to do so huff and puff.

Hard work, that's what I call it. But persevere!

er
--
email not valid

In article , Enoch Root
wrote:

Considering how difficult it can be to "buy local" I would be very
hesitant to call any expressed desire to do so huff and puff.

Hard work, that's what I call it. But persevere!

And, in fact, I did not express any indication that I support buying
local or do not support buying local, so I don't understand how or why
Mr. Barta would use his points in an argument against what I actually
said.

djb

--
Any government will work if authority and responsibility are equal and
coordinate. This does not insure "good" government; it simply insures that it
will work. But such governments are rare ‹ most people want to run things but
want no part of the blame. ‹ Robert A. Heinlein

Dave Balderstone wrote:

And, in fact, I did not express any indication that I support
buying local or do not support buying local, so I don't understand
how or why Mr. Barta would use his points in an argument against
what I actually said.

It would seem you are correct. I jumped to an erroneous conclusion.

A thousand apologies.

For the record, if I may ask you a pointed question, do you often and
with a clean concience buy goods that you know to be made in China?

Joe Barta

In article , Joe Barta
wrote:

For the record, if I may ask you a pointed question, do you often and
with a clean concience buy goods that you know to be made in China?

I do not buy goods that I know to be made in China.

I also choose, when I can reasonably do so, not to buy US made goods,
but not in all consumer categories.

--
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it. "
-- Gene Spafford, 1992

Dave Balderstone wrote:

I do not buy goods that I know to be made in China.

I have a few more questions for you if you're willing...

What about goods that are "made" in a favorable country, but are
very likely to have major parts made in China? (I'm speaking of
products that may not be explicitly labeled as such, but you highly
suspect that it's at least partly made in China.)

What about goods that are made in a favorable country, but made with
tooling that was mostly made in China?

Would you shop at a store whose success is largely due to cheap
Chinese imports, even if the particular item you are purchasing
happens to be made in a favorable country?

Do you use specific criteria when determining from which countries you
will buy goods or is more of an informal "from the hip" decision?

Besides China and the US, are there any other countries you do not buy
goods from? If you have reasons, I would be interested to hear them.

Joe Barta

"Renata" wrote in message
...
On a related note, how 'bout garlic from China?

How can it be more efficient to buy garlic from a place more than
twice the distance as Watson(?), CA (if you're on the East coast)?


I'm still trying to figure out how the Chinese can buy wood from
us--trees--and turn it into plywood that sells for about 2/3 the price of US
or Canada made plywood. Double shipping has to add up, regardless of low
cost labor, and a lot of plywood manufacturing costs are in the equipment.
--
Charlie Self
Writer/Photographer
www.charlieselfonline.com

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
tone.ca...
In article , Joe Barta
wrote:

For the record, if I may ask you a pointed question, do you often and
with a clean concience buy goods that you know to be made in China?

I do not buy goods that I know to be made in China.

I also choose, when I can reasonably do so, not to buy US made goods,
but not in all consumer categories.

Yabbut. T'other day, I checked out the new prescrip ortho shoes I got from
VA. Made In China right on the inside of the tongue.

Tell me how I avoid that one.

In article ,
Charles Self wrote:

Tell me how I avoid that one.

Why should I tell you how to do that? You make your own choices, I make
mine.

--
------
My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a happy, mentally healthy child is:
Keep him or her as far away from a church as you can. -- Frank Zappa

In article , Joe Barta
wrote:

I have a few more questions for you if you're willing...

Sigh...

What about goods that are "made" in a favorable country, but are
very likely to have major parts made in China? (I'm speaking of
products that may not be explicitly labeled as such, but you highly
suspect that it's at least partly made in China.)

I've answered this already.

What about goods that are made in a favorable country, but made with
tooling that was mostly made in China?

I've answered this already.

Would you shop at a store whose success is largely due to cheap
Chinese imports, even if the particular item you are purchasing
happens to be made in a favorable country?

I'm not aware of such a store in my market area.

Do you use specific criteria when determining from which countries you
will buy goods or is more of an informal "from the hip" decision?

Yes, I use specific criteria.

Besides China and the US, are there any other countries you do not buy
goods from?

Yes.

If you have reasons, I would be interested to hear them.

I'm sure you would be.

--
"Let's just admit that public education is mediocre at best." -- Frank Zappa

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Charles Self wrote:

Tell me how I avoid that one.

Why should I tell you how to do that? You make your own choices, I make
mine.


Prescrip shoes available from ONE source. I can go back to regular shoes and
not be able to walk more than 15 feet, or I can go through the entire
routine with civilian doctors at a cost of maybe $1500.

That's not a choice.

In article ,
Charles Self wrote:

Prescrip shoes available from ONE source. I can go back to regular shoes and
not be able to walk more than 15 feet, or I can go through the entire
routine with civilian doctors at a cost of maybe $1500.

That's not a choice.

I'm not in your shoes, am I? I certainly wouldn't presume to tell you
what decision to make.

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

Joe Barta wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:


If our
dysfunctional education system (which more-or-less-fails the
impoverished anyway) still manages to make us a successful
culture, imagine what a *Better* (not perfect) system could do.


Let me ask you further, what would you hope to achieve by implementing
a "better" system? What is better? How would we know it was better?
What are the benefits of better?

Joe Barta

"Better" is one whe

1) Parents are expected to care for their own children.
2) Parents are more directly involved with the content and quality
of their childrens' education.
3) The knowledge base, analytical skills, and self-learning habits
of the students are increased (compared to today).
4) Teachers are compensated according to ability and their work product
not treated like hourly factory workers. Good teachers prosper
bad ones get fired.
5) Schools have the ability to maintain an environment of learning not
be a dumping ground for parents to abdicate their own responsibilities.
6) Government presence in the private lives of its citizens is reduced.
7) Wealth redistribution at the point of the government's gun is
reduced.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Dave Balderstone wrote:

Why should I tell you how to do that? You make your own choices, I
make mine.

That's pretty funny. It wasn't a smooth side step... it was a clumsy
one ;-)

Let's re-phrase the question... let's suppose YOU were given a
prescription for orthopedic shoes from a govt healthcare provider and
the shoes said "Made in China". If you go back to to that healthcare
provider and ask for a a prescription for a different brand made
somewhere you approve of, they tell you that's the only one they will
write a prescription for. Add to that, for all practical purposes, you
cannot change healthcare providers.

Do you have any thoughts on what you might do in such a situation?

Joe Barta

Dave Balderstone wrote:

If you have reasons, I would be interested to hear them.

I'm sure you would be.

I'm always interested in hearing other points of view. One of the ways
I can tell how much weight to attribute to a person's particular
stated viewpoint is how well they hold up under simple and direct
questions.

You don't hold up very well. You're entitled to your opinions of
course, but you'll understand if I consider them more bluster than
substance.

Joe Barta

In article , Joe Barta
wrote:

Let's re-phrase the question...

Charlie never asked me a question, Joe. He made dclarative statements,
and demanded that I tell him what his course of action should be. I
declined. Charlie has to make his own decisions.

let's suppose YOU were given a
prescription for orthopedic shoes from a govt healthcare provider and
the shoes said "Made in China". If you go back to to that healthcare
provider and ask for a a prescription for a different brand made
somewhere you approve of, they tell you that's the only one they will
write a prescription for. Add to that, for all practical purposes, you
cannot change healthcare providers.

Do you have any thoughts on what you might do in such a situation?

Yes, I do.

In article , Joe Barta
wrote:

You don't hold up very well. You're entitled to your opinions of
course, but you'll understand if I consider them more bluster than
substance

I really don't care what you think about my opinions, Joe.

--
Life. Nature's way of keeping meat fresh. -- Dr. Who

Dave Balderstone wrote:

I really don't care what you think about my opinions, Joe.

That's certainly fair enough.

If you're willing to oblige, I have another question for you... when
you speak or write, do you have a desire that reasonably intelligent,
reasonable and rational people consider seriously what you have to say
on any particular matter?

Joe Barta

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Charles Self wrote:

Prescrip shoes available from ONE source. I can go back to regular shoes
and
not be able to walk more than 15 feet, or I can go through the entire
routine with civilian doctors at a cost of maybe $1500.

That's not a choice.

I'm not in your shoes, am I? I certainly wouldn't presume to tell you
what decision to make.


No suggestions even? Ah well. Won't happen again.

Now doesn't that sound appetizing. Eating something grown someplace that has
a record of not caring to much about sanitation or where they dump their
industrial waste.

"Joe Barta" wrote in message
.. .
Renata wrote:

Because any cost increase due to distance is offset by an even BIGGER
cost DECREASE in another area (labor costs, production costs, land
costs, taxes, enviromental regulations... take your pick)

Joe Barta

CW wrote:
"Joe Barta" wrote in message
.. .

Because any cost increase due to distance is offset by an even BIGGER
cost DECREASE in another area (labor costs, production costs, land
costs, taxes, enviromental regulations... take your pick)

Now doesn't that sound appetizing. Eating something grown someplace that has
a record of not caring to much about sanitation or where they dump their
industrial waste.

Around here they ship solid "treated" sewage waste from large cities
(LA, San Diego) out to remote (farm, ranch) areas (communities?) to be
shot out into the fields from a sort of cannon. In the Great Valley.

Like the lady says: "you're soaking in it".

I'm partial, though. I've been looking into french drains, leach lines,
and solid waste composting, knowing there's a right way and a wrong way
to do this.

er
--
email not valid

Enoch Root wrote:

Around here they ship solid "treated" sewage waste from large
cities (LA, San Diego) out to remote (farm, ranch) areas
(communities?) to be shot out into the fields from a sort of
cannon. In the Great Valley.

Like the lady says: "you're soaking in it".

It's an interesting thought... everything we have and everything we
use, and everything we use to *make* everything we have, comes from
the Earth. But when we're done using it, it's undesirable to put the
stuff back on the Earth, yet it all ends up back on the Earth anyway.

It's all very confusing.

Joe Barta

On 2/15/2006 10:24 AM Tim Daneliuk mumbled something about the following:
Joe Barta wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:


If our dysfunctional education system (which more-or-less-fails
the impoverished anyway) still manages to make us a successful
culture, imagine what a *Better* (not perfect) system could do.


Let me ask you further, what would you hope to achieve by
implementing a "better" system? What is better? How would we know
it was better? What are the benefits of better?

Joe Barta

"Better" is one whe

1) Parents are expected to care for their own children.

Getting rid of public schools won't change this.

2) Parents are more directly involved with the content and quality of
their childrens' education.

Getting rid of public schools won't change this. If they're not
interested in their education now, having no public schools won't make
them interested.

3) The knowledge base, analytical skills, and self-learning habits of
the students are increased (compared to today).

How do you get an increased knowledge base when the only information
they have is coming from their parents, who may be uneducated themselves?

4) Teachers are compensated according to ability and their work
product not treated like hourly factory workers. Good teachers
prosper bad ones get fired.

If there are no schools, who's going to pay the teachers (parents).

5) Schools have the ability to maintain an environment of learning
not be a dumping ground for parents to abdicate their own
responsibilities.

What schools? You're getting rid of public schools.

6) Government presence in the private lives of its citizens is
reduced.

Govt presence in private lives is all over the place, and VERY little
involvement is through schools.


7) Wealth redistribution at the point of the government's gun is
reduced.

Let's see, when I was poor, I didn't get any rich kids money because I
was going to public school. We both got the same education so that I
had the same chance as he did to make it in life. Funny how I'm
successful today and that rich kid I went to school with never made it
past high school and is still living off his parents. Had it not been
for public schools, there's no telling where I would have ended up,
probably in jail for being a drug dealer or a thief because I couldn't
get a job. As for private schools when I was growing up. The only one
that existed near me existed strictly for the sole reason of not having
any blacks in the school. They were taught from the same books as the
public school, they had misfits in the classroom, just like the public
schools. They would take anyone's money as long as they were white,
didn't matter if the student was a good student or a bad. No one was
ever thrown out of that school for bad behavior.


--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS BS ???

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply

Joe Barta wrote:
Enoch Root wrote:


Around here they ship solid "treated" sewage waste from large
cities (LA, San Diego) out to remote (farm, ranch) areas
(communities?) to be shot out into the fields from a sort of
cannon. In the Great Valley.

Like the lady says: "you're soaking in it".


It's an interesting thought... everything we have and everything we
use, and everything we use to *make* everything we have, comes from
the Earth. But when we're done using it, it's undesirable to put the
stuff back on the Earth, yet it all ends up back on the Earth anyway.

It's all very confusing.

Nice pun, if by "confusing" you mean the commingling of plant nutritive
stuff with salts, heavy metals, persistent chemicals, and etc.

er
--
email not valid

Odinn wrote:

On 2/15/2006 10:24 AM Tim Daneliuk mumbled something about the following:

Joe Barta wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:


If our dysfunctional education system (which more-or-less-fails
the impoverished anyway) still manages to make us a successful
culture, imagine what a *Better* (not perfect) system could do.



Let me ask you further, what would you hope to achieve by
implementing a "better" system? What is better? How would we know
it was better? What are the benefits of better?

Joe Barta


"Better" is one whe

1) Parents are expected to care for their own children.


Getting rid of public schools won't change this.

Sure it will. The *expectation* would be that parents see to
the education of their children. If they failed to do so, they
could be charged with child neglect, thereby making this a priority
in the parents' lives. This would also serve as a good feedback
mechanism to discourage people from having children they could not
afford.


2) Parents are more directly involved with the content and quality of
their childrens' education.


Getting rid of public schools won't change this. If they're not
interested in their education now, having no public schools won't make
them interested.

Today's (public) schools cannot refuse service to any student.
But a private schools can. Private schools could (and do) demand
parental involvement as a condition of their kid attending. If a parent
remained remiss in this responsibility, their kid could not get into
any private school and then the parents could be charged with some
form of child neglect as previous discussed.


3) The knowledge base, analytical skills, and self-learning habits of
the students are increased (compared to today).


How do you get an increased knowledge base when the only information
they have is coming from their parents, who may be uneducated themselves?

'Ever heard of private schools? They don't have to be expensive
and they don't have to be out of reach of the average person.
If you gut the collectivist tax system we have today, most people
could easily afford some kind of private education for their child.
For the very poorest families, private charity would cover some of
it, and schools catering to the economic underclass would emerge
(as previously mentioned).


4) Teachers are compensated according to ability and their work
product not treated like hourly factory workers. Good teachers
prosper bad ones get fired.


If there are no schools, who's going to pay the teachers (parents).

Why is it that when people defend collectivism they never can do
so honestly? I *never* said there should be *NO* schools. I said
there should be no *public* schools - Big Difference. Schools
should be run as any other business is with the customers deciding
where to spend their money and the school rewarding or dismissing
their employees on the basis of merit.


5) Schools have the ability to maintain an environment of learning
not be a dumping ground for parents to abdicate their own
responsibilities.


What schools? You're getting rid of public schools.


See the above - your strawman is on fire.

6) Government presence in the private lives of its citizens is
reduced.


Govt presence in private lives is all over the place, and VERY little
involvement is through schools.


You obviously haven't done much reading on the subject. Between
the Federal Department Of Education, the various State/Local
taxes, and public university fees (which are rising faster than
the rate of inflation), there is a considerable presence of
government in our lives.



7) Wealth redistribution at the point of the government's gun is reduced.


Let's see, when I was poor, I didn't get any rich kids money because I
was going to public school. We both got the same education so that I
had the same chance as he did to make it in life. Funny how I'm
successful today and that rich kid I went to school with never made it
past high school and is still living off his parents. Had it not been
for public schools, there's no telling where I would have ended up,

Ah yes, the classic "The Ends Justify The Means" argument. There is
no question that some, perhaps even most, public schools often produce
good - or at least acceptable - results. This is not a moral justification
for theft. I paid for the education of the children I could afford,
why must I also pay for the children of people who have no reproductive
self-control? Why must I continue to pay for the education of children
when I no longer have any to still send to school? The answer of
course is that the US tax system is run by mob rule. Everyone who
wants something, begs for it from the politicians, trades in their
liberty for a "Freebie", and in many cases, does so at the expense of
their fellow-citizens. Would robbing banks be OK if you gave half
the money to charity?

probably in jail for being a drug dealer or a thief because I couldn't
get a job. As for private schools when I was growing up. The only one
that existed near me existed strictly for the sole reason of not having
any blacks in the school. They were taught from the same books as the
public school, they had misfits in the classroom, just like the public
schools. They would take anyone's money as long as they were white,
didn't matter if the student was a good student or a bad. No one was
ever thrown out of that school for bad behavior.

So your experience generalizes? Since we're doing Proof By Anecdote, let
me offer mine. I went to public K-12. I then attended private undergrad
and graduate programs. I too grew up quite poor. I made it through the
end of grad school without: a) Taking a dime of public money in the form
of grants/loans/etc. b) A dime of debt. How? By *working*. I could live
with public K-12 if the Federal government completely butted out and let
the States and municipalities run things as they saw fit. At least then
the parents have a hope of controlling the quality and content of the
curriculum. But there is *no* reason for any government involvement at
the university level. People going to college are adults and ought thus
to be expected to take care of themselves.

The educational establishment has a vested interest in Things As They
Are. This is especially true at the collegiate level wherein schools
have become ideological madrassas. I rather think that people having to
pay the actual costs of their own education (i.e., Not being able to
mooch off their fellow citizens for tuition) would be fairly disinclined
to waste their own money on Women's Studies, Deconstructionist Theory,
Queer History, and all the rest of the nonsense that has clogged the
arteries of education.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Enoch Root wrote:

Joe Barta wrote:
Enoch Root wrote:


Around here they ship solid "treated" sewage waste from large
cities (LA, San Diego) out to remote (farm, ranch) areas
(communities?) to be shot out into the fields from a sort of
cannon. In the Great Valley.

Like the lady says: "you're soaking in it".


It's an interesting thought... everything we have and everything
we use, and everything we use to *make* everything we have, comes
from the Earth. But when we're done using it, it's undesirable to
put the stuff back on the Earth, yet it all ends up back on the
Earth anyway.

It's all very confusing.

Nice pun, if by "confusing" you mean the commingling of plant
nutritive stuff with salts, heavy metals, persistent chemicals,
and etc.

That's EXACTLY what I meant. It was a clever play on words and you
picked up on it.

Joe Barta